Bertram Malle - 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.

Bertram F. Malle is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University. He was trained in psychology, philosophy, and linguistics at the University of Graz, Austria, and received his Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University.

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.

[Bassotronics]

We are matter trying to find out what’s the matter.

[stephenlawrence]

A way to put what free will is, is the concept that not only do we choose but also choose which choice we make. Is this really what people generally believe? Yes, if we're fated to make the choice we make, then most would say we don't have free will and even go further and say we have no choice.

[TesserId]

In short, "free will" is a misnomer. What we have is _conscious choice._ Yes, we are the ones making a choice, and yes we are conscious of being the ones making choices, but every choice is still a product of everything that has come before. Edit: What "comes before" includes everything subjected to subconscious processes, which everything must necessarily go through. But I may have not been clear enough. ~~~ That is, I've had a comment that the subconscious is key here, which it is, and that "the subconscious is not the author", which is worthy of deeper exploration, seriously. My original comment didn't go into this (for the usual brevity of a YouTube comment). But it is a worthy subject. Yes, there are choices that are made in the conscious mind; I think that is the whole point to consciousness, and that's why this point was the very narrow point of the original comment. But, that doesn't even hint at the complexity that's going on under the hood. I don't want to get too deeply into it here, but the choices that get made in the conscious mind, must, I think, unavoidably get fed back into the subconscious, where they originated in the first place. (Is there a first place?) And, that at this point should well seed "the little grey cells" to cogitate further. (Not trying to be fancy, but I got a thing for the word "cogitate".)

[chillallnight]

Interesting how he talks for so long yet elucidates nothing. I see nothing wrong with free will being so closely linked to free choice, what else would free will lead to other than the ability to make decisions that are within your power to carry out (not breaking the laws of physics, etc). He never really takes a position on the topic except to say that people define free will wrong yet the way the majority of people define it seems perfectly fine and it’s only really philosophers who are bending the definition to try to prove their point of view which is usually super-determinism.

[toreoft]

The words True and False are also in the same order, an expression of Good and Evil - Earth is a place where both good and evil exist - Man learns the difference between good and evil because he can choose between them - Truth do not contradict truth and one truth can build on another, False can contradict False and contradicts Truth, and what one builds with False falls down - In order to build Truth on Truth (continuously and systematic), we must look up to something higher outside ourselves

[camerondavis]

If a consciousness more complex and aware of humans exists, there is no free will. If humans are the apex intellect, we have free will.

[sudarshanbadoni]

We all are free to understand Mother's love father's sacrifices if yes that is our free will if not that is again our free will. Yet there exists an entropic differences that making us different. Thanks.

[danielpauldebs]

CHOICE; the freedom to act outside, and to choose action outside the laws which govern the laws of being.

In nature animals don't THINK to eat unless they are hungry.
A human can look at a watch, regardless, and say "It's 1pm it's time to eat."

The FREEDOM to detach from emotions and to CHOOSE to act based on ones personal choice.

[slowvega]

Prof. Malle is a captivating speaker. He had my mediocre brain on full tilt.

[stephenlawrence]

Free will is about being able to select options we don't select. That is the ordinary concept. The wrongdoer could have done what he should have done but chose not to.

That is the ordinary concept. That's why the debate goes on. Bertram has simple left that out.

[donagh]

Surely our actions are ruled by subconscious programmes of which we are not even aware.

[markfischer]

The scientific mind that believes in cause and effect, consistency of the way the universe works we call physical laws or natural laws whether we understand them or not must come to the conclusion that free will is an illusion, it doesn't exist. The constraints are external, these very laws that operate at the smallest scale everywhere and for all time. This is unpalatable for many, even most people. They cherish the illusion that they are free agents able to make decisions and act on them. But we've had enough understanding to know we live in a clockwork existence. How the clock works is what scientists try to find out, but even if they know nothing the clockwork doesn't go away. Clearly our understanding at this time is crude, limited, primitive. The more scientists see, measure, think about the more they realize the imperfections in their best theories. Contradictions between ideas that are held to be equally valid cannot be resolved yet. In terms of the time of human existence we have just barely dipped our toes at the shallow edge of a very wide and deep ocean.

[jamesruscheinski]

could there be conscious awareness of causation from free will in time?

[renko]

Free will by definition relies upon the existence of separate entities. There are no separate entities. The universe is one thing happening. Ergo reincarnation is also a fallacy.

[stephenzhao]

0:20 BM: well the first reason why free will is a big question is because humans struggle with understanding it they grow up one and a half two years old recognizing that they can change something in the world they recognize their own agency they reflect four or five six years old they reflect on their own actions then they take a philosophy class and begin to think thay they are now discovering a deep facet of reality that free will is something special something that only humans have that changes the world like nothing else can and it's a question that shows how much humans reflect on themselves on their own powers on their own limits and we try to understand we cannot stop to understand in a social psychologist I'm interested in the very fact that people try to understand action what underlies it what explains it and humans have this need to explain understand where something comes from they have to find meaning and to postulate something like free will helps you understand why certain actions are unique where certain things are unpredictable by certain things are new because somebody freely creatively did something that you didn't expect would happen before. 1:35 Bob: ... BM: 2:50 in my work what I'm trying to do is first find out well how do people really conceptualize free will

[stephenlawrence]

In short Bertram Malle is saying people in general are compatibilists.

Well, we all know that most people naturally think that if determinism is true then we don't have a choice but to do what we're determined to do.

[PaulHoward]

Free will means the ability to exercise willpower. If you don't believe it exists, who do you think should be considered responsible for your actions?

[brothermine]

My brain made me do it... deterministically. The "hard problem" requires explaining only the subjective experiencing of (some of) a brain's activity... including the brain activity of thinking and making choices.
Computers think and choose too. They just don't have a subjective awareness of their thinking and choosing, and no one knows (yet) how to give them that capability.

[eksffa]

NTS 9/u

What’s the date of this recording?

[jamesruscheinski]

community as common human beings focus on divine free will unity?