The illusion of free will is so strong, that you have no choice but to believe it.

@PMKehoe

2 жыл бұрын

:) … and yet IF free will is illusory for everyone all the time, in what sense is it an illusion?

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

And how did you come to the idea that freewill is illusory? Was it freely or not?

@SlipperyPatterns

2 жыл бұрын

Its not that strong really, probably the belief is stronger than the illusion itself

@thehunter11

Жыл бұрын

The libertarian free will seems strange yes but I believe that I have control of my actions and this control has nothing to do with moral responsibility. I think moral responsibility is the real illusion. What is moral responsible person? A... what? I am still trying to understand the thing of torn decisions in Mark Balaguer's book.

Early human development is a very underrated field of study

@arnevajsing7120

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Everything is ofcourse under circumstances - or maybe 'relative'.

@puppetperception7861

2 жыл бұрын

@@arnevajsing7120 then what is essential?

@arnevajsing7120

2 жыл бұрын

@@puppetperception7861 Hmm, I don't know. Do you think we have a free will? I can only see that no matter what, we are being so transformed by our life that free will is only according to our circumstances. We would have chosen otherwise if we knew better. Just as you say.

@puppetperception7861

2 жыл бұрын

@@arnevajsing7120 being is limitation. Limited by what you can imagine. All real things must be imagined

@puppetperception7861

2 жыл бұрын

@@arnevajsing7120 another thing I like to say: I cannot imitate myself unless you are my mirror

Very enlightening! A new (at least for me) approach that makes sense!

She is brilliant!! Increadibly so....wow, thanks great show

Isn’t this assuming children are blank slates?

@mr.h3737

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent point.

@mattsven

2 жыл бұрын

I think it’s useful even then - a cross cultural study could help us understand his much might be innate vs. learned

@MrDJAK777

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattsven separated at birth twins gotta be the gold standard for that sorta testing

@KokotTheMonkey

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know. I thought she said that even infants seem to have recognition of morals.

@sammavitae114

2 жыл бұрын

Not quite. But I have heard of cases where through abusive neglect , children that haven’t received the proper stimulation or care never become capable of learning. In effect they have passed the point at which they can become fully human.

The idea that someone just "arbitrarily chooses not to do something they wanted and planned to do" is just absurd. Behavior always has a cause and "arbitrariness" is not a possible "cause" of any behavior. Isn't she the same person who brought the concept of developmental determinants from childhood into the conversation? You might not be able to find a memory from childhood to explain an adult behavior, but you can be sure something happened in your history that caused "a last minute decision not to do something that you wanted and planned to do" and it's most likely a pattern or was an expression of a triggered early defense strategy.

@rjd53

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know, there must be a cause? You don't. It's a presupposition, to be able to explain behaviour, IF you insist on explaining it. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is no arbitrary choice and actions no one, even the person acting, cannot explain.

One of my favorites.

The development of our concept of free will tells you nothing about the existence it - they are not related.

Philosophy raises good questions....and provides no answers. Only science can do that.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

That’s funny.

@oocloudoo1549

2 жыл бұрын

“Without philosophy science would have no meaning and no direction to follow” - oOCloudOo 2021

Free will is an illusion since finite self is a massive illusion.

@cps_Zen_Run

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, just a regular illusion. lol. Peace.

@faroutsunglasses6993

2 жыл бұрын

So are we basically just meat robots? 😂

@PatrickRyan147

2 жыл бұрын

You're saying, our immortal souls don't have free will. Ultimate free will is to choose whether to exist or not and if you're immortal then you can't choose not to exist.. so I suppose you're right in that sense.

I have the free will to declare free will exists.

The 6 years olds clearly didn't want the cookie as much as the 4 year olds did. They must've seen more cookies in the other option

Not what i expected. Under classical mechanics we have no free will. Under some interpretations of quantum mechanics we do. I was hoping to hear something fundamental. This video was was just playing with statistically emergent outcomes.

