Menu Bar
Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
A frank and honest discussion about free will and it's relation to biology, chemistry and, ultimately, physics.
University of Texas-Austin philosophy professor David Sosa explains determinism in the movie Waking Life.
RT: 3:13
University of Texas-Austin philosophy professor David Sosa explains determinism in the movie Waking Life.
RT: 3:13
Jan 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Sure our behavior is subject to the physical laws that created us. We are just really complicated robots running our "I'm a human" program. But understanding that doesn't give a pragmatic solution to daily life.
One needs responsibility to live in a society. Maybe at some point we will understand all of the infinitesimal factors that go into making a person do what they do at any given time. But until that time we have to say "Hey you are responsible for what you do." Or we would never go anywhere or get anything done.
So sure find out what makes us tick. But until then we have free will. Or atleast a complex enough illusion of free will that it makes no difference.
One needs responsibility to live in a society. Maybe at some point we will understand all of the infinitesimal factors that go into making a person do what they do at any given time. But until that time we have to say "Hey you are responsible for what you do." Or we would never go anywhere or get anything done.
So sure find out what makes us tick. But until then we have free will. Or atleast a complex enough illusion of free will that it makes no difference.
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Well said. I think "A complex enough illusion of free will" is as much as we can hope for, for now.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Maybe this is just too simple of a response, but it's the first thing that popped into my head as soon as guy got into describing the electrical pulses through the nervous system that makes your arm move:
That is action not initiation. Yes physical, biological, and chemical interactions govern how our bodies work and may even influence what we are thinking or are want to act on... but there is a definite point of initiation. Choosing to take that thought, desire, or impulse and putting it into action - to move your arm forward and initiating that electrical pulse through your nervous system to your arm is something beyond reactionary programming.
That is action not initiation. Yes physical, biological, and chemical interactions govern how our bodies work and may even influence what we are thinking or are want to act on... but there is a definite point of initiation. Choosing to take that thought, desire, or impulse and putting it into action - to move your arm forward and initiating that electrical pulse through your nervous system to your arm is something beyond reactionary programming.
By: Wolvan
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
When a neuron is presented with a stimulus, it does not decide whether or not to fire. It either does or it doesn't, depending on the type of stimulus. Other fields of physics point towards the universe being strictly deterministic (specifically, relativity, and even more specifically, time-dilation and forward-moving time travel).
However, if you ask me, the entire debate about free will is moot. There can be no gain, and even if the determinists are right, the normal human mind still conceives of itself as an autonomous entity.
However, if you ask me, the entire debate about free will is moot. There can be no gain, and even if the determinists are right, the normal human mind still conceives of itself as an autonomous entity.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
The problem lies with a basic flaw in science. To say something must be physically present in order to exist is simply wrong. Science ignores the nonphysical, so you then get into the paradox of free will. Science can not prove a mind that has free will, even though it is simply common sense. If you include a nonphysical mind along with the physical world, then free will can coexist with the physical laws that bind the physical world together.
By: Wonderr
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Okay, how do you prove something that isn't physical exists? I would love to know that one. The mind is quite physical. Sometimes, when the brain is damaged, people's personalities have been known to change. If the mind was non-physical than it shouldn't be able to be damaged by the physical.
By: Crabjuice
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Science can not. The senses can not. I know that I have a mind, yet I can not physically prove it to you. Basically I say that thoughts are not physical. Memories are not physical. You could take it to the core, and say that thoughts and memories are electrons and pulses in neurons, but I see that as the connection between the nonphysical and physical. You can put my brain on a scanner and see it light up in certain areas when I smell applesauce or remember my dog's name, but that doesn't mean that that is where the thought came from. It is just the connection between the nonphysical mind and the physical brain. Yes, chemicals can mess up the connection, but I believe that they don't mess with the mind.
By: Wonderr
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
You have no proof that personalities really exist. :P
Actually though, you must infer from observations of behavior in order to rationalize the idea of personalities in your mind. Personality can be altered by imagined events or other non-physical means.
The concepts and ideas you presented in the physical text above can be changed by non- physical things like my personal perspective.
Your physical actions are also dependent on your ideas as well as the physical world.
There is no proof I am even real.
As all things you must use logic and reasoning to infer that certain observations mean "this".
Actually though, you must infer from observations of behavior in order to rationalize the idea of personalities in your mind. Personality can be altered by imagined events or other non-physical means.
The concepts and ideas you presented in the physical text above can be changed by non- physical things like my personal perspective.
Your physical actions are also dependent on your ideas as well as the physical world.
There is no proof I am even real.
As all things you must use logic and reasoning to infer that certain observations mean "this".
