I'll never understand how this channel doesn't have a million subscribers.

"Literally any second I'm on Twitter, I think, 'Why am I on this? I shouldn't be here. This sucks'." Mike is my spirit animal.

I hope Mike and Casen realize we all still appreciate each and every podcast, regardless of viewership. I knew a game like this would have fewer views (I'm sure they knew that as well), but they always give 110% and put out great content each and every time.

A big weakness in the “no free will” hypothesis is that it’s not useful. If there’s no free will, one doesn’t even have the choice whether or not to believes in free will. It’s irrelevant whether punishment for crimes is ethical because the punishers also had no choice in how to respond to the crime. There’s no response to the understanding because there’s no ability to control response at all. So if there is no free will, it’s irrelevant and uncontrollable whether or not you believe in free will. If there is free will but you don’t believe in free will, you still have choice but you don’t understand accountability. Yes, I know that’s Pascal’s wager but applied to free will instead of the existence of God.

Thank you Mike, Casen, and Max for the Planescape podcast! You all gave us a lot to think about, particularly relating to the Nameless One. (1) One point that I thought was quite interesting that the podcast didn't address was the relationship between Morte and the Nameless One. According to Chris Avellone himself: "Morte is responsible for the deaths of more than one of the player's incarnations and is believed to be responsible for the death of the first incarnation as well, but there is no evidence for this other than Morte's suspicion. Morte sticks with the player seemingly out of “Mimir” responsibility (he's not a Mimir), but in fact, it is Morte's guilt - the one noble emotion he has, although he refuses to confront it - is what drives him to try to help the player on his quest." In a sense, Morte is also like the Nameless One in seeking redemption for the wrongs that he wrought, which leads him to join you on the quest as well.

Easily the best series on this channel so far. Thank You very much, guys!

I just wanna say that I really appreciate that the discussions you guys all have on these podcasts have really been eye opening and thought provoking, and I appreciate you all for having them! I particularly like when you get sidetracked and have these deep thoughtful discussions that go on for much longer than intended. That's where the really good stuff is. Thank you guys.

They actually do explain the reason for Morte sticking so dogmatically to The Nameless One, but like anything in this game it's possible to miss it. We don't know the exactly nature of the heinous crimes committed by the original "Good" incarnation. However, whatever they were, Morte was the person who goaded and deceived The Nameless One into committing those crimes in the first place. This was the crime that condemned him to the Pillar of Skulls before The Practical Incarnation removed him from it and restored his agency. As a result, he feels deeply regretful for all the centuries of pain and torment his original deception caused, and vows to remains with The Nameless One no matter what. And if that means that the current Incarnation has free reign to torture and abuse Morty, then in his eyes it's only fair. After all, he deserves it. (As a side note, as a bit of trivia, fans often refer to the player character as "The Last Incarnation" because he's the one that breaks the cycle regardless on what his morality is, and he's the one who comes back as himself whenever he dies.)

I loved you're guys conversation about free will. A few years ago i started to realize i believe that people have no free will and we are all controlled by outside influences. I also since have become even more pessimistic and spend most of my time alone. I realized this when you guys brought up that socially if you dont believe in free will you start to not see people as people but more like machines performing preset tasks. I appreciate you guys making me realize this! Love the podcast!

As for caltrops, I'd say many to most D&D players are familiar with these. Since this is a D&D game it seems like and apt comparison.

When talking about free will and the justice system I was wondering if you were going to bring up Cherenkov and reconditioning from Xenosaga when you brought up how future society will view how we handled criminal ‘choices’.

I don't think there's any show that can get me to finally play a game that's been sitting in my Steam Library like Resonant Arc can. The show's better than ever, fellas.

Thank you gentlemen for all your hard, work.

Recently came across their retrospective reviews, now diving into the amazing catalogue of podcasts. I played planescape along with this and it feels like an authentic bookclub. Gonna get my buddies into it and hopefully play along together.

Casen mentioned the Greek myth of the original humans being round and unisex, which was already something that fascinated me in my Socrates lecture that I was visiting in my first semester at university. It reminds me so much of the one-winged angels from Xenogears (imo the best video game narrative). I wonder if Takahashi and Saga were inspired by Plato.