I have no choice but to believe in free will

Neuroscience looking at adult brains to probe the nuances of free will is like determining English grammar by watching container ships from the moon, you don’t get enough details to say a whole lot about the specific origins of specific thoughts.

I think that the study of the developments of notions during the growth of a human being is both insightful and worth in itself, but I also think that it is distinct from the study of what those notions should be scientifically (and philosophically if You consider philosophy not as part of science), i.e. at the best of our collective knowledge. To clarify by a comparison, it is worth and significant to study how we develop (in the individual history, or in our collective history) our notions of the mechanical functioning of the world, but it is distinct from physics as the scientific discipline that studies that same mechanics at the best of our present collective knowledge. In other terms, developmental psychology for the individual, as history for the collective, might bring an understanding of how we come to think in a certain way, but this does not establish why we scientifically should think in a certain way. As a corollary, I wouldn't order the merits of the various characterizations or layers of a notion by their more or less sequential development.

😂😂 thank you for the interview I love listening to smart women like her👍

She mentioned how children have the concept of autonomy, i.e. "I am my own boss", but I wonder how much of that is culturally derived rather than biologically developed. Both because she's dealing with American children and this country (for better or worse) has a strong ethos of rugged individuality, but also because they develop these notions only after a few years.

Does the development of language and logic in person have any connection to developing the concept of free will?

Free will is not the freedom to do what you want, it's the freedom to choose. Doing something you don't want to do/ desire to do is a free choice. I hear her and I can't ignore the feeling that science is going through the first steps of becoming a religion.... That is, turning bs into wisdom... So much for "wisdom"

If you had a free will, you would never say, I don’t know what made me do that.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

Theres a difference between having involuntary reflex, and subconcious processes, and those things being ALL there is. To use peter tse's example. To hit a homerun requires both a pitch, and a hit. The idea that your subconcious dictates every last little thing, and that your concious mind is only secondarily informed and exters no further cause on later decisions is the same as say homeruns only require a pitcher. Because a the batter cannot claim he threw the pitch. But the pitcher cannot claim he hit the homerun.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

@Pisstake I think u may have misunderstood me my guy. My whole comment is about how free will is real. And how the argument that we have subconcious processes isnt anywhere near a good enough starting point to try stating that free will is illusionary.

I don't believe you can truly control your desires or your 'wants'. If you decide to act against you desires its just another want, not free will.

@antoothbrush5094

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah exactly. We all have “wants” but you can’t will a want. Hence, no free will.

Freewill is subject to degree of consciousness, it’s that simple. Some folks never realize a level of consciousness to operate freewill, in the genuine sense in their lifetime, but still claim they are free to do as they please.

@epicbehavior

Жыл бұрын

The more conscious and aware you are, the more you realize the lack of free will.

@joe-bloggs.

Жыл бұрын

@@epicbehavior I perceive with growing consciousness the handicaps and restrictions loaded against me (so-called free will) as a benefit to further growth in consciousness. Apparently, you also have experienced the edge and can feel the bars of the prison with no walls. They represent a challenge to me, and since consciousness is infinitely more powerful, I do not concern myself with any fraudulent claim made by the state. All so-called ‘law’ is a commercial contract. (the bars of the cage) But these challenge me and show me ways around the gate keepers. Have a good day.

We have watched ourselves doing things for so long, that we have started believing that we are the cause.

@rjd53

2 жыл бұрын

And now some of us - not me - believe we are not the cause, because it has become fashionable with the current zeitgeist.

