Steven Pinker: On Free Will | Big Think

Want to get Smarter, Faster?  Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

I think Steven Pinker hits the nail here- the existence of free will depends on it's definition. People argue a lot about it, but don't agree about definition first, and that leads to misunderstandings.

I appreciate how non-smug he is. He does 'know it all' when it comes to the brain, but hes not arrogant about it.

Pinker is arguing, I think, in favor of what might be described as "practical free will," something vastly different from the classic "ghost in the machine" version popularized during the Middle Ages. Practical free will looks and subjectively feels so much like free will that the difference is of no real importance, except to those academics whose careers depend on making such fine grain distinctions. There's no OZ behind the curtain pulling our strings. Being a closed physical system, the brain conforms to the same immutable laws that govern the universe, which itself is a large closed physical system. Our behavior is driven by a long chain of antecedent causes. (Like that 80's song says, "One thing leads to another." ) But In the six million years or so since our direct ancestors climbed down from the trees, the human brain has grown into an ever more complex organ capable of weighing and analyzing vast quantities of information. Because of our unique capacity to model the universe -- largely through language -- we are capable of seeing possibilities that other less intelligent species can't, hence we have more apparent choices when "deciding" how to act. While we are conscious of the fact that we have choices, the exact reasons why we "choose" one action over another are often great unknown. (Why did I choose to use the phrase "great unknown instead of opting for "a mystery" in that last sentence.) Regardless, physical processes over which we have no real control drive brain function. What this means is "free will," is not absolute, but constrained by factors, including our innate intelligence, the culture we're born into, the manner in which our parents raised us, our level of education and so on. As I watched the video, I wondered about the role of neuroplasticity on decision making. In one example, Pinker talks about the choices one makes playing a game of chess. Learning and practice effectively change the physical composition of the brain. A person interested enough to learn more about the subtleties of playing chess will see possibilities that other less skilled players won't -- and his brain will be thus equipped to make better "choices" about what move to make in a given situation. In this sense, it seems to me that some people are more "free" to choose that others.

This man's voice is so hypnotic.

Really excellent explanation of the question of free will, in just over 2 minutes, couldn't be done better!

We have free will in the same sense that we experience love. Love is after all basically a nuero-cocktail dumped out in our brains. When you see your little daughter being super cute, that's just chemicals and brain processes directing you in a feeling triggered by evolution to ensure you'll care for the kid so your genes will survive. So, do you not love you're daughter? Of course you do. Love is a description of the EXPERIENCE of all those things. I think you have free will in exactly the same way. We experience the ability to choose, and this experience is real, insomuch as it IS something we experience. Yes, it's true we have various processes, etc etc. Like love etc. So, I think it's perfectly valid to talk about free will without the perpetual qualifying of it as non-existent. I think it's equally as valid to ignore the personal experience and sturdy it scientifically.

I love these videos. They give you a lot to think about, don't they?

One of my favorite authors.

i love steven pinker, such a clear thinker and speaker. thanks for this interesting video

Thank you! Someone finally noticed.. I even used his analogy.. ya I fricken love his lectures and have read his book.. glad to come across someone else who knows of him.

this reminds me of the answers I get, when I ask; imagine that everything was free.

That is a great explanation of free will. You may also learn from the consequences from past behaviors that may subconsciously effect you're future behavior in a split second decision, without you even being aware of it. This is interesting I would love to read a good book on this because there are probably tons of examples that could go either way. I think it's like the nature nurture debate. It's usually a little of both. I think it's free will strongly influenced by genetics & other factors.

Wow. It's amazing how many people here think they can just say some dumb shit and think they do better than the philosophers. It's the BIG THINK channel people, try harder!

Perhaps the most lucid and accurate description I've heard about the illusion of freewill.

Thanks so much!!

If by free will people mean that despite your genes, experience/knowledge you can make any choices then no, free will does not exist. If people mean free will is just to choose a or b or anything else then yes, free will exists.

Why do people think that the input of a soul into our choices of actions would be an argument for free will? Can't we see the soul as an other determinist element?  For example, does someone with a bad soul have the free will to make a good choice? And if he does, did he really have a bad soul in the first place?

Well said!

Your right in a since of how its defined by our common usage. So by us changing our common usage as we constantly add a new definitions we change our perceptual reality. So rather there's a debate on determinism vs free will or not it will always evolve and change linguistically by our definition which we at the end are still left with uncertainty