I haven't finished the game so I can't see the video yet but thanks for playing this game for the channel!

Appreciate the edits Mike, going to enjoy this one!

Dan Dennett's conception of free will is far more persuasive than Sapolsky.

Love this series - thank you!

wow the camera quality for this eps so good!

Regarding the Practical Incarnation's regret; It could probably be something as simple as he regrets not being more cunning/evil. Perhaps he found himself too "kind" in a moment, where in reality the chance to further gain something was a possibility.

I hope at some point you guys play Disco Elysium (edit: just got to that part lol), there's a lot of parallels and contrasts with Planescape that are very fun to discuss. For me, the highest points of writing in Planescape are higher than those of Disco, but Disco Elysium is a more consistent, total experience, with wonderful art and more consistent writing for all the characters.

at 33:09 i think what mike is describing can be remedied by the frequent practice of thanksgiving. when you have gratitude on your mind for all the good things in your life, you are probably going to feel less guilty about having them, regardless of whether you deserve those things or not. my thinking is to never assume you deserve anything, but be grateful regardless. the two don't contradict, i think. I don’t like reducing our experiences to merely the random acts of chemicals. I think there is a clear spiritual component to these things. Yes, things like hormonal imbalances do influence these things, but I don’t believe they make up the totality or even the majority of these phenomenon.

Some thoughts: If there is no free will, then it is hypocritical (if, apparently, inevitable) to criticise the legal system for inflicting the inevitable punishments upon people for their inevitable actions. More generally, people who argue that there is no free will seem to invariably go on to criticise others for choosing to believe otherwise, seemingly unaware of the contradiction in their position. --- If a computer can detect you making a decision before you can consciously detect it in yourself, that just tells you that you are wrong about when you make the decision; it doesn't establish whether or not you are wrong about making it. --- As I understand it, Compatibilism sidesteps the question of determinism v free will by defining "free will" as the normal operation of our decision-making processes. If I reach a decision (however pre-determined it was) through my normal thought processes acting on largely correct information, then I decided of my own free will; if I was co-erced or deceived, then I didn't. --- Personally, I reason that if I have a choice in whether to believe I have free will or not, then it's evident that I do have free will. It's only if I have no choice in what to believe that I could be correct to believe I have no choice in anything I do or think. So, assuming I wish to avoid being wrong, I should attempt to choose to believe I have free will. There are echoes of Pascal's Wager here, except that I find the later generally unconvincing. --- I agree that the question "what can change the nature of a man?" leaves a massive ambiguity by not defining "nature". When some classical sculptor created the Venus de Milo, did they change the nature of the stone? Or does the nature of stone include the taking on of statuesque form when operated on by a talented artist with hammer and chisel?

Excellent as always!

Xenosaga Episode 2 next????? HOLYYYYY

Regarding the discussion of free will: Can't our thoughts, decisions, choices, and so on can be highly structured or circumscribed without being *determined*? An analog to this still comes up frequently in my field of anthropology: environmental determinism vs human agency in shaping societies. In truth, it's not really one or the other. The environment can pose some limits or favor certain societal structures, but it's not determining that a simple foraging society exist in a specific environment or a complex "civilization" exist in another specific environment. A society emerges from the interaction of human agency with specific environmental conditions.

This is the one time I wish we had a bizzilion episodes, because there's SO MUCH to talk about. Yesterday I stumbled upon the gallery and the couple of side quest-items there, so SO interesting. Discounf Reekwind *hiccups*, and Raver herself... There's so so so much.

If you are getting more into these western style RPGs, I think you would really dig Pillars of Eternity. Don’t want to spoil anything but there is a ton of story element to analyze in that game! Plus it has a nice difficulty mode where you can literally focus on the story only and basically auto-win combat (in addition to many scenarios having non-combat resolutions)

Trying to catch up on this, and one thing I can say with regards to playing through Planescape: Torment as an "Evil" character. I'm a goody two-shoes. I don't do 'evil' runs. I've read a number of LPs from people who do the 'evil' runs of most games. Even for achievements, I often can't do it. Most games, the 'evil' side is just...cartoony. Delusional madmen, people being cackling murderhobos, Mass Effect's Renegade being a racist douchebag, the dark side storylines of any star wars game being a 'lulmurder'... Then there's Planescape: Torment. So many attempts from people to do 'evil' runs quit at the first conversation with Deionarra. Because TNO immediately realizes she's in love with him, and he knows *he can use this*. He can *manipulate* it, and he acts **exactly** the way you see in the Sensory stone, except you're in his head, and he's being so fulfilled by how much he's warped this abused person to his will. People quit. Because it's *so* horrific, it's so monstrous to be in his head.

