Interview with Kevin Mitchell on Agency, Evolution, and Freewill
Added 2024-02-22 23:39:10 +0000 UTCHere is the video version of the interview we recorded with the neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell. We are still doing final checks so if you notice any issues please let us know and we will try to resolve before we release
Comments
@Matt - I am 100% on team "does freewill exist" being a mostly useless question. Also, I like the guest's view on evolution but his take on freewill is nonsense. OTOH, freewill is somewhat nonsense so I guess that is par for the course. Internet dummy take: In physics 'centrifigual force' is an imaginary force - it is the inertial reaction to centripital force. imaginary forces can still be useful in the appropriate frame of reference. Free will is just as imaginary but is very useful in appropriate frames of reference (i.e. Dennett and the compatibilists are right).
Jonathan Cano
2024-03-25 19:02:03 +0000 UTCThis was not what I signed up for, philosophical discussions? I want to be told about the juicy details of the next guru drama. I did find it very interesting thought, I do have one question, during the interview, Kevin made a point that we tend to think of causation going from the lower levels like atoms, and quantum waves to higher levels like people and concepts and such. Chris asked him to explain more the evidence for that, but he didn't really answer the question. He just mentioned that we see a lot of evidence that determinism is not the paradigm of the universe, like from quantum mechanics or even in classical physics chaotic systems. First that is wrong, chaotic systems are entirely deterministic, if you set the initial state the same, the system will evolve into the exact same configuration. The problem is setting the initial system to the exact state as before, even small variations of the initial system can lead to very different outcomes. Second, that doesn't answer the question, you can have a non deterministic system, how does that imply that causation can come from the upper levels of abstraction. Did I misunderstand something during this discussion?
MaxPlan
2024-03-08 23:26:03 +0000 UTCI'm on my 3rd listen to this as it's just a fantastic discussion. I can't help but think Kevin is fundamentally making the same "randomness is a part of the mechanism" kinda argument with regards to free will and determinism. @27:20 Kevin overspeaks about quantum uncertainty. His points about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal and quantum determinism are over reaching. We have no true understanding to the full causal mechanism that results in quantum behaviours, just very useful mathematical tools and models that calculate and predict quantum effects probabilisticly to a level of accuracy. At a fundamental level, an appeal to "randomness" as part of a primary causal mechanism is as useless as appealing to magic or a God entity. For example, had we evolved here a few billion years into the future, the expansion of space in between the stars and galaxy's would be such that at some point, we would loose access to the sensory information we need to confirm hypothesis or learn certain things about the nature of how the universe is. There could be layers of mechanistic happenings in ways that, because of our vantage point in 3 dimensional spacetime, it might not even be possible to ever interact or detect as the time frame of the universe has progressed passed a certain threshold of cooling or expansion or whatever. Maybe there's something I'm missing but to me it seems Kevin is basing his position partly on this assumption.
Dean
2024-02-28 11:26:03 +0000 UTCIs "emergence" non-causal by definition? Paul Bloom points out that the "cool kids" look down a level in causation. That led to me picking up Thomas Hertog's "On the origin of time".. it is doing my head in though ;-)
Kirsten Greed
2024-02-28 00:43:00 +0000 UTCThis is easily one of my favourite bits of DTG content. Kevin's areas of discussion are fascinating. Nice job fellas.
Dean
2024-02-27 13:10:37 +0000 UTCOkay, I'll have to listen to the full interview.
Robert Andrews
2024-02-27 12:27:17 +0000 UTCAlso, Dennett has admitted (I think in conversation with Sam Harris or maybe Jerry Coyne) that he promotes his theory and definition of free will because the plebians can't handle the truth and society would crumble if the Academy told them it's physics all the way down.
Randy
2024-02-27 11:45:29 +0000 UTCNope, he does not think strong determinism is a given so no need to be a compatibilist. He does think humans and everything is causally determined by preceding circumstances however since we would not exist in our universe if that was not the case ;).
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-02-27 11:39:44 +0000 UTCMitchell says explicitly that he disagrees with Dennet because he (Mitchell) is not a compatiblist. I don't quite understand how he gets there without invoking magic, but he says that's what he's done. (I haven't read his book yet).
