As someone with DID, I have come to view the concept of a single self as a bit limited in that internal conflicts don't mean that a person is constrained by external forces so much as they are at odds with themselves. When I myself experience such conflicts, they present directly as one of our identity states getting upset at the other. We are functionally independent. But one cannot say that "I" am slighted by fate here. There is no "true" me. Even with one identity, how do you decide which drive is more real than the other? -Lauren On "randomness is compatible with responsibility": this is in line with the common plural/DID concept of "system responsibility"-- which is that if one identity state does something, then all identity states are deemed collectively responsible. -Blend If we were to merge into a single identity at some point, it would be not unlike the process described at the end of the talk where a new identity is distilled from "randomness". Definitely similar things have happened with us (and perhaps all people, to some degree). -Lauren

If all the decisions right up to picking up the gun and trying to shoot someone were also randomly chosen then where does responsibility come from? The last example was just randomness that eventually becomes determinism. Until our choice become determined by our characters our choices are not reason specific making them less blame worthy if at all. So the point still remains determinism is needed for moral responsibility.

I see a connection between Frankfurt's compatibilism and psychological concepts of immediate and delayed gratification.

baba booey

He looks like a skinnier Hume, with a slightly better hairstyle.

Amazing lecture!

And it isn't the neurons making any decisions, its their behavior relative to each other and the larger body which is making the decisions. Just like neither you nor your lymphatic system are 'choosing' to produce and create lymph, neither are you or the individual neurons deciding to produce thoughts, intents, actions, etc., or at least that's the argument. If you think you can make decisions without any of these neurons or atoms or electrons, feel free to give it a go.

Why is part 8.1 missing?

Subjectively speaking - our existence has either been influenced by intelligence or not. There is currently no publicly-known, objectively-verifiable, scientifically-reproducible, peer-reviewed evidence sufficiently leading to proof that either is the objective truth. It is a choice to believe one or the other is the truth. Whichever you choose - you are using the concept of faith. Faith is belief without proof. Objectively speaking - only one is the truth and our subjectively formulated opinions or lack thereof have no affect on that objective truth. Such is the nature, beauty, and glory of The Truth - He is perfect and unbreakable.

It has been and is continuing to be investigated. Google 'neuroscience and free will'.