Why Free Will Doesn't Exist

Summary

In this thought-provoking script, Alex delves into the concept of free will, questioning its existence due to the uncontrollable nature of our desires and the deterministic factors influencing our actions. He argues that all actions stem from either wanting to do something or being compelled to, neither of which equates to true freedom of choice. Alex challenges the audience to recognize the illusion of free will, suggesting it's a survival mechanism rather than an inherent liberty, and encourages a deeper examination of this philosophical puzzle.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The script discusses the concept of free will and the speaker's skepticism about its existence due to upcoming exams and the fear of failure.
• 🔬 Alex references scientific arguments against free will but chooses to focus on philosophical and logical perspectives in his argument.
• 📚 The influence of Sam Harris's book on the topic is acknowledged, and his definition of free will as 'the ability to have acted differently' is adopted for the discussion.
• 💭 The argument posits that we cannot be aware of or in control of all factors influencing our actions, which challenges the idea of free will.
• 🍦 A simple choice like choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream is used to illustrate the uncontrollable nature of our desires and preferences.
• 🏋️ The script refutes the idea that mundane choices like going to the gym are examples of free will, arguing that they are driven by underlying desires or necessities.
• 🧠 The concept that our actions are solely driven by our desires or external forces is explored, suggesting that we cannot control what we want or desire.
• 🔄 The script argues that there are only two reasons for any action: because we want to, or because we are forced to, with neither constituting true free will.
• 💡 The illusion of free will is presented as beneficial for human evolution, potentially emerging as a survival mechanism that has become ingrained in our biology.
• 🎭 The difference between 'jumping' (acting out of desire) and 'being pushed' (acting under compulsion) is highlighted to explore the experiential aspect of perceived free will.
• 🔮 The video concludes by questioning the freedom in doing what we want when we cannot choose what it is that we want, suggesting that the concept of free will is an illusion.

Q & A

What is the central topic of discussion in the video script?

The central topic of the video script is the concept of free will and the argument against its existence.

Who are some of the individuals mentioned in the script that have discussed free will?

The individuals mentioned include Alex, Steven from Rationality Rules, Matt Dillahunty, and Sam Harris.

What is Alex's definition of free will in the script?

Alex defines free will as the ability to have acted differently, meaning that in any given situation, it should have been possible for one to act differently than they actually did.

What are the two main reasons, according to Alex, that people do anything?

The two main reasons are because they want to or because they are forced to.

Why does Alex argue that we cannot control our wants?

Alex argues that we cannot control our wants because they are intrinsic to who we are and are not subject to our conscious decision-making.

What is the example given by Alex to illustrate the idea that we cannot choose what we want?

Alex uses the example of choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, suggesting that one cannot choose to want vanilla if they actually want chocolate more.

What is the illusion that Alex believes we all feel but that he argues does not exist?

The illusion Alex refers to is the feeling of having free will, which he argues is not real.

How does Alex respond to the common objection about people going to the gym even though they don't want to?

Alex responds by saying that people go to the gym because of a stronger desire, such as wanting to stay healthy or live longer, which compels them to do something they don't necessarily want to.

What does Alex suggest is the reason we feel the illusion of free will?

Alex suggests that the illusion of free will is beneficial to our evolution as a species and has become complex and ingrained in our biology, leading to self-awareness.

What is the difference between 'jumping' and 'being pushed' according to the script, and why is it important?

The difference is in the experience of agency and control. 'Jumping' implies volition and choice, while 'being pushed' implies external compulsion. This distinction is important because it highlights the experiential aspect of what we perceive as free will.

How does Alex conclude the discussion on free will in the video script?

Alex concludes by stating that while we can do whatever we want, we cannot choose what it is that we want, and thus, the concept of free will is an illusion.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Philosophical Inquiry into Free Will

In this first paragraph, Alex introduces the topic of free will and his skepticism about its existence. He acknowledges the complexity of the debate and references other creators who have explored the concept, including Steven from Rationality Rules and Matt Dillahunty. Alex emphasizes his intention to approach the issue from a philosophical and logical perspective rather than a scientific one, setting the stage for a deep dive into the nature of free will and personal accountability.

05:01

🧠 The Illusion of Free Will and Desire Control

The second paragraph delves into the crux of the free will debate by examining the definition and implications of free will. Alex argues that free will, if it exists, would mean the ability to have acted differently in any given situation. He challenges this notion by pointing out that our desires, which drive our actions, are beyond our control. Using the example of choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, he illustrates that our preferences are not chosen but are simply facts about ourselves. This leads to the conclusion that even mundane choices are not freely made but are the result of uncontrollable desires.

