Alfred Mele - Is Free Will an Illusion?

Some philosophers and scientists claim that because every event is determined by prior events, including every event in our brains, free will cannot be real. What are the arguments and evidence? Key is the Libet experiment, which seems to show that our brains have already made a decision—we see electrical activity—before we are conscious of making the decision.




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 (2014-2017) and the Big Questions in Free Will Project (2010-2013). Mele is the author of thirteen books and over 250 articles.


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.

[EduardRoehrich]

The most dangerous part about this discussion is that it can lead to people falling into fatalism, i.e. "Since I don't have free will, it won't matter what I'm thinking or doing, I'm already destined to act in a certain way anyway." This can lead to all kinds of negative behavior that harms the people thinking that way or others.

This is why having the feeling that we have free will is so important, and how it provides an evolutionary advantage over not having that believe. Falling entirely into fatalism is quite rare, outside of maybe religious believes, because the people who had a genetic disposition of doing so and not believing they are acting as free agents were thinned out from the gene pool due to being negative actors, long before we started debating the topic as humans.

[jeffneptune]

This exchange gave the clearest explanation of compatibilism I have come across. I always found more in depth definitions somewhat confusing. Great video as always, thank you.

[notanemoprog]

What? Those "previous decisions" that result in "learning" and that this supposed defense of free will is based on were as much "free" (meaning not free at all) as the one taken into consideration now. It's all a part of an unchangeable predetermined chain.

[dralbertomarquez]

Compatibilism is just accepting determinism and yet playing with words to deny it. His own fixing of randomnes by learning doesn't take away the randomnes, or if it does then reintroduce the deterministic decision making.

[asgnp]

It is. After you get married, the only will is your wifes.

[constructivecritique]

It's incredible that intelligent people need to argue for the existence of free will. Their own intelligence is used to prove they have no intelligence.
Hahaha lol 😆 🤣
Free will, as in choices without resistances! First define free, as without opposition or resistance or cost! Next define will, as in the force or commitment or effort towards a goal. The wrong definition of free will is what creates the paradox.

[stoneagedjp]

When I'm playing solitaire, I feel like I'm winning or losing even though I'm merely laying the cards as they dictate. I think this is equivalent to the oft-mentioned illusion of free will.

[ahmedbellankas]

In determinism, which past is relevant? Suppose john looks at tv and then he drinks water at t1 and at t2 respectively, and suppose at t0 smith was listening to musik, ann feeding her child, and at a distant past hume was thinking about induction, marx about capitalism, napleon about conquering the world, the grass was yellow.
What determinists are talking about? Which past is relevant ? And why? Are the laws of nature descriptive ? Or are they (the laws of nature) gouverning the world?
If i'm walking and then i hit the rock, what this has to do with the big bang, what does it have to do with smith (who lives far away from me) drinking his beer before my walking and my hitting of the rock i hit.
What determinism means is not clear at all.

[mrshankerbillletmein]

I wonder why some philosophers decide we have no free will, why make that choice.

[chaddojones]

So, is it me, or didn't he actually make an argument against free will in the end? That because of our experiences and our learning, our decisions are not based on luck but what one might call deterministic properties of our psychology?

I feel like a problem with a lot of the arguments for free will is that they are too hung up on whether outcomes are fully deterministic or probabilistic, and then from that extrapolate the resulting implications for how we make decisions. However, either way it doesn't change that the way in which I make decisions is based on the way my experience has shaped my mind, of which much of that experience is outside "my" control - whichever definition of "I" one happens to be using.

[SassePhoto]

Maybe there is no such thing as complete independent probability, like in the case of the dice. If the dice are shaped every time, maybe small deformations are similar, then there is a dependency just like we have dependency in the thoughts we have had previously.

[MrLJT]

Thank you for yet another interesting video.

[FishHeadSalad]

This is why I hate philosophy. It always about defining almost every word in a sentence and then defining the definitions. I get how definitions of words need to be established in order have a logical debate but other words or phrases are thrown in there that are almost undefinable like @ 00:42 "all other truths". WTF? So truth is an opinion because there are "other truths" out there? Seriously!?! My brain telling me to scratch my head or not or my body telling me to fart or not when it comes to split second decisions has nothing to do with determinism. Something as simple as sneezing one time changes your life.

[Dave-xdvk]

Determinism can be evidenced by asking why. Root cause analysis is practical determinism.

[commandvideo]

How can we talk about free will if we can't even define what exactly we mean by being free ?!

[carlodebattaglia]

Let's say that there is no free will, and determinism rules the world.
This necessarly means that you are making the statement above only and soley because you are deterministically compelled to do so, and not because of critical thinking or rational choiche.
Essentialy, by saying that everything is predetermined, you're are also admitting that you are predetermined to say/believe so. Which seems kind of circular but let's not focus on that.

Ok, fine. So how you determine whether your (100% compelled and coerced) first statement about free will is true or false? How do you know you are being "deterministically compelled toward the truth" (and not falsehood?)?

Assuming that you have opted for determinism on the basis of empirical observation and experience of causality and, from that, inferered determinism... we must not forget there is no strong evidence for absolute ed inevitable causality. So the leap "from the degree of observable causality" to the "highest degree of conceivable causality" is an ontological unjustified leap from the ground of actual experince to the thin air of pure reasoning.
But let's admit that there is impeccable logic that can "prove" determinism. Well, I dont' see how logic can prove your statement true or false, being impeccable logical reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon happeninig in your brain, qualitatively and materialistically no different from questionable or false logical reasoning

[notanemoprog]

Watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video "You don't have free will, but don't worry"

[FAAMS]

I totally disagree with the POV ascribed here, as the Libertarian view that from Randomness you can learn from the past is self contradictory, and equally, from Determinism, Compatiblism is just a political spin off to maintain the status quo without stirring to much the waters of human comfort zone regarding social organization.

[mikejurney]

Free will does not reside in the molecules in the brain that are either determined or random. But the will has to do with thoughts and intentions that are imposed on those brain signals. All the interactions of all the brain signals are about thoughts and intentions which are abstract entities not subject to the deterministic or random physical processes. We already know that there is nothing random or deterministic about how all our thoughts and intentions interact to converge on decisions.

[neilintherapy]

There seems a lot to me in his argument that’s false. Learning from past experiences doesnt support free will. Why one person learns a lesson and another person doesn’t from the same experience, is all determined by their genetics and history.