Daniel Dennett - What is Free Will?

Free will is a problem. If it seems obvious that you are perfectly free to choose and decide, then it seems perfectly clear that you do not understand the problem. Free will is a huge problem, because our sense of free will and the physical structure of the world contradict each other.

[barta]

Santo claus talks about why he cannot resist those cookies

[joshboston]

3:10: seems as if Daniel couldn't avoid the brick.

[wolfumz]

The compatibilist approach to free will is to redefine "free will" such that they're not really talking about "free will" as we intuitively understand it. I still don't understand how compatibilists reconcile ambivalence and conflicting desires with choice.

[droselover]

So, essentially he is redefining free will to be something else. He isn't saying free will is compatible with cause and effect, he is saying that something else is compatible with casuality. Well, yes. Something else is. That is not free will.

[jacobdavis]

such an awkward talking setting and position lol

[yuppuh]

I think he just has a definition of free will that hasn't clearly been laid out. I've just starting exploring this subject but it seems to me the definition is muddy.

[ManSpidernater]

It's not physics, it's biology - Genuinely, how is biology not physics?

[stefantherainbowphoenix]

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. Without free will, we couldn't praise or blame people for their actions. They couldn't have done otherwise because their actions would have been determined since the beginning of time. All sentenced people would actually be innocent, all "good" people wouldn't actually be good and all "bad" people wouldn't actually be bad. In fact, courts of law and our sense of justice depend on free will being true.

[jimmypoindexter]

The evidence for 'TRUE FREE WILL' is lacking.  By true free will, I mean, the power to make a decision on our own accord without it being just the sum total of all various forces in the universe working together to produce your response in various situations.  Every decision we make is an expression of our acquired DNA and past experience, both of which are decided by other people and forces of nature (out of our control).  Every decision I make is an expression of my past in the present time. Not being able to tell where an electron will be at any given time is NOT evidence for free will, it is just another event which appears random to us because of current, limited understanding.  

Hard decisions are basically neurons engaging in an intense battle for action potentials, and the majority of neurons, and/or the most persuasive neurons, will succeed.  We see this in bee colonies, in which bees will dance a certain direction and "vote" for the best place to create a new hive.  They not only send out signals to other bees promoting their choice, but also they try to corrupt the voice of their opposition.  Altogether the colony makes a consensus and usually picks the ideal conditions for survival (this is similar to how neurons work, humans, politics, etc.).  

I will also comment on the religious arguments just to spread my message.  

My background: I am Agnostic (former Baptist) and will NOT assert that a god exists or does not exist.  After dedicating 22 YEARS of my life to the CHRISTIAN faith,  serving as a disciplined infantry combat paratrooper in both IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, study/living/meeting people from other RELIGIONS, and achieving a degree in liberal arts (anthropology, psychology, philosophy, science, economics, history, art); I have learned that most religions are a means to an end (for better or worse) rather than being the answer to all your historical, ancestral and ethical questions.  Here are FIVE  important ideas to consider before adopting any faith, or supernatural belief:

1.  Evidence: virtually all religious or supernatural texts, claims, experiences and doctrines consistently fail to show any evidence of miracles, efficacious prayer, scriptural consistency,  communication with a deity or reliable fulfillments of specific prophecies.  Usually the belief in these events stem from confirmation bias, a predisposition to believe, social pressure, limited knowledge, the placebo effect and/or wishful thinking.  

All of my previous prayers as a Christian had close to a 50% success rate, prophecies are usually ambiguous at best (and not time-sensitive), and reports of miracles or supernatural phenomena are too often regurgitated myths which are used to convey themes rather than hard facts (the best lies are rooted in truth so they usually contain some facts as well).  

My sister used to wear a t-shirt which read, "It is not a religion, it is a relationship".  That mind sound pleasing to the ears, but it would be an odd relationship indeed if I am supposed to love this god more than my family or myself and can't even be sure that it exists.  That is like telling another person that I love my sister more than anything, she talks to me, she has all the right answers, and I have a deep understanding of her, but when people ask to meet her I tell them that I don't even know if she exists.  Huh?