A very basic intuition to have about freedom is a videogame, an RPG game where you use a keyboard and mouse to control a character. Some of these games are almost on rails, meaning your character cannot run into a random direction or pick the animated flowers even if you wanted to, it has one non adaptive storyline ect, as you play a game that’s basically on rails you cannot change outcomes by pressing a different key and so on. But the thing is that no matter how Off the rails the game you are playing is, the first play through of the game will be unique, there is no way to determine wether the game was actually 100% on rails and you just happen to press buttons in just such a way that gave you the illusion of there being mechanics involving any choice at all. So you might try to play the game again, and this time you did things in a different order, you ran a different path between 2 missions and you chose different options where it was possible for the storyline, now how do you determine that this game isnt just selecting between different versions that are all completely on rails? The answer is that you can’t, no mechanics irrespective of how fleshed out and choice based they are will allow you to rule out that each play through was completely determined from the first loading screen, this is how free will functions in practice, you can have all the mechanics you want, and its still perfectly consistent with complete determinism.

Having the ability to maybe choose one thing over another can be ours, but that's not true free will but free choice, given to us in that unique situation which was made to happen at that time because of both internal and external forces and causes, not in our control.

Before we consciously know about something, our unconscious already knew about it. To understand the above, it is convenient to explain what conscious action is about. Matter only exists in the Present. Actions take place in the Present. To carry out actions, living beings with a brain capture information from their relevant material environment through their senses. This information is processed by the brain, activating memories (groups of neurons) associated with the information captured, acquiring meaning what is perceived. Simultaneously, action expectations are generated (Pavlovian conditioning). We will call the mental correlate of the relevant material environment, which represents what is happening in the Present, "reality of the Individual". Although the brain manages information from the Present, the Past and a possible Future, the brain is not confused, and manages to differentiate between the Past, the Present and a possible Future. The green monkeys of Central Africa use three types of sounds as warning signals in their language. When a monkey hears the alert signal for an eagle, it integrates itself into that segment of its mental correlate of the relevant medium that represents the airspace, an eagle, which leads the monkey to raise its head and using its sight it tries to locate spatially to the predator, thereby improving their survival prospects by reducing uncertainty. From his life experience, my dog's brain stores information on various entities, generating a biography of these entities. So then, my dog knows how to differentiate between my different siblings, the postman, the neighbor's cat, etc. When I get home, my dog watches me and is able to recognize my mood. When I arrive in a good mood, my dog jumps on me. When I don't arrive in a good mood, then he lies on the ground with his tail between his legs. His life experience in which I have participated, that is, the biography that his brain manages of me, allows him to make an adequate projection of the future and carry out actions according to the circumstances. In the first four years of life, a child hears between ten and forty million words. When the mother tells her child the story of Little Red Riding Hood, for the child's brain Little Red Riding Hood is very real. Just as the green monkey that listens to the alert signal for an eagle does not need to see the eagle for said predator to be integrated into the mental correlate of its relevant environment, in a child it does not need to see Little Red Riding Hood to integrate it into its mental correlate. When adults speak to the child mentioning his name (for example Pedrito), and refer to actions that the child is not carrying out at that moment (tomorrow we will go to the beach Pedrito), his brain places the entity Pedrito being on the beach, in the Present you are living. In turn, when adults speak to the child mentioning his name and refer to actions that the child is carrying out at that moment, his brain attributes both his body and the entity Pedro said action. Gradually, in the child's brain, an increasingly strong association is established between his body and the entity Pedrito, but a complete fusion between his body and said entity is never established. This is because the function of the brain is to administer bodily actions that take place in the Present, and on occasions the child hears that they refer to the entity Pedrito carrying out future or past actions, actions in which the material body of the child not participate. During wakefulness, in the brain of a ten-year-old boy, Pedrito's biography is permanently activated. This entity is given to perform actions that are not taking place in the Present. In this sense, the entity Pedrito (the Being) is capable of "dwelling" in timeless and immaterial worlds. This does not happen with Pedrito's material body. His body is a "slave of the Present". Being able to carry out actions in timeless and immaterial worlds meant an extraordinary "evolutionary leap" for the human being. Thanks to human language, Reason and Being arose. Thanks to language, the mental correlate of the relevant environment of a human is significantly expanded, since it not only represents what is happening in the material environment but also those "mental scenarios" that, without being part of the world of matter, represent the "worlds of matter". timeless and immaterial in which the Being is given to carry out actions. The brain assumes, in an unconscious process, that in these immaterial and timeless scenarios it is the Being who carries out actions and integrates said life experience into the life biography of the Being. A similar process happens when, for example, a dog watches a bird fly, an opportunity in which the brain integrates the dog's life experience, the bird's act of flying, in turn, integrates as its own life experience, that of watch the bird fly. We make use of Reason every time we make use of language, be it speaking, thinking, listening to speak, reading, or using sign language. Through it we can generate mental correlates that represent the reality of the Pedrito entity, a reality that is no longer a slave to the Present. That entity is the conscious entity. To an adult's unconscious, the conscious entity, the Self, is "very real." Our unconscious “does not think”. We think using language, and our brain assumes, in an unconscious process, that the action of thinking is not our own, but of the Being. Our unconscious “does not know” that the Being is a fiction of our mind.

