363: Alfred Mele | Philosophical Viewpoints In 'Free Will: An Opinionated Guide'

What can we learn about free will? What layers are there to understand regarding the discussion between determinism and free will? I speak on these topics with Professor Alfred Mele of Philosophy at Florida State University on episode 363 of the show. He is author of "Free Will: An Opinionated Guide".

Alfred Remen Mele is an American philosopher and the William H. and Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is also the past Director of the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project and the Big Questions in Free Will Project.

[louisbrassard]

The argument that one does not have free will for the reason that one took this decision to act that way on the best he could is like singling out this decision as if one could not have tried harder or with more attention. We rarely give the most of what we have got. In a car accident or other type of accident, we most often discover restrospectively that we neglect certain things and this accident could have been prevented. I am a carpenter and notice over the years that when I have an accident it is that I neglected at least two basic things I knew I should not neglected. Usually, single negligence do not lead to an accident since we develop all kind of last minutes ways to avoid it but it is these double errors which are deadly. That we could have done otherwise is the case of all our actions but most of them are not critical to our life so we don'nt put maximal attention to all our decisions but the more we do and the more we maximize our chances of success and we intuitively designate by free will these resource of attention and effort and experience we can deploy which is an active willingfull attitude in life which the language of free will denying contradict in its intrinsic passivity. Things happen as they could only happen. The kind of language describing well situations of billard ball hitting each other. The language describing what happen in the inanimate world but what happen in our life which we do not describe with the ''it happens"" but using the ''HE'' OR ''SHE'' for an active agent doing thing using VERBS to characterize the type of activity. Science can only describe inanimate happening so it is a mode of thinking a priori excluding agency, agents, etc. It is why it is totally impossible even to adress the question of free will in science. Science a priori exclude agency and thus free will. So there will never be a scientific theory of free will but as most realities we are familiar too, there are not the domains where science will ever enter which is not a reason to deny their reality, simply to recognize the limits of our scientific mode of thinking.

[ashwinrebbapragada]

Wow the concept of free will is a very deep, complicated, and complex topic. The concept of free will has been debated since Ancient Greece. How much control do we have over our own behavior? How much of our behavior is controlled by genetics, environment, or other biological factors? I am not sure where I stand on the issue. Clearly I need to do more reading and research on this topic. Thank you to the Armen Show for discussing this interesting topic.

[projectmalus]

Not sure where to slot this in, but an interesting thought experiment is to see a person's "being" and "moving" as switched. So the "being" part is not the physical body (all the parts of the system) but the flow allowed thru a particular topological structure unique to humans. The "moving" which is usually seen as flow of materials and perception aka life moving thru the body system with a mysterious control agent in charge, is the physical, what we see as degrading or changing in entropic space time by asserting "being" at different points.

Free will would be in not hampering the flow of being, which is more about what a person doesn't do, they don't smoke, get drunk all the time etc. I tend to think of this flow of being as the quantum creativity moving thru a dark energy ll dark matter capacitor into the atomic realm. So the topology is given by this capacitor, physical entropic movement is changeable in small ways important to our "being' flow in a persisting topology, and free will consists of non action more than actions since all those actions - except the topology created by the Big Cap - are optional in choice but directed by the atomic world of asymmetric time, so if you don't make a choice the choice is made for you overall but not locally.

Keep in mind most of the person's "holes" are in the head connected to senses and brain (2 somewhat plugged by eyeballs, 2 tear ducts and two nostrils) but the mouth to anus hole is where the free will choice is. The political and economic systems are not topological holes (I think) but the same structure as the body only not wrapped around anything. It's a rearrangement on our part that excludes. The power of the bully or trickster is of this kind, and if the target doesn't feel bullied they aren't, while the bully diminishes their real power in favor of a more constricted, simpler, less aware flow of being attached to entropic "power". They become inhuman not because their topology was radically altered but thru diminished being as loss of flow, which inspires their grabbiness, which backfires as a feedback mechanism. They are playing the 3 card monte trick on themselves by asserting being where there isn't after removing it by their actions, setting up a hall of mirrors of "being" for "gain".

Sounds a bit like the libertarian free will idea, maybe the second type mentioned. Thanks for the video and great discussion.