10:02

🏋️‍♂️ The Dichotomy of Action: Wanting vs. Being Forced

In the third paragraph, Alex further dismantles the concept of free will by asserting that all actions are motivated by either desire or compulsion. He contends that since desires are not under our control, actions driven by them cannot be considered free. He addresses a common counterargument about exercising as an example of acting freely despite not wanting to, only to refute it by explaining that exercising is still driven by a stronger, underlying desire, such as the desire for health. Alex reinforces the idea that all actions are ultimately controlled by our wants, which we cannot choose, thus concluding that free will is an illusion.

Keywords

💡Free will

Free will is the central concept of the video, defined as the ability to have acted differently in any given situation. It is the capacity to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by necessity. In the script, Alex challenges the existence of free will, arguing that our actions are either driven by our desires or compelled by external forces, neither of which we can control.

💡Accountability

Accountability is the concept of being responsible for one's actions and their consequences. It is closely tied to the idea of free will, as it implies that individuals can be held responsible for their choices. The script questions whether accountability is valid if free will does not exist, suggesting that if our actions are not freely chosen, then holding individuals accountable might be unjust.

💡Conscious self

The conscious self refers to the part of an individual's mind that is aware of one's own thoughts, feelings, and surroundings. In the context of the video, it is suggested that decisions made by the conscious self are not truly free, as they are influenced by desires and external factors beyond one's control.

💡Desire

Desire is a strong feeling of wanting to do or have something. In the script, Alex argues that desires are not something we can control, and thus actions motivated by desires cannot be considered as free will. The script uses the example of choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream to illustrate how our desires dictate our choices.

💡Forced

To be 'forced' implies that an action is compelled by an external pressure or necessity, rather than by one's own will. The script uses the term to contrast with 'wanting to' as the two sole reasons for action, and argues that actions taken under force are not free, which challenges the concept of free will.

💡Neuroscience

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system and brain functions. Although the script mentions that it will not delve into neuroscience, it acknowledges that there are scientific arguments against free will, which are covered in other videos by Alex's friend Steven.

💡Illusion

In the context of the video, 'illusion' refers to the false perception or belief in the existence of free will. Alex suggests that the feeling of having free will is an illusion because our actions are determined by factors beyond our control, yet we still experience a sense of agency and choice.

💡Self-awareness

Self-awareness is the conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. The script touches on self-awareness as a possible byproduct of the illusion of free will, suggesting that our complex cognitive abilities may give us the feeling of control over our actions, even when they are not freely chosen.

💡Evolution

Evolution is the process by which species change over time through genetic variation and natural selection. The script speculates that the illusion of free will may have evolved because it aids in our survival, even though it might not reflect the true nature of our actions.

💡Moral implications

The moral implications refer to the ethical considerations and consequences that arise from the belief or disbelief in free will. The script suggests that understanding the lack of free will can have profound effects on how we view morality, responsibility, and justice.

💡Quantum randomness

Quantum randomness is the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of particles at the quantum level. The script briefly mentions that some people believe quantum randomness could provide an element of indeterminacy that supports the concept of free will, but it is not explored in depth within the video.

Highlights

Alex begins by discussing the concept of free will and its relevance to his impending examinations.

He references discussions with Steven and Matt Dillahunty on the topic of free will.

Alex clarifies that he will be focusing on a philosophical and logical approach rather than scientific arguments.

He acknowledges Sam Harris's influence on his views about free will.

Alex defines free will as the ability to have acted differently in any given situation.

He argues that being aware of all influencing factors and controlling them is necessary for true free will.

Alex challenges the idea that mundane choices like choosing ice cream flavors are truly within our control.

He explores the concept that desires, not choices, drive our actions and are beyond our control.

Alex posits that all actions are either driven by desire or force, with neither constituting free will.

He discusses the common objection of exercising as an example of acting freely despite not wanting to.

Alex explains that even actions taken against one's immediate desire are driven by a stronger, underlying desire.

He emphasizes that the illusion of free will is crucial for our evolutionary survival.

Alex suggests that the feeling of free will is an evolutionary byproduct, similar to consciousness.

He plays a clip from Matt Dillahunty discussing the experiential difference between jumping and being pushed.

Alex critiques the popular definition of free will as 'the ability to do whatever you want', arguing it's misleading.

He concludes by stating that while we can do what we want, we cannot choose what we want, questioning the freedom in that.

Alex ends the video by humorously suggesting that whether his arguments convince the viewer is also beyond their control.

Transcripts

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.