Jordan Peterson and Michael Shermer - Free will vs Determinism

Jordan Peterson and Michael Shermer talk about the eternal philosophical debate between free will and determinism. They also touch on compatibilism and what really means to have freedom.

[PracticalFaith]

How is an addict more determined than a non addict? I don't get that argument. The addict was determined to be an addict and the non addict was equally determined to be a non addict.

If determinism was true.

[chrisose]

While I do not think the ability to make free choices is completely an illusion I can recognize that more than 90% of the choices I make each and every day are driven directly by outside forces and the other 10% are entirely informed by your own lived experiences. The internal voices that drive that 10% are your experiences and your connection to others (empathy). Although your experiences are often directly linked to actions outside your control.

The place where I think freedom does come in is in our internal interpretation of our empathy and emotion. With all other steering factors being equal it is our interpretation of the effect our choice will have on ourselves and others that is our choice. This is where personal responsibility and freedom of choice lives. Some only think selfishly, some only think of others and most find a balance between the two and strive for the most beneficial outcome for those involved.

Peterson, as a self professed Christian, can not let go of the idea of "free will" because it is the founding concept behind "original sin" and therefore the foundation all of the Abrahamic faiths. Without free will there is no original sin and no need for vicarious redemption.
I don't know if he meant to but Michael started to set up the counter to the Adam and Eve narrative when he talked about how you can manipulate people's choices. In the story of the "Tree of Knowledge" God marketed the fruit so that it was appealing to Adam and Eve and then stuck the serpent in for the point of sale pressure.

And again Peterson pushes his "You aren't an atheist because you act on Christian axioms" bullshit. It looked like Michael was getting ready to call him on it but then Jordon kept talking and Michael, not being a particularly confrontational debater, decided to back off.

The driving analogy was about a weak as it gets. You tend to drive based on the way you were taught to drive and therefore it is not actually a choice you made. Now the choice to distract yourself with a cellphone or drive dangerously and completely ignore the impact your actions could have on yourself and others IS your choice (see above).

[greglawrencemusic]

I think the word you're looking for mr. Schirmer is "awareness."

[jonm]

I’m a determinist and I’ll address the question at 4:12. First I’ll say to the choice part: free will has nothing to do with choice as we see it; they are very different things. A choice is a “picking” and free will is ability to have picked otherwise. Many determinists see us as slaves to our “wants”, a more complex term than at face value but a drug addict would be subject to his subconscious wants while a normal person is subject to his conscious wants

[a.gwhiteley]

Michael Shermer gives unintentionally a very good argument for free will. To paraphrase, he is saying: "What the heck, whether we have free will or not, in practice we have to believe that we do." In other words, the philosophical position which denies free will is one tbat no-one in the real world does or could accept, even notionally. It asks us to twist our minds into a shape which is logically, and psychologically, impossible. We are to say to ourselves "I know I do not have free will, bit I will pretend I do." The scale of self-deception required is so great it is surely telling us there is something fundamentally wrong with the determinist position, and with the reductive materialism which leads to it. Free will is a directly experienced reality - in a sense, we cannot argue for or against it as it is the basis of all argument and rational thought.

[rhodrimorice]

Maybe the universes decision to explode (the big bang) was an expression of the initial free will of the universe (what triggered the big bang).
To use a crude analogy; if the universe is a main frame computer, we may be the smaller computers connected to it but still part of it. We have a smaller part of it's overall processing power (free will) that originated from the big bang that is inseparable from the bigger free will of the universe that triggered the big bang.
The more we align our intentions and actions with the events around us determined by the rest of the universe the better our mini computer is collaborating with the mainframe and our efforts seem to come to fruition with less resistance. We are using the mainframes processor (free will) and our own processor to complete the same task and so our lives go better.

This is similar idea as aligning you conscious and subconscious mind.

[lunoratic]

I believe your Jordan is on to something time+ habit gives free will the closer to the action the less free will there is.

[dragonore]

Finally someone with the same view as me when it comes to free will. I acknowledge the science that free will is illusionary at instantiation, but has the science shown free will to be illusionary when we can sequence events farther out in the future? I haven't seen any science on that, just determinist beliefs.

[naturalisted]

*I have a story for everyone*: Imagine a void. Total darkness. Endless darkness that expands infinitely in all directions. Now imagine an eye opens up in that dark void. Now imagine that the pupil of that eye is a human baby's face. Now imagine that that baby face quickly grows into an old lady's face - then imagine that the eye blinks and there in the pupil is now a new baby's face - an entirely new baby, which is also rapidly growing old - when that face is very old, the eye blinks again, and yet another human baby appears and this just keeps happening. Now imagine another eye opens up and it's a deer in the pupil. Then another eye opens and it is a grasshopper. The next thing you know there are thousands and then millions of eyes opening and shutting in the same way the first one did. The eyes are all looking at each other - examining each other. Soon they forget all about the endless darkness that surrounds them.

[colinfarrell]

Free will determines reality, hence the logic in having a creator who created beings with the same capabilities.

[cmvamerica]

I only do what I’m able to do; if I could do what I want to do, I would be rich.

[naturalisted]

We very much depend on illusions. The fact that there is an illusion means it is something... not what it appears to be... but something that has an evolutionary reason for being there.

[ConsTHRAKction]

They dont understand determinism that well do they....

[cosmicprison]

This is basically Peterson acknowledging that free will is part of those things that are only metaphorically true, but not literally true. You know - much like religious stories. 😊 I am a determinist, but I realise that in order to convey this correctly in my speech, I'd basically have to use passive verb forms only. If you think politically correct newspeak sounds artificial and contrived, wait till you get "deterministically accurate newspeak" 😂.

[zumzumman]

I dont have a dog in this fight as im trying to work through it all. I must say however, the argument he posited about drug addiction is horrifically bad. Are we not taking genetics and our upbringing into account now??

[naturalisted]

Every choice you make was predetermined by the things, outcomes, accidents, events, biology, experiences of your past, all since you were born and the things that happened long before your birth. Einstein was Deterministic. If a person Plots - that's who they are - there are biological or other reasons for everything we do.

[diogenes]

But *WHY* are you choosing to go to work or stop going to work. These are all determined by your known data in your calculations. If new data exposes to you that your work is not worth it, then you will choose to stop doing that foolish thing.
Any choices made outside of the calculations upon your known data would be based on mysticism, or some kind of blind faith.

[lonelywuffy]

Determinism, to reduce so much with tunnel vision, nothing is actually free.

[cmvamerica]

The atheist thinks he is good; the believer thinks God is good.

[davejacob]

how does the determinist make a difference between someone who is an heroin-addict and someone who is not?
well, how about READING INTO THE LITERATURE !? !? !?
there are TONS OF BOOKS about modern theories on what responsibility and free will really is.
it makes no sense to let two people talk about the topic if NONE are even INTERESTED in reducing their own IGNORANCE about the topic.