Alfred Mele - Big Questions in Free Will

Free will seems obvious, simple, common; but it’s subtle, profound, maddening. Free will probes the deep nature of human existence. But big questions have big problems. How to make progress? Can bringing together scientists, philosophers and theologians help? That’s what the ‘Big Questions in Free Will’ project is doing.

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.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[Ed-quadF]

One of my favorite topics out of the many that Robert investigates. He poses some of the most insightful questions some of which are beyond my poor intellect. Love the vids.

[dukeallen]

Though others views may seem “Extreme to you” in no way does that change if the view is correct.
Not believing in free will doesn’t mean there are no repercussions for behaviors that hurt others.

Great series. Subscribed.

[mcpkone]

Free will is an emergent skill which needs to be developed. The Theory of Holistic Perspective explains this well.

[KevinZentner]

Can we talk for a moment about how Alfred Mele doesn't blink until the 4:18 mark of the video?

[patientson]

If and when you act like something wrong is good, I will also observe and apply what I know to be true and right ✅️.

[EduardoRodriguez-duvd]

That the state intervenes to apply punishment to a criminal is typical of the Middle Ages.
The state must try to correct the damage caused by a criminal and at the same time prevent him from continuing to commit crimes. That should be the goal. Social revenge against the offender is an absurd idea.
From that point of view, the fact that humans do not have free will does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. That being so, responsibility is similar to the moral judgment that people make when a tiger attacks them. One does not want the tiger to hurt someone but one does not want to take revenge on the tiger. The rational action is to prevent its attack, minimize the damage when it occurs and also take steps to prevent it from happening again. It is irrational to punish the tiger by confinement in the cruelest conditions so that society considers itself compensated for the damage caused.

This is equivalent in humans. One must intervene to prevent a "responsible" human from committing an inconvenient or harmful act. Being responsible means that if one acts in a certain way, society has permission to manipulate him to restrict such actions. But that has nothing to do with assuming that locking someone up in cruel conditions will be a moral lesson that will improve the criminal.

If free will is to interpret that a conscious being is a "selector" who chooses between a group of possible options, in a type of expression of his will without any type of conditioning, that interpretation is contradictory to logic.
The selector can only choose for some reason or no reason at all. Neither of the two cases corresponds to the exercise of will without conditions. In the first case, the selector obeys some factor and in the second case it was chance and not the will of the agent who motivated the selection.

[bozo]

I don't think free will should be a factor in deciding about punishment. What difference does it make?

(The debate about punishment in general is a separate debate.)

[woodywu]

In regards to free will or no free will, would it plausible that a person makes a decision in regards to what available tools ( brain functions / neuron networks etc ) the person has ? And what do they mean by supernatural ? I personally wouldn’t regard any kind of quantum entanglement of sorts as supernatural if that’s what they mean. I certainly wouldn’t regard freedom of thought or free will related to the likes of psychic abilities, so the word supernatural is a confusing one mentioned in the video.

[piehound]

Excellent !!! I LUV the line from the movie PLANET OF THE APES. Where Dr. Zaius says *MAN HAS NO UNDERSTANDING.* Yes that includes me. I see everything idiosyncratically. haha

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

This is one of the better videos on the nuances of Free Will. As Mele alluded to, it's a semantic issue with the operative word being "Free." Those who claim there is no Free Will define the word "Free" as _"Unconstrained in any way."_ Then they toss out questions like, _"Can you choose what you desire?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose not to think about (fill in the blank)?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose to choose what you choose to choose."_ as if the word "choose" is somehow impervious to infinite regression.

The word "Free" in "Free Will" only means that you have the freedom to choose between a series of options with a global option being the ability to choose none of the options. *Example:* _"Do I want chocolate, vanilla, or neither?"_

There are no constraints to your choosing one of those two ice cream options (or neither), and the mere fact that options are present within human existence does not negate your free will to choose. It's merely how "Existence" generates new information in the form of *value judgments.*

Each choice you make over something else establishes a specific degree of *value* to whatever it is you have chosen. "Existence" then uses this value-based data as a framework for future evolution.

[kennethmalafy]

So glad you are investigating all these things!
There are natural forces that dictate how the molecules move. We are made of these molecules. A materialist would say that our consciousness in on the level of that matter (or created by it) If you believe that, there is no free will- everything is dictated by the natural forces. So unless you believe there is something else (the undifferentiated consciousness, a soul, a life force, any of those) that can superimpose its will over the will of the natural forces then you do not believe in free will, how could you? It wouldn't make sense.
The current thinking is off, consciousness creates the physical, not the other way around. Consciousness has free will and acts of its own accord, the physical follows- not the other way around.

[missh]

I have a problem with Machiavellian political theory primarily because today we have digital technology. Free will in this context forces a change without reason because the good has to be understood in a different way. So now we have to consider global in its highest form and even though freewill is not obvious to those who have picked a side i.e. good or bad, the shift is a choice of inconvenient necessity for those who understand the position of a highest good. Science must follow, politics by default of evidence and results must eventually agree. As for the people, even those holding roles of responsibility, they can reason with cause and effect or reason with soul purpose. The choice in this context of free will is probably a feature in the very long human story.

[mikel]

If humans have free will then so do computers with AI/ML capability.

[rupesh_sahebrao_dhote]

Those who live and die cannot have free will. Everything is predesigned by existence itself. That which has subject and object dependency cannot have free will. 😊

Without Knowledge of Existence there cannot be Existence and Without Existence there cannot be Knowledge of Existence. That knowledge can only be achieved through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it.

Thanks 😊

[steeden]

We have free will, but we dont have free will. If the many world's interpretation of quantum theory is right, every outcome is laid out before us. Whatever one we choose is our decision, therefore giving us free will, but seeing as every outcome is a part of our future and exists in our future we can't deviate from doing what is laid out before us.

[MrWhatever]

I think that even though people don’t have free will like they think they do, however people still have to be held accountable. Part of the game. We’ve all been a victim to some degree of that standard of being responsible for your actions

[stephenzhao]

5:00 ... if Gid is perfect then doesn't he always have to do what's best uh and if he always has to do what's best hten hwo can he ever act freely or abuot God's connection to human beings uh if God is omninsecent then what does't he know everything you're ever going to do and if he knows it in advances uh how can you do fillingly. 5:16

[ladyslovelucas]

NPCs walking around don't have free

[anywallsocket]

clearly this man is NPC with no free will because his eye-contact algorithm is just set to YES

[bchain]

Before we can discuss if we have free will, we should first establish a rigorous definition of what free will actually is. I have never seen or heard of any such definition.