Good morning everybody, my name is Alex
and perhaps because of my impending examinations
and the very real possibility of failure
I have been thinking a lot about the concept of free will and whether any of us
can be really held accountable for our actions. Now
I've already made a video discussing
the implications of life without free will with my
friend Steven from Rationality rules
who also recently discussed free will with Matt Dillahunty
and made his own video on the topic as well
(links are of course in the description)
but I realized that I've never actually talked openly about why
I don't believe in free will
except from my somewhat obscure book review of Sam
Harris's book on my website so
I thought that today would be the day. Why?
Well, I-I don't know, and, well, I can't know.
That's kind of the thing.
I'd recommend that you watch Steven's video which outlines some of the
more scientific arguments against
free will, but to compliment that video
I want to take a more philosophical and purely logical approach to the problem
it seems to me that whilst helpful and endlessly interesting,
it isn't necessary to reference neuroscience to make
a good case against free will, so I won't be doing that today.
Now one of the best-known current critics
of free will is of course Sam Harris, whose short book you should
all read, it's what really
got me thinking about this originally about a year ago
and who is of course a neuroscientist. But you can also find discussions
of free will in the works of earlier philosophers like
Bertrand Russell, and for this video I'll be all but ignoring
neuroscience. Again, that perspective is covered well by Steven.
So, with that out of the way, let's get into this.
Here is my case against free will.
The first issue that we have to face is of course the definition of
free will. And since, when I'm debating this,
I'm the one who's denying the existence of
something that someone else believes in, it really needs to be
that someone else's definition that I'm using.
Which is why a video like this can be quite tricky.
Now this doesn't absolve me of the burden of proof, unlike my
passive atheism. I make the active claim that I think
free will does not exist
but I can only do this once I'm sure that we all mean the same
thing by free will.
So for ease's sake, I'll go with the most succinct and
least controversial definition that I've been able to come up with, which is this:
free will is the ability to have acted differently.
And what I mean by this is
that if we were to wind back the clock in any situation,
it was completely within the realm of
possibility for you to have acted differently.
to the way that you actually did.
For instance, it would have been completely possible for me to have said ,
"bonjour,"at the beginning of this video instead of good morning,
and the choice to say the latter
was completely within my control.
The idea is that you are in control of your actions, and
any decisions that you make are determined only by your own conscious self.
But the thing is,
there are so many things wrong with this that it's difficult to know where to start.
I'll borrow a line of thought from Doctor Harris here.
Let's begin by considering what would have to be true
in order for us to truly have total free will–
to be able to have acted differently
Well firstly, we would need to be aware of
everything that is influencing our actions, including
environmental factors, our precise mood,
the influence of other people, the influence of past experiences, and more.
Secondly, we would need to be in complete control of every one of them
Neither of these are true, or even possible.
Now, you might concede this, but not think it a problem.
Okay, you say, so I can't control all of the factors that
led me to like the taste of ice cream, but
on a more mundane level, I'm still in complete control over
whether I choose chocolate or vanilla.
Not so fast. Again, consider this most simple of choices:
Chocolate or vanilla.
Or, if it's easier, consider the last mundane choice that you had to make.
(Walk or drive this morning, go out or stay in tonight)
Think about why you chose one or would choose one
over the other.
So what would make me choose vanilla over chocolate?
Well there is only one possible answer, which I'll elaborate on shortly.
I would need to want it more than chocolate.
In order to choose vanilla,
I'd need to want vanilla,
but... is this something I can control?
Can I control what it is that I want?
Not a chance
Consider the fact that you, presumably,
don't want to punch your mother in the face.
Can you choose to want to do that?
This isn't the same thing as choosing to do it; could you choose to want to?
No, no more than I could choose to want vanilla over chocolate.
I just want chocolate more than vanilla
That's just a fact about myself that I can't change.
But okay, let's go further, you say.
Of course I can't choose to want vanilla over chocolate when I really want chocolate, but
What if I just decided, in the full knowledge that I prefer chocolate,
to go for vanilla anyway,
just for the sake of regaining my free will and nothing else.
Well, I'm afraid you'd still face the same problem,
the exact same problem, in fact.
In order to do that, you'd need to "want" to regain your free will, as you see it.
Why is your desire to prove
a point like this stronger than the desire to
to have the ice cream you prefer?
It just is, and if it happened not to be,
you'd have chosen the ice cream that you do prefer.
The key takeaway is this: you cannot determine your wants.
Think of something you want. Try to not want it.
Think of something you don't want and try to want it. It's not possible.
And even if it were,
in order to change a don't want into a want,
you'd need to want to want it.
And vice versa. To change a want into a don't want,
you'd need to want to not want it.
You simply can't control what you want.
Now, that's one piece of the puzzle, and it may seem odd to leave it there, but
just wait until we put them together.
Okay the next piece of the puzzle is to convince you of this fact:
There are only two reason– two reasons, none more, in
any circumstances for which you will ever [purposefully] do anything.
In fact, it's impossible for you to ever do anything
for any reason other than one of these two.
And those two reasons are: because you want to, or because you're forced to.
And this is fundamentally important and worth really understanding and thinking about
You will only ever do anything in your entire life
because you either want to or are forced to.
That's it. No exceptions.
And because of the fact that nobody seems to believe me on this point at first,
I'll give you a common objection that I hear all the time.
