A public lecture by Daniel C. Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, entitled “Is Science Showing That We Don’t Have Free Will?” In his lecture, Professor Daniel Dennett discusses some of the current work in psychology bearing on this question. He also drew on Hume, Darwin and Turing, three Enlightenment heroes. Part of the University of Edinburgh’s Enlightenment Lecture Series.
On March 15, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
A public lecture by Daniel C. Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, entitled “Is Science Showing That We Don’t Have Free Will?” In his lecture, Professor Daniel Dennett discusses some of the current work in psychology bearing on this question. He also drew on Hume, Darwin and Turing, three Enlightenment heroes. Part of the [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Scrood by Scrooby
“God: Hidden Science” – Google it!
With much doubt, i do in fact, have some belief that to some extent all arguments are philosophical. I find it much more funny when I’m stoned though. Nice burn btw =] mad respect
Hes rejecting your definition of ‘free will’ from one which is impossible.
If you accept his definition of free will, then free will does exist. Though i disagree that this would have any relevance to the justice system compared to the “free wills an illusion” outlook as he suggests.
What he does point out is the way we distort the issue and the very definition of free will by viewing it often purely from the perspective of mind games where we imagine ‘if we could predict everything’.
Yes, determinism is about cause and effect, but the larger question remains can we choose one action over another (ducking the brick or not) independent, not determined, from anything other than our will? I have great respect for Dennett. His lecture on TED about “Cute, sexy, sweet, funny” is brilliant. But here he seems to be arguing that free will is just a point of view, so if you don’t know all the variables, then it’s free will. If you do know, as LaPlace’s demon, then it’s determinism.
“he is saying everything is determined, but not everything is inevitable, which is a contradiction”
I don’t see the contradiction.
Determinism just means that effect follows cause.
Inevitability implies a set outcome that will always come to pass but this is not always the case.
Besides, everything can’t be inevitable since “everything” would include mutually exclusive outcomes.
i’ve never come across a bunch of people more keen to point out other people’s little typos! it really says something about you, and it’s not a complimentary thing!
i completely reject your assertion that i take part in philosophical arguments…. perhaps you think all argument is philosophical?
it really isn’t. to me, anyone who understood his argument would disagree with it.
Absolutely! He says nothing other than our complexity creates the illusion of free will. We seem to make choices but we were always going to make any particular choice because our brains (just like computers) say ‘do X’ if ‘Y happens’ its just that there’s a huge amount of ‘X’s and ‘Y’s and so completely unpredictable for us in the normal run of life and probably to maths as well cos its just too complex
Are you not surprised to seem him arguing this?!! He normally gives such good lectures.
The fact remains that to the person in the example in the beginning who knew everything about every particle in the universe in one snapshot in time, would have known everything that was ever going to happen – from the exact time that N armstrong first put a foot on the moon, to the exact pressure it made, to me writing this right now. Dennetts argument is just basically that it doesn’t seem to be the case to us in everyday life which is fair enough but that still means free-will is an ILLUSION!
LOL he is saying everything is determined, but not everything is inevitable, which is a contradiction. He gives a long talk which is filled with desultory arguments about NOTHING whatsoever, all to delude all listening into thinking he is actually saying something, when he is in fact saying NOTHING
It’s pretty clear that you do NOT understand his argument.
@mares2929
i think the word you are looking for to put right before absolutely is ‘know.’ anyway, i think you are funny because you speak against philosophical arguments; yet you take part in them on the vary same forums. I’m not trying to offend you, i just wanted to point something out that i find funny.
He is basically advocating a kind of double think where we believe in determinism, and yet don’t believe in it at the same time. Perhaps a kind of platonic noble lie as in he believes in determinism, and yet can’t face the moral consequences of that philosophy, and so decides that we all better just lie to ourselves to make living bearable or something.
I just sat through 1 hr 23 mins of daniel c dennett rabbiting on, and as usual he managed to actually say precisely NOTHING
The job of the philosopher is to eventually put people to sleep…I love seeing everyone fighting it…or those who have gave it ;D
excellent work!
53:27 (!)
mares, I would disagree with you that linguistics have made philosophy redundent. I would argue that because of the liguistic bias it has become more relevent to the world. Wittgentein has shown us the way traditionally thought we developed concepts of the world, through ostention, is actually fundamentally wrong and our understanding of the world is developed through the way we use language and Dennett is repected because he has proposed ingenious new ideas in our understanding of conciousness
philosophical arguments are too reliant on linguistics and that is why they have become redundant.
and you no ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about me, my background, my education and my IQ, so don’t make assumptions about my ability to understand. i fear it’s you who is too easily impressed and needs to pay more attention and really THINK.
i understand his argument easily, although i feel it is designed to APPEAR more complicated than it really is. his argument amounts to nothing more than word play based on a flimsy misunderstanding of evolution. it’s like saying “oh look” mother and other are related words so therefore there is an intrinsic connection between the concepts.
hmmm so the sum total of YOUR argument in support of dennett and rebuking me amounts to:
- assuming i disagree with him because i do not understand him
- calling me a “poor twat”
wow, i’m totally impressed and convinced by you.
@mares2929
“i don’t really know how men like this get so well respected”
Then you have simply failed to PAY ATTENTION to this man, or perhaps failed to comprehend the ideas he is presenting. But simply because ones “long words”, “complicated sentences” or “complex ideas” are beyond YOU, personally, indivitually, does not mean the ideas do not get the credit and respect they deserve.
Don’t think you can come slandering a man like this without a substantive argument, poor twat that you ar
it’s kinda funny to look at the faces of the people in the audience, some engaged into what he’s saying, others falling asleep.
what you say is simply illogical. if input variables are numerous and varying, but determined, then the sum of them will be numerous and varying, but determined.
it may well be too complex for you or i to be able to determine, but it is determined none the less. it is simply about cause and effect and there is no “magic goo” required.