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Au contraire, mon frere. Science does not ignore that which is without a physical presence. It disregards that which cannot be proven and openly challenges so that there is supporting documentation to back up that which is is put forth.
That said? Free will is what we want to believe. We are no more free than the illusion that we paint for ourselves.
That said? Free will is what we want to believe. We are no more free than the illusion that we paint for ourselves.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
See, you are correct to a certain point. I don't want to argue Hume up here, but how do we prove somethings existence? Through our senses. Our senses are the only way for us to prove whether or not something physically exists, but the senses can not be used in order to prove the existence in the nonphysical. Does that mean that if we can not sense something it doesn't exist? I believe not. If we solely use our senses on determining the existence of something, then we are being ignorant. The mind is a perfect example. You can not prove that I have a mind. You can only see my actions and look back at seeing whether or not I have made a decision. If you do not believe in free will, then you are basically arguing what Turing would argue, which I would offer you the Chinese Room argument in response. If you read the argument, I am saying that the nonphysical mind is the only who understands.
By: Wonderr
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
The mind is basically made up of electrical impulses which can be measured so it must be physical. I say its the physical mind that understands. Interesting ideas, none the less.
By: Crabjuice
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Firstly science doesn't only concern itself with the physical.
And secondly you are misdirecting with stuff that doesn't matter.
We don't need to see a mind and say"There it exists" to say we don't have free will. Furthermore referring to philosophical quandaries and people who are dead are not fit replacement for stating your point of v iew.
We know many of the physical properties of our body that result in our behavior. When you say "science can't prove that there is a mind" you are patently wrong. A mind is merely what we call the conscious manifestation of our biological programming. I know that I have a mind, or rather I know as far as I am able. And it is the easiest assumption that you have one as well. There is no point in wondering wether or not you do until such time comes where there would be evidence that shows that you might not. It's frivolous and useless to seriously consider.
Sure one might think of all kinds of possibilities in their leisure. But talk seriously to people and live ones life based upon the extreme limits of philosphy gives rise to things such as Nihilism.
Do we have minds? Yes, we do not need to see/hear/touch/taste/smell their existence to gather enough other circumstantial data to be sure enough of their existence.
Do we have free will?
Yes. Well pragmatically speaking anyways. We are built to deal with the physical world and our societies are built upon the premise that there is personal responsibility. Further more our programming is of such a complex nature that we cannot(yet atleast) fathom all the variables, and thus expose our programming.
No. In that our mind is merely a learning machine running it's algorithyms and trying to get us as best it's able to procreate. We are very complicated but from the day we are born to the day we die it's all 1's and 0's.
And secondly you are misdirecting with stuff that doesn't matter.
We don't need to see a mind and say"There it exists" to say we don't have free will. Furthermore referring to philosophical quandaries and people who are dead are not fit replacement for stating your point of v iew.
We know many of the physical properties of our body that result in our behavior. When you say "science can't prove that there is a mind" you are patently wrong. A mind is merely what we call the conscious manifestation of our biological programming. I know that I have a mind, or rather I know as far as I am able. And it is the easiest assumption that you have one as well. There is no point in wondering wether or not you do until such time comes where there would be evidence that shows that you might not. It's frivolous and useless to seriously consider.
Sure one might think of all kinds of possibilities in their leisure. But talk seriously to people and live ones life based upon the extreme limits of philosphy gives rise to things such as Nihilism.
Do we have minds? Yes, we do not need to see/hear/touch/taste/smell their existence to gather enough other circumstantial data to be sure enough of their existence.
Do we have free will?
Yes. Well pragmatically speaking anyways. We are built to deal with the physical world and our societies are built upon the premise that there is personal responsibility. Further more our programming is of such a complex nature that we cannot(yet atleast) fathom all the variables, and thus expose our programming.
No. In that our mind is merely a learning machine running it's algorithyms and trying to get us as best it's able to procreate. We are very complicated but from the day we are born to the day we die it's all 1's and 0's.
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
I still have to disagree with you that science doesn't only concern itself with the physical. It can not prove the nonphysical, but it can monitor it's physical repercussions. The problem with your idea on science proving the mind, is that you are merely assuming that, from your perspective, I have a mind. This is entirely where Turing's argument originates. When I said that "science can't prove that there is a mind" I was implying that it was someone else's mind, in which science can not do so. How can you prove that when I close my mind I am thinking of eating ice cream? You could ask me what I'm thinking of, hell you could put my brain on a monitor and see it light up, but what the hell does that prove? And your final statement seems a little too eerily like Turing's as well. If you are saying that our mind is merely inputs and outputs, then I again offer you the Chinese Room argument.