In fact, I recently spoke to ex-NFL player Arian Foster
about free will on his podcast.
(Link, again, will be in the description once it's up)
And he, playing Devil's advocate, brought up the following:
Consider exercise. Consider going to the gym.
Most people don't want to go to the gym, but they do it anyway.
Surely this is an example of someone doing something freely,
and not because they want to
or because they're forced to.
Not really.
Because there has to be a reason for going to the gym,
and for most people, and for Arian, it's something like to stay healthy,
to stay in shape, to live longer, whatever it may be.
So, we have to ask again
the same fundamental question:
why is the desire to stay healthy stronger than the desire to go to the gym?
It just is. Or maybe it isn't.
And some people stay at home and eat junk food instead.
For these people, why is the desire to sit around
or to eat junk food stronger than the desire to be healthy?
It just is.
Again, remember you can't control the strength or object of your desires.
It's they that control you.
And if that doesn't unease you,
repeat those words again to yourself until it does.
So even when you "don't want" to do something, but you do it anyway,
this is only ever because of a stronger and equally uncontrollable desire
to do something that requires you to do it.
In other words, all of your actions really are controlled by your wants.
And I really mean this.
This is what really convinced me of the nonexistence of free will.
If you aren't convinced that everything you do is either because you want to or because you're forced to,
Please, just pause the video and really think about this.
I promise that any example you can think of
has a hidden want lying behind it.
Leave an example in the comments if you have to. I'm sure someone else can find it if you can't.
So now, as promised, let's start putting this together.
There are two reasons you will ever do anything:
because you want to, or because you're forced to.
Of course, if you're forced to do something, then you're definitely not acting freely,
and nobody would deny that,
so that just leaves your wants.
But... well, we've already concluded that you can't control your wants,
so actions motivated by wants aren't really free either.
So being forced to do something isn't free will,
and wanting to do something isn't free will.
But being forced or wanting to do something
are the only reasons why you do anything.
Hence, free will is conclusively
an illusion. Now I use the word illusion purposefully here.
One thing that nobody needs convincing of is the fact that we all feel like we do have free will
I certainly do, and so does Sam Harris, and so did Bertrand Russel as far as I know.
But then, I suppose, so would an
artificial intelligence that we've
programmed to feel as though it does have control.
And what really is the difference between a mind made of silicon
and one made of flesh
in relation to liberty of thought? Well,
That's a topic for another video, or perhaps an episode of black mirror,
but you can see that this illusion is incredibly important,
so I just want to briefly explain why I think we feel this illusion.
So firstly, and most obviously,
it's easy to see that this illusion
is mightily beneficial to our evolution as a species,
and I personally have a similar speculative view of the emergence of free will
to my view on the emergence of consciousness as a whole:
that it only exists because it aids our survival,
but it's become so complex and engrained in our biology
that we feel strangely apart from it and have developed the fortunate
or unfortunate side effect of self-awareness, depending on who you ask.
But more than this, I think it's because there really is a difference between jumping and being pushed.
That is, there is a difference in experience between being forced to do something
and doing something because you want to.
And this is something that Matt Dillahunty has alluded to, and in fact,
I'll play a short clip of him here.
Now this sound byte was also responded to by Steven in a response that he made to Matt,
a third video he has done on the topic.
But again, though agreeing entirely with Steven,
I have more to add as well.
"I'm talking about it from a conceptual standpoint.
The example that I'd used in New York was
If Sam jumped off stage, that would be
him as an agent taking an act of volition. It doesn't matter if it was predetermined by the universe or not."
But alternately, I could throw him off the stage.
And the difference between those two events sums up everything that I think is valuable
about the notion of free will."
Now this is why I wanted to be precise in my definition of free will,
because for many people,
the first definition they think of
is "the ability to do whatever you want,"
but I think this is misleading.
This, however, is the definition I think Matt is implicitly using here, and I'll explain why.
To be clear, I don't think Matt is wrong, per se,
and his conversation with Steven cleared a lot of this up, but
this clip is still representative of a popular view nonetheless.
The reason I think there's an experiential difference between jumping and being pushed
is because if you're defining free will as "the ability to do whatever you want,"
then you're exercising free will by jumping, but not by being pushed.
But just think about that definition.
What does it mean to do whatever you want?
Remember, you can't control your wants,
so by doing what you want,
you're just acting in accordance with something that's out of your control.
It's more accurate to say, rather than you can do whatever you want,
that you can only do what you want.
Of course that's true; we've already covered this.
And it's not freedom to be told, "you can do anything,
as long as it's this."
The takeaway from my video today to conclude this whole complicated and fearful affair,
should be this:
Yes, you can do whatever you want.
You just can't choose what it is that you want.
And where's the freedom in that?
If this video convinced you, consider why.
If not, consider why not.
It's out of your control. What I'm saying will either convince you,
or it won't, and you don't get to decide on that.
But, whichever way you fall, why not try exercising your free will by hitting subscribe,
and by watching my discussion with Steven about the moral implications of all this.
And be sure to watch his free will debunked video, too,
which should clear up any other objections that you might have.
For instance, you think that randomness at the quantum level solves the problem?
Well...
Just watch his video, and
if I was really unoriginal, I'd say "after all you have no choice!"
But that's where I'll end this video for now. Why?
I don't know. Why am I still talking?
Why will I stop when I eventually do stop?
I don't know. I just will.
I will, but not freely.
See you in the next one.