Randy
2024-02-27 11:30:49 +0000 UTCI can't say I am exactly clear on Dennett's position, but he is considered a compatibilist which means he is a determinist but somehow still recognizes certain types of freedom. He has a book called Freedom Evolves, and what I remember from him talking about the book, he argues that whereas in a strictly hard determinist world, we only have Inevitability, creatures developed Evitability (I think he capitalizes it) which means that they can, say, evade predators, or seek out food etc... If someone threw a ball at my head I could duck, unless constrained, and someone could yell "duck!" unless their mouth was taped up, etc... I think Dennett calls this type of agency the forms of "free will" worth having even if they exist within a determinist/materialist universe, and clearly these forms of free will/agency have evolved. Furthermore, it seems to me that Sapolsky, when I have heard him speak, and maybe even Harris as well, seem to accept this to some extent such as when Sapolsky says things like "Nobody could choose anything that happens to them therefore WE SHOULD change our criminal justice system to be less draconian". Sapolsky seems to be in the contradictory position of saying that Person X can do no other, but society as a whole should choose to be less condemning. Much of the arguments probably boil down into semantics, and it may be that I am not doing any othem justice with my exposition.
Robert Andrews
2024-02-27 07:40:07 +0000 UTCIt's a bit nuanced, and perhaps I'm not qualified to judge at the higher metaphysical levels. But I'm totally convinced of his evolutionary framework for emergent cognitive systems like brains, that derive meaningful and actionable information from senses, and that that's a useful level of description for us when we ask the question "What causes what?". Sometimes the best answer is, "The organism did it, for it's own good reasons" ;)
Guruspod 2
2024-02-27 07:03:18 +0000 UTCRemind me of Dennett's? I remember him talking about it... I think...
Guruspod 2
2024-02-27 07:00:08 +0000 UTCNot finished this talk yet, but I was wondering if Mitchell's free will argument was similar to that of Daniel Dennett's?
Robert Andrews
2024-02-27 01:24:38 +0000 UTCYeah I know their overall orientation. You are right to be skeptical but I also know a bunch of Templeton funded projects were they have nothing to do with inserting religion, rather just about studying the psychology of religion.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-02-26 22:51:00 +0000 UTCThat's good to hear, but they definitely have a pro-religion agenda. Just look at templeton.org/news Probably studying ritual was enough to make them happy. I'm glad to know you used their money for something worthwhile.
Randy
2024-02-26 22:40:06 +0000 UTCTempleton funded a ritual project I worked on at Oxford and had no say on any of the outputs/research and nothing published on the project gave any hint about there being God(s) involved. 🤷🏻♂️
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-02-26 20:52:07 +0000 UTCThanks for that link. I guess I'll have to read his book. His brief explanation of his free will theory during your discussion seemed incoherent to me (I'll listen again). I got the impression he was saying he's not a determinist (in the broad sense, including randomness, chance, etc.), but also not a dualist (no ghost in the machine). But then he sounds an awful lot like he's bringing in a ghost to poke a whole in the determinism. Anyway, thanks again. I'm probably missing something, so I'll dig a bit deeper. Interesting stuff.
Randy
2024-02-26 14:19:07 +0000 UTCKirsten - The Templeton Foundation's whole reason for being is to pay people to include (or at least leave room for) religion in science. They're big Intelligent Design proponents. There's a lot of "I'm not saying it's God, I'm just saying it's mysterious and we don't fully understand and some kind of god-like thing totally fits and would make it all sense..."
Randy
2024-02-26 14:05:51 +0000 UTCI think he's the opposite. He does not think that agency/free will has anything to do with mystic forces beyond biology. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/are-science-and-religion-really-in-conflict-the-unthinkable-debate-1.2383902
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-02-26 06:08:30 +0000 UTChttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kevin-mitchell-free-will/id1676100611?i=1000637823031 Are Templeton demanding a higher power? I confess that I have been getting some solace from them. I am feeling like Kevin drops a stitch in the knitting and yet it makes sense to buy the idea that I can act. After all it is more enabling to believe that I can act than not.
Kirsten Greed
2024-02-26 03:14:41 +0000 UTCI enjoyed the conversation. I haven't read Mitchell's book, but based on the little bit of free will talk in this episode, I think I would strongly disagree with his position. Also, my Templeton sensors started ringing about halfway in. I don't know if he's religious, but I started getting the impression he was trying to establish a crack for a higher power to sneak in. Apologies if I'm way off, there.
Randy
2024-02-25 11:07:27 +0000 UTCWhoa Dude!
Kirsten Greed
2024-02-24 04:32:42 +0000 UTC
