Jordan Peterson - Free Will and Consciousness vs Determinism

Are we just a product of the interaction between nature and culture? Or is there more to us? How does science account for free will and consciousness?

Dr. Peterson's new book is available for pre-order:

If you want to support Dr. Peterson, here is his Patreon:

Check out Jordan Peterson's Self Authoring Program, a powerful tool to sort yourself out:

[jjvladimir]

I appreciate your taking the time to break Peterson's lectures into bite-sized bits. I watch the lectures when I have an hour, and snack on these bite-sized bits when I just have a few min. Anyway, you're providing a valuable service. So thank you.

[harunsuaidi]

I've come to think that even if our actions are predetermined, we should act as if they are not because that's what give our life meaning. It is like what Oracle said in The Matrix: Reloaded, "You are not here to make the choice, you've already made it. You are here to understand why you made it." As life goes on, meanings are unfolded. In the end, it doesn't matter if our actions are predetermined.

[Daniel-czgt]

I've come to think that free will vs determinism is like light being a particle vs wave, is like our labels don't capture the real nature of the phenomenon of consciousness.

[pantaleonpizzaparte]

I'm really lefty and really disagree with peterson on his anti pc crusade but man... these lectures are really fantastic. I've really learned a lot from the man.

[Fuliginosus]

I wish Peterson would speak about the theory of consciousness put forward by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes believed that consciousness springs from language, and occurs in cultures when language becomes sophisticated enough to have metaphors, particularly the idea of representing oneself with the word 'I.'

[martinsmotic]

I have listened to Jordan's lectures and podcasts for well over a year now, and I can honestly say that it changed how I perceive myself, altered many choices that I would have made had I not found them and, by my account, shaped to be a better, more productive and a more motivated person. However, since the beginning of the universe, everything that preceded my discovery of Jordan led to exactly that, and it couldn't have happened in any other way, from purely scientific point of view, which I share. The point that I try to make is that our consciousness has the potential to be altered in infinite amount of ways based on the outside as well as the inside factors, in other words, we have a potential for free will, probably more so than any other physical property in existence, however, those factors are always predetermined in what ever way you slice it. That leads me to believe that we have a potential for free will, and, because of our lack of capability to even perceive all the factors that will lead to the inevitable and predetermined future, in philosophical terms, I would say that you can account that potential as being the true free will.

[rifleattheplayground]

The voice in your head that you think is yourself making choices and thinking about things is just your subconscious tossing bits of information into the ether of your mind and you are just watching those thoughts arise like watching a movie on a screen. The feeling of agency is THAT strong that you feel like it is you making the choices, rather than just experiencing it happening. If you imagine life as a determinist you will find yourself more compassionate towards others and yourself.

[DeadEndFrog]

"a man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants"

[rocoreb]

objective observation is dependent on subjective experience. minus subjective experience there is no observation. they are interdependent.

[mikebasketball]

I'm a longtime reader of Sam Harris. I've read all his books, followed all his talks, listened to him speak in person etc. But I have recently come across Peterson & his work and I consider myself deeply fortunate for doing so.

However, I remain unconvinced that Peterson presents any reason to not take determinism to be true. The mere fact that most people 'feel' that they have free will does not imply that free will exists, nor give us reason to believe it to exist. In just the same way that in various points of human history, the majority of humans would have believed things that would make us modern creatures laugh.

To say that our legal system is predicated upon notions of free will as an argument for it's existence is also fallacious: it may be consequentially pragmatic to maintain a system of free will (and perhaps some notion of it) whilst acknowledging it to be an illusion.

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[nzi]

I wonder what Peterson thinks of the idea that thoughts arise in our minds unconciously. According to Harris, this proves that we are not the author of our thoughts and therefore lack freedom of will. Would that somehow prove that there is no free will? Also, how does Peterson define free will? Does he mean absolute free will?

[MarvinMonroe]

I like this argument for Determinism. If I make a statement about the future, do you agree with me that it's either true or false? We don't know which, but the answer is definitely either "true" or "false"
I'll say "by the year 2150, humans will have colonies on Mars"
Is either "true" or "false" an acceptable reply to that statement?
If you answer "yes, it is". Then you have just said that you think the future is determined
It's a decent way to get a person to realize they believe the future is determined.
BTW the future still isn't Predictable and therefore, for all intents and purposes, we have Free Will

[CRS]

Can an illusion exist without consciousness?

[dragons_red]

Even if our actions actually are deterministic, it is far more useful to act as if we have free will because the deterministic mechanisms at play are far to complex for us to ever hope to follow or make predictions with (the useful aspects of empericism and deterministic phenomena). No single action could be fully articulated causally. And so since it appears to us (illusory or not) that we are in fact the authors of our own thoughts and actions we are content and move on. This is a very pragmatist philosphy view IMO. From a Darwinian perspective, this also works. Those with "undesirable" traits (not selected for and inherited genetically, from a deteministic perspective) are to be weeded out it makes just as much sense to hold the current bearer of those traits to account as if he chose/originated/authored them, because evolutionary the result is the same.

[abelbabel]

Peterson makes an excellent point - if you're a determinist, you have no reason to become angry with someone for wronging you. You literally believe they had no other choice.

[englishovals]

Without rebellion, young adults would never establish their independence (nor leave ma and pa's house without being kicked out.)

That says to me that self-conscientiousness is a real and proven thing, merely for the fact that I've been a teenager, been friends with many, many teenagers, and have had my own and watched several friends raise their own; all with the same separation from the parents who raised them, and all in different degrees.

Regardless, they have distanced themselves from their upbringing, one and all. I truly believe that this is a necessary step up the ladder of growing up and identifying oneself as oneself.

From the cultural/nurture perspective, said children cannot have an idea of what they are rebelling against were it not for the basic concept of what they had been raised to feel, perceive, and believe had they been raised in a different household with a different value structure.

Just by my observation, and I DO know the limits of anecdotal observation, I've seen that many of those raised from one viewpoint or another have a big tendency to revert to the parents' ideas after reaching adulthood to the point that they have their own children and own mortgages.

The old "nature versus nurture" argument carries no water for me, (imo, ) just for (my observed) idea that children are both a product of genetic ability (and lack thereof, ) as well as victims or beneficiaries of the environment they happened to be born into.

Just my 2 pennies.

[jamesg]

Of course it SEEMS like we have free will... Which is why the legal system and all of these old stories are predicated on it, but many things in the universe are NOT as they SEEM. The primary example being quatom physics and the realization that the universe is made up of energy not just matter. In fact, I belive that this fundamental concept is the root of Peterson's misinterpretation. The universe is made up of energy waves, as well as matter, and energy waves cannot be contained within an individual body but rather become entangled with surrounding waves.

[SuperRayW]

The belief in free will acts as a necessary regulator in society, even if it is just an egocentric illusion. We don't do certain things because we know at a minimum that others will view it as an act of free will and hold us accordingly accountable.

[antonvanhoorstede]

Sam Harris is true IF it is true that we live in a world made of matter. After close investigation, u will notice that as a matter of experience, we dont live in a world made of matter at all. As a matter of experience, we are all one consciousness with different points of view(minds/egos). Thats why there is no universal free will at the level of ego, because we are all different. However, at the level of consciousness, we ARE nothing but free will/freedom expressing itself. Its just that we cannot do otherwise, (which brings confusion)because there is no real time in which it could turn out otherwise. There is only the now/free will/freedom/ responsability expressing itself in the now!

[ll-trhh]

not a huge fan of sam harris, but i haven't been able to refute his argument for determinism.