By: Wonderr
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Well, I don't believe I have much of a real reply to give you for furthering this discussion. I've just finished reading a summary on the Chinese Room argument and various counterpoints, and have a rather 'chemical' visualization of a brain functioning floating in my head at the moment. I'm basically seeing the primordial soup imagery from 'The Origin of Life Made Easy' superimposed over/as the internal functions of thought construction. Ah crud, I've taken too long thinking on this and broke my RNA strand. 8)
By: Jiachi
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Oy, that's what I get for posting at 5am. To summarize, ideas within the mind almost seem to work on an evolutionary basis. Until that point is reached however, there is only the underlying automated programming contained within the lower sections of the brain. Incoming data is 'attemptively' correlated with itself to find coherent patterns, and here the dispute rises. Hmm, if emotions are acceptable chemical stimuli, I guess the question is how much was prewritten. As to free will, I guess it would have to lie within the chemical ranges of the individual brain, as disturbing the sediment of long-held patterns can be difficult without enough internal sway. No wonder I don't like emotionally based material, adding a whole array of disruptive variables to simple equations. XP
By: Jiachi
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Where you are getting confused is the idea that I would even need to "prove" that you have a mind to build a pragmatic working life model, and behavior.
Like many of the math laws we make it the rule that people have minds because that is what works. It is what makes the most sense now.
I may not be able to difinitively prove your intelligence, but 1) I don't have to , and 2) I need to decide something right now so that I can live my life. Just as we all do.
They say when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. There are lots of things that could be going on besides you having a mind. But there is no reason to believe them when we have a perfectly workable believable and simple solution at hand.
Should this fail us in the future or other evidence come to light well we can worry about that then. Until then I will just assume that there is a mind on the other end of this network because that is the most likely case.
Also you are trying to squish what I'm saying in Turing. Which is not the case at all. I am not saying that anything that can return a response to input has a mind. But rather that our mind is merely a response machine. One consists of the other, but the other does not equal the first :P
As for the chinese room argument, it's ridiculousness cracks me up. He compares himself exchanging meaningless symbology to the computer doing the same and says "hey look the computer isn't intelligent".
Like many of the math laws we make it the rule that people have minds because that is what works. It is what makes the most sense now.
I may not be able to difinitively prove your intelligence, but 1) I don't have to , and 2) I need to decide something right now so that I can live my life. Just as we all do.
They say when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. There are lots of things that could be going on besides you having a mind. But there is no reason to believe them when we have a perfectly workable believable and simple solution at hand.
Should this fail us in the future or other evidence come to light well we can worry about that then. Until then I will just assume that there is a mind on the other end of this network because that is the most likely case.
Also you are trying to squish what I'm saying in Turing. Which is not the case at all. I am not saying that anything that can return a response to input has a mind. But rather that our mind is merely a response machine. One consists of the other, but the other does not equal the first :P
As for the chinese room argument, it's ridiculousness cracks me up. He compares himself exchanging meaningless symbology to the computer doing the same and says "hey look the computer isn't intelligent".
By: shorn
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
The idea of arguing over free will is impossible to answer. It is outside of our range of perception. How can we prove it? If we make a decision, a deterinist can argue that we were compelled to make it via the chemistry in our brain, circumstance, physics and that we are programmed to think we made a decision according to fate. What experiment could you design that would prove free will. I think you can't.
even more importantly, does it really matter? We hold serial killers responsible for murders. If there is fate, and we believe in fate, then they go to jail. If there is fate and we beileve in free will, it is their fate to go to jail. if there is free will and we believe in free will they will go to jail. If there is free will and we believe in fate, guess what, they still go to jail.
even more importantly, does it really matter? We hold serial killers responsible for murders. If there is fate, and we believe in fate, then they go to jail. If there is fate and we beileve in free will, it is their fate to go to jail. if there is free will and we believe in free will they will go to jail. If there is free will and we believe in fate, guess what, they still go to jail.
By: gutierrezjm6
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
The Chinese Room argument is not intended to prove the unphysical nature of the mind, but to argue against the possibility of strong AI. Searle himself, the creator of the argument, is a materialist and says that the fact that we experience having a mind, or more specifically, consciousness, means that the physical universe is clearly capable of creating such an experience and should be simply added our list of physical phenomena. As to free will, I recommend reading up on the experiments of the neuroscientist Benjamin Libet. From the 50's onward, he did a series of experiments that pretty much chase free will from the Captain's chair and into a tiny little corner of the control room. I agree with an earlier poster that we are socially evolved creatures, and the myth of personal responsibility is a cornerstone of the social nature of our species.