31:00 In a way your situation made me comfortable as I have found ( once again ) that I am not alone in having this depressive curse as I like to describe it... It is almost like writing talents or penchant for words entwine around certain DNA helix and byproduct manifest itself as a tendency of a brain to be on a "sad" possible sides of life... p.s. I like how the debates and lectures ( from Hitch to Sapolsky and beyond ) that are with us through youtube for the last 20 years are like common language, cards we shuffle in modern discussions. 45:10 Is my distilled suspicion in words every time I think about the modern hard right. This type of thinking is no longer responsible and many social affairs given to hard right ( religious?) is not putting me at rest precisely of that way of thinking buried deep that informs theirs decisions... 50:00 Peter Watts (Blindsight fame ) described in one of his interview the case of Homicidal somnambulism. In Canada few years back guy killed few people while being still in sleep.Peter's niece had this case presented in her Law School, guy went free. Look it up.

I really hope you guys mention Nordom in the final episode, he's (it's?) a bit of a secret companion but has some really fun dialogue.

Obviously the other people who Ravel posed the question to didn't have the same answer "options" as The Nameless One but not just that, I was even thinking that perhaps the options given in the game to answer the question are all the answers or at least some of the answers that TNO gave Ravel in previous incarnations. That would be supported by him having a "crawling sensation" in the back of his mind when she is about to ask the question, which is later revealed to be something that occurs every time the original man who TNO was is resurfacing in his mind (for lack of a better way to phrase this).

I have to wonder if people that argue for the non existence of free will realize they are arguing for the existence of a materialistic form of fate. Biochemical Destiny.

Oh shit, I’m so glad you all discussed Robert Sapolsky! I’m reading his newest book right now and it’s been so interesting, great podcast as always 🔥 Also to Casen’s point about the issues with a lack of free will and the criminal justice system, the second half of Sapolsky’s book focuses on that (but I’m not done yet so I don’t know his conclusions 😅)

I am dying to see you guys do Disco Elysium!

You guys remind me of the Colonel from Xenosaga that kept having his mind wiped, yet he would still murder someone

Lets gooo gents!