2.  Faith:  faith can usually be defined in three ways which can disrupt many philosophical debates.  I have heard it defined as: believing without evidence, hope for the future, and/or trusting an individual/deity.  You hear people use these terms interchangeably, "I have faith in you!" or "It is important to have faith in people", or "I don't have evidence, just faith".  I like to use the first definition 'believing without evidence', since we can easily use HOPE and TRUST for the other two definitions.  

Hope is beneficial for humans due to the placebo effect and positive hormones it releases, it motivates humans to maintain a positive outlook which increases you're ability to be successful despite obstacles.  Hope is a state of mind, not a path to knowledge.  Trust is tentative and relies on evidence (if someone lied to you in the past, you are less likely to believe them in the future).  Is believing (accepting something as true, not just guessing) without evidence ever good?  Which area of our life, other than religion, do we ever use faith?  In the courts? No way. Scientific evidence is ALL that matters, and the courts are deciding whether to put people to death or not. Does a doctor just have faith that you are well? No. They use their senses and their instruments, and it saves countless lives. They could be sued for malpractice if they only used faith. Do you tell your kids to cross the street after praying, or after looking both ways?  

The scientific method is not infallible but it our best approach to understanding the beautiful universe in which we live.  Scientific theories (theories can be facts too, like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the cell theory) are the best models we have currently to describe reality and are very modest in terms of absolutes.  I defend the statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  I have been best served when gauging my certainty by available evidence.  Most children are spoon-fed logic and reason to gain their belief in god before their brain is fully developed (especially the frontal lobe, responsible for judgment and critical thinking), then later when the arguments lose their validity, the young adults are told to use faith (to abate sound arguments).  People choose to abandon reason when studying religion as an adult because they know deep down inside that the arguments are silly and contradictory.  You were convinced of your religion by means of reason (miracles, history, perfection of Jesus, Mohammad's unexplainable wisdom, Prince Buddha's powerful insight, consensus, etc.), and reason can get you out of it.  Don't climb up on a roof using a ladder, then kick it out from under you and profess that you got up there all by yourself (leap of faith).  

3. Morality: it is important to remember that morals precede the existence of homo sapiens, are found in other animals and are/were necessary for our survival and the survival of other organisms.  We never would have made it this far as a species without working together and developing rules for a more organized, peaceful existence.  Your body is a network of cells which came together to communicate, divide labor and defend each other to the death (apoptosis) for the sake of survival.  Jane Goodall, a leading anthropologist, has asserted, and I am paraphrasing: "a primate who is alone in the wild, is a dead primate".  Ever watch survival shows with only one adventurer?  What happens to their health over the span of a few days or a week?  Survivors are considered successful when they reach other humans.  You cannot perform your specific job unless your fears of adultery, murder, theft, dishonesty and selfishness are put to rest, so naturally humans will adopt laws or tenets by which to live in order to preserve themselves as a whole. Have you ever argued with another person and then found out that you needed them for some reason?  Sucks don't it?  HA!  

Religion might have been helpful in assisting altruistic behavior through fear for a time, but like our insatiable crave for sugar, it is outdated and sometimes harmful.  Since becoming agnostic, I have been more truthful about what I believe (so therefore, more truthful), as well as being more understanding and open-minded.  I have stopped looking at others as unfortunate or incomplete, I care more about this world because I not get another one, and I can treat all religions with equal appreciation and equal scrutiny (not play favorites).  I also do the right thing because it is right, not because I will be rewarded later, which increases the satisfaction.  

4. Functions of Religion:  I am not blind to the many positive services which church's or religious-based intuitions have provided or currently provide: sense of community/service to others, consoling persons who lost loved ones, meeting new friends/connections, singing soothing hymns  and structure for children.  But it is also hard to accept that any one of these functions are dependent on a God, or cannot be better implemented or emulated by institutions devoid of religious discourse.  Other institutions such as non-profits have to account for their spending and the exact services rendered to obtain donations--not churches.  Government agencies must worry about voter sentiments and checks/balances.  