By: whitehorse
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Physics
Case in point: depression. It lacks "physicality," so you can't hold it in your hand. But because some people display profound unhappiness for extended durations, the condition is labeled and approached from the basis of the assembled symptoms. It didn't wink into being, but the means of addressing and treating it did.
Despite the discussion of subatomic particle behavior, free will is ultimately a philosophical matter. If I'm trying to decide what to do on a rainy Sunday, the micro of potential atomic motion won't contribute appreciably to the macro of an established 5-second choice. If it did, I might worry if I was even going to be able to make the choice, for fear that the cells making up my brain may suddenly collapse. It's two different perspectives that don't connect at a comprehensive level.
Despite the discussion of subatomic particle behavior, free will is ultimately a philosophical matter. If I'm trying to decide what to do on a rainy Sunday, the micro of potential atomic motion won't contribute appreciably to the macro of an established 5-second choice. If it did, I might worry if I was even going to be able to make the choice, for fear that the cells making up my brain may suddenly collapse. It's two different perspectives that don't connect at a comprehensive level.
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
That video made me sea sick.
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
Agreed. The topics were worthwhile, but the movie pissed me off.
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
Bad read, bad acting, obnoxious animation, I couldn't even watch this clip.
This reminds me of the drunk philosophy majors that would yak all night in the art building while I was trying to get some painting done.
This reminds me of the drunk philosophy majors that would yak all night in the art building while I was trying to get some painting done.
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
When I was in undergrad, they locked us philosophy majors up on the top floor of the theology building. Probably trying to hide us from the rest of the institution/public. I don't blame 'em.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
The whole movie is done like that to be like a long dream sequence that intertwines with reality, so understandingly it's trippy and unpleasant.
as for the acting, university professors clearly are too damn busy to take a theater class.
as for the acting, university professors clearly are too damn busy to take a theater class.
By: GregLarry
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
> The whole movie is done like that to be like a long dream sequence that intertwines with reality, so understandingly it's trippy and unpleasant.
Yeah either that or they just bought their new "A Scanner Darkly" filter and though it would be cool to crank the settings to high!
Yeah either that or they just bought their new "A Scanner Darkly" filter and though it would be cool to crank the settings to high!
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
I didn't even think the topics were worthwhile, for the most part. This one was probably the best of the bunch.
By: quisph
Re: Waking Life: Free Will and Determinism: David Sosa
If our options are that the will is predetermined by physical laws, or else random, then we're still left with the understanding that the will is not free. This is no brilliant conclusion, and many have arrived at it before. This professor of philosophy is obviously biased against the will not being free, like many other people. He rejects both possible hypotheses because they don't confirm that the will is free, and this is wrong. As far as we can tell, the will isn't free - that's it. Accept it. Those are the data. Just suck it up.
What's ironic is that David Sosa notes all of the technological achievements that arise from our mathematical understanding of the universe. The most reliable product of philosophy since its inception are the fields of engineering, medicine, and economics. Do we have anything remotely useful from philosophy otherwise? Yet, people are concerned with this slippery artifact of metaphysical philosophy - free will. It is the determinant of behavior, the executive function, the initial human cause, a simple component in the feedback loop of behavior. That's it. We should honestly abandon the term because it's biased towards a certain outcome, and it has no practical significance, much like the question of whether there is a god.
The issue to address instead, I think, is training a good will. Who cares if it's free? Free will is just an excuse we use to get rid of a bad will, one of which we don't approve. We obviously have a desired end result of responsibility, and thus the will, so we should really just concern ourselves with how to get people to nail the desired result, not whether or not they had a choice. Obviously they don't, really. Instead, we should structure society so that people are left with no will but the will to do good.
But what is good? Depends on who you ask.
What's ironic is that David Sosa notes all of the technological achievements that arise from our mathematical understanding of the universe. The most reliable product of philosophy since its inception are the fields of engineering, medicine, and economics. Do we have anything remotely useful from philosophy otherwise? Yet, people are concerned with this slippery artifact of metaphysical philosophy - free will. It is the determinant of behavior, the executive function, the initial human cause, a simple component in the feedback loop of behavior. That's it. We should honestly abandon the term because it's biased towards a certain outcome, and it has no practical significance, much like the question of whether there is a god.
The issue to address instead, I think, is training a good will. Who cares if it's free? Free will is just an excuse we use to get rid of a bad will, one of which we don't approve. We obviously have a desired end result of responsibility, and thus the will, so we should really just concern ourselves with how to get people to nail the desired result, not whether or not they had a choice. Obviously they don't, really. Instead, we should structure society so that people are left with no will but the will to do good.
But what is good? Depends on who you ask.
By: boyblunders