As a determinist, I think the critique of fatalism and dehumanizing patterns of thought are fairly misplaced insofar no human has full predictive capabilities with respect to future outcomes. The fact of the matter is that even if everything is determined, given broad and distant future outcomes are incalculable, and perfect certainty is unattainable, not only must determinism be understood only as a very aloof descriptive claim about the universe, the future actions of sophisticated creatures like the human ape must be seen as a kind of "Schrödinger's cat", or "Schrödinger's future" if you will. A good analogy would be to how we treat dice rolls or coin tosses. We all know there's absolutely nothing random about either. If a dice or a coin is tossed multiple times in the exact same way, under the exact same conditions, they will(insofar the laws of our universe don't spontaneously change for no apparent reason) always land the same way. But, because seemingly no-one has that steady of a hand, because there are few such static environments, and because no person can calculate the factors necessary to predict the outcomes, we treat dice rolls and coin tosses as though they're a valid means of arriving out random outcomes. Clearly, the outcomes of dice and coin tosses aren't random at all, yet they're sufficiently oblique to us there's no point acting as though they aren't. Determinism is like this, imo. To me, determinism seems almost necessarily true, since I don't know that there's any coherent definition of free will, nor does randomness seem to apply to any physical phenomenon except *possibly* to particles on the quantum level, which has no discernable bearing on causal relationships on the macro scale of events to our knowledge anyways. However, because I don't know how I've been determined to act, nor do I know how others have been determined to act, I've literally no choice but to act as though the future of both is uncertain and could pan out any number of ways. I indulge my delusion of "free will" under that condition. That, however, does not mean that the observation of determinism isn't true or impotent or void of merits. For one, it serves as a sober reminder that people don't choose their circumstances, genetic or environmental, and that it therefore makes more sense to treat the worse angels of our nature with patience, sympathy, and a practical problem-solving mindset, rather than with spite and vindictiveness. It's also a reminder to be humble, recognizing that non of us are truly "self-made", but huge beneficiaries of the vicissitudes of fortune insofar we were even born at all, much less with the capabilities to sustain ourself in an otherwise very hostile universe. Going, "well, what's the point of these reminders if you're either determined to appreciate them or not, and cannot choose to do so," is the actual impotent argument here, because, as previously stated, non of us know which way "the coin" lands on that question, and thus we literally cannot treat it like anything but an open one. While it may be the case that I "merely typed this comment because I was determined to do so," and that I'll only convince those already determined to be convinced with it, pointing that out isn't so much of a critique as it is simply a vaccuous reformulation of the stance on offer as though there's something absurd going on, and without argument or justification at that. You'd be exactly right. I am only typing this out because I was determined to do so. And your reaction to this comment, is also just another determined outcome. But so what? What does pointing that out entail in regards to my comment or your response to it, except acknowledging the causal factors which produced these outcomes? If I give you a material scientific account of why the apple fell from the tree, will you look at me incredulously and repeat it back to me with the implication that there's some great issue with it? No? Then why *exactly* do you suppose you do when we're talking of human behavior? The only reason you're responding incredulously is because of the intuition that there's a ghost in your meat-machine making choices. However, what if that intuition, your very sense of self, is just a passanger in remote-controlled a car, convinced that they're driving because they're sat behind an apparent steering-wheel, turning it to and fro in response to the curves of the road without recognizing that the alignment between the motions of the wheel and the tires are just coincidental with the signals directing the car, rather than actually steering it? What then? Is your intuition really sufficient to decry a model that's parsimonious with 99.99% of our physical models as "absurd" while embracing a model that doesn't seem to even make basic linguistic sense in its place? Ultimately, nothing seems more absurd to me, and I'll end on one of my favorite sentiments: I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than be right for the wrong ones. Whether you think determinism is true or not, leaning in favor of free will over it, given where the arguments and evidence lies, appears foolish to me when it means obstinately indulging the weaker of the two. Even if the universe isn't determined, the reasonable thing to do, is still to indulge the likelier hypothesis on offer until better ones are formulated. And, a determined fool is no less of a fool than a free one =P

Is there a term for a kind of prejudice to people of the past? It always strikes me a little odd when people of the past are belittled for the way they understood the world, when it's their thought processes that, eventually, laid the path for us. In fact, I'd say people had sharper minds back in the day, since they had to use it more. Indeed, we know more about the nature of the world but I'd say on the whole a lot of people have apathetic brains due to reliance on technology. I certainly have. Then again, my family lineage is farm hands and hired helpers. So what the hell do I know?

in re free will: if one denies free will and thusly accepts determinism or some variant of it, then making the statement that determinism is true is itself a determined process. making any kind of truth claim as a claim rather than as a determined process (or rather, illusion), contradicts the content of the claim that determinism is true. it's kind of like how denying logic always fails, since attempting to do so is a logical process that affirms it in the attempted denial. same with claims that there is no universal truth. saying there is no truth is a truth claim! as for compatibilism/emergence of free will, i don't think secularism/materialism can really reconcile the two. i think at some point one must concede that there exists an indeterminate, immaterial attribute that every human carries that allows for the existence of things like will, understanding, knowledge, etc. i think godel's incompleteness theorem shows this to be true. what i'm not entirely sure about is what this faculty is referred to. the nous? the hebrew notion of the heart? the mind?

I hope you guys will play Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver games soon. I would love to hear your thoughts about the game's really good story.

Yeehaw

"This is unimportant." No, no. Keep going. I want to hear more.

Hello Resonant Arc my name is Isaiah and I have something important to say to you. God loves you and like any father he wants to help you and keep you safe especially from the evil one. But I am not just speaking to you about this I am also talking to your fans about this. God loves you all and especially in the times we our living in we are in need of him more than ever. But the choice is ultimately yours have a nice day Shalom Shalom.