In terms of prayer, we pray for answers but all we really do is ask our brains to come up with the moral answer, then after you weigh the evidence, you come up with a decision that apparently "god" gave you while kneeling in silence.  Praying for others does absolutely nothing when practiced but makes you feel like you have helped when you haven't.  I believe it is more helpful to sacrifice time or effort to help them achieve their goals or get back on their feet.  Singing, asking for forgiveness, touching, shaking hands, positive thoughts and feelings of security are all therapeutic according to science, they release powerful chemical signals which create a feeling of euphoria, and require no metaphysical explanations.  

5. What are you left with?:   A god or gods might exist or might not exist, but just like bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, fairies, demons and boogie men, I will not be in search of them my whole life to feel whole, or to legitimize my moral compass.  This universe could be a matrix or a six-grade science experiment conducted by an alien--but it is irrelevant at this time.  You can be successful, altruistic, enjoy this world, marvel at its beauty, raise moral children, give to charity, set a good example, love everyone to the best of your ability, hope for an afterlife, and earn the trust of your peers without being divinely warranted.  If a god created logic and reason to protect you while you're here on earth, why would it condemn you for using it?  There are two occupations which thrive in a faith-based system of knowledge--religious leaders and con men.  I love all of you--god or no god--and for better or worse.  

[LordLoss]

So determinism is not fatalism (inevitable future) therefore we have free will.
Dan is mistaken.
I'm with Sam Harris on this one.

[flyingkeyframes]

"Free will is our capacity to see probable futures - futures that seem like they're gonna happen - in time to take steps so that something else happens instead."

[DoctorShrink]

Who agrees that the brick example adds absolutely nothing to long standing interpretations of free will?

[Eudaletism]

*You run models* in your mind of what the world will look like if you do different things, you evaluate the consequences, and you make the choice which has the consequences that are best. You were always going to make that choice, but you had to run a model where you didn't. That's what gives us the feeling that we could have made the other choice.

*We confuse our mental model of reality for reality*. Our mental model has our future decision as an unknown element, because we can't predict the result of our own reasoning before we finish the reasoning itself.

[LukeDunn]

This video gave me a new lease on life.

[gkiosterakis]

Could it be that Dennett didn't duck at 2:57 and the brick did leave a mark on his skull? Isn't that seriously self-contradictory?

[jamesruscheinski]

Nature looks more random than determined on the big picture. Don't see a cause-effect driving nature; particles and physical objects operate freely according to laws of nature. Guess the dispute is whether laws of nature are determined or freely operate.

[bkeyesnanjing]

I am definitely in Daniel Dennett's camp with respect to "Free Will". As long as one isn't an absolutest, then the notion of whether or not we has humans have "free will" becomes unimportant. We should be focusing our attention on fixing systems rather than try to fix individuals IMO.

[lrvogt]

I don't see that seeing, knowing, and reacting is any less deterministic. We are all part of the constant interaction of forces. First: Most people do not consider to dodge a brick. It's a reflex response... determined by past experience... the sum total of what has happened and what is happening.
The sum total of your person, your experience, your knowledge, and other internal factors are all dependent on the external factors that brought you to this point in this current circumstance. It's not THAT you can do what you want but WHY you want it. Even if the external world were filled with random macro elements, you're wants and actions would still be determined by them. Every internal (mental) factor is ultimately the result of external factors including your personal biology which you aren't free to choose either. If you think you have a soul you had no role in what that is that either.

[babbisp]

Daniel Dennett is free to define 'free will' as he wants, just like any other person. However, he is not talking about the same thing that Sam Harris is talking about, which is why they keep disagreeing pointlessly. Daniel Dennett is right when he says that we make choices and that we do what we want, but the idea that we can freely choose our will is what people mean by 'free will'.

[mertonhirsch]

And the deterministic/indeterministic argument against free will is a false dichotomy. It falls apart if we have any ability to determine the future and if our state is any amount not determined by prior inputs. The real uncertainty in your current state (though still very certain), as well as the real uncertainty in effect (though still very certain) matches this non-dichotomous reality.