I comment as I watch, but the fact that no one mentioned "In knowing I grow stronger" when Mike was talking about dementia and knowing what's behind it is such a missed opportunity.

1:21:00 I have attempted to make a poetic re-endition of this sentence in Polish. For some time from time to time I am translating differently than bots for the pure pleasure as a defiance to deepl :) Bots still lacks the flavour, the poetic imaginative option. I only wish we could mark an option in translators to give us poetic variations. deepl gave me: łańcuchy go nie trzymają, wiara go więzi I went for something like this: \ łańcuch fizycznych przyczyn go nie trzyma, tylko wiara rozpalona ogniwem łańcucha in English it renders: A chain of physical causes does not hold him, only faith kindled by a link (cell) in the chain

I hope you guys one day do "Disco Elysium"

Is it fair for one’s soul to be punished for eternity, if we don’t have complete free will?

Great show, however one thing bothered me from this conversation. The assumption that progress will always continue, like 400 years later we will be so advanced and people in the future will look back at us like we are living in lesser society. Europe regressed drastically since Rome fell, and had dark ages that lasted over a thousand years. It's not until Renaissance Europeans found old Roman wisdom again, and rekindled humanism and continued progress. This is not isolated in just Europe either. Japan during Tokugawa Shogunate period isolated themselves and stalled progression for nearly 300 years. Human progress is not a given. Only when society is designed to allow people to think free is when progress were made. In history, civilization with such condition has been rare, and we were lucky to be born within such civilization. I think to assume this progress will indefinitely continue is being bit naive. Our default state has been mostly regression or maintaining status quo, which I do fear we are nearing such time period again.

People don't know what caltrops are? Dang. I think I picked that up in elementary school from playing Tenchu😂 Who says video games aren't educational?

Writing this comment in the middle of the free will discussion in the episode. The book "Evil or Ill" might be of interest if the legal side of that debate interests you.

Are you suggesting that humanity will leave or change our assumptions on blame?

From an idealist perspective free will is real because we all operate around it every single day. It is embedded into our very existence. Nobody is able to live the life of a cold determinist. How can you call something that is a mandatory part of human existence false? Just look at how emotionally unhinged Sam Harris gets when discussing Donald Trump, lol. A determinist should be able to sympathize with even the people they loathe the most and yet even the most scholarly determinist falls back on the conception of free will nearly every single moment of every single day. From a pragmatic and ethical perspective you need to exist with the core emotional assumption that people have free will. I think this hints at a more fundamental truth than anything empiricism has to offer. How can you separate our experiences as humans from our perceptions? How can you say someone's experiences are false when experiences per se are subjective? Kant rather eloquently pointed this out. This doesn't even touch the topic of there being a spirit.

Haven't finished the episode so I'm not sure it has come up, but you should all read Behave and Determined by Robert Sapolsky. They very convincingly argue against free will. edit: and you literally bring him up immediately after I posted this comment. My bad.

I am fully onboard with Robert Sapolsky's stance on free will, including that the notion of anyone deserving punishment is both cruel and absurd. On the topic of whether or not the Nameless One is responsible for his previous incarnations' actions, I would go as far as to say not only is he not to blame for their actions, but that everyone of us is continually remade, moment to moment, and are no more at fault for what we did a second ago than he is for the deeds committed in his previous lifetimes. We are only a causal expression of what came before, and our selves are in a constant cycle of death and rebirth within a single lifetime. While I may be more similar to my self of yesterday, I am no more him than I am the child I once was. I have to add as a caveat that we should still at times face consequences to serve the greater good, it's just that no one deserves punishment, and the consequences should always cause the least harm/suffering necessary to protect others. Also, an attitude of willingness to learn from and atone for previous mistakes and harmful actions is still beneficial in the absence of free will.

"What could they do for a schizophrenic person?" (45:35) Well, at the very least let him live 😭

Sry did Casen actually play the game? He projects as extremely fake and disingenuous. The laughs are extremely distracting. Mikes been carrying the podcast along with Max, when hes able to give input.2 out of 3 aint bad, i guess.