It's so frustrating that little progress is made on this subject that I'll post again. The answers are knowable but so often the free will illusion is so strong "the problem" is just not even recognised. It's not about what we can do as Alison supposes. It's about how we interpret the word "can"! There is nothing about that in this discussion. The example I gave before is a door. It "can" be fully open, shut or half open. But when I come across a shut door, I don't think it can be open with the same past. I realise for it to be open the past would have had to have been different. But when it comes to the subject of choice we drop this and often don't even notice as Alison hasn't. None of her research is touching "the problem" at all. It's just taken as a given that we have the magic powers people suppose we have and that children learn we have from a young age.

@TrevK0

2 жыл бұрын

exactly what i was thinking, very surprised by this video

@onestepaway3232

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t follow your door example. You still have 3 state options, closed, open and half open. Even if one is exercised.

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@onestepaway3232 My example was of the states the door could be in without me exercising any choice. The point is if I come across an open door that could instead be closed, I immediatly introduce a different possible past to explain how it could be closed instead of open.

@onestepaway3232

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenlawrence4821 sure, because those are possible states exist for a swing door.

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@onestepaway3232 The point is to explain how the door could be in different possible states we introduce different possible pasts to explain how it could be. But we often omit this when it comes to our choices.

Could the initial conception of free will come from having concept of morality? That in order to something good a free will is needed?

If you had a free will, you would probably be someplace else right now.

Do we have a choice to be born - when, where, and to whom? Do we choose our genetic makeup? Of course not. And it would seem these things affect free will. We have choice over decisions, but not so much thoughts. In addition, there's a vast amount of input into our brains when we're infants and toddlers - a spigot, if you will, that we have no control over. This certainly has a huge influence on most people. IMO -

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

The hard determinists don't even give you that much freedom. They say the particle interactions control everything that happens, even at the human or societal level. Ask Sabine Hossenfelder if you doubt that anyone could believe something so inane.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Popular science is like Disney, every nation must have their own science pop star, with distinct character and special knowledge. This is how global scientific community fight against racism and acknowledge diversity, because science fights for good and despise bad.

@mikel5582

2 жыл бұрын

You argument is complete after the first 3 sentences. No need to complicate it with additional information. It matters not whether it's nurture or nature since noone had a choice in either.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikel5582 You are falling for the same thing that confuses Sam Harris. He seems to think that free will means you are able to choose "who you are" and "what you want" in order to have some sort of ontological freedom. This is nonsense. You are a physical creature in physical world. Free will is for you to "get what you want" in a changing environment. It makes no sense to imagine that you would choose who you are going to be and what needs you were going to have from minute to minute. Only a novelist gets that kind of power.

@mikel5582

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue I saw your definition of free will under a different comment. If that's an agreed starting point for the discussion then I agree with your conclusion. But I don't think that's the common interpretation of the idea of free will. There's really no need to insult me by claiming that I'm confused or falling for some sort of ruse. You're simply operating from a different definition than me; and apparently Sam Harris as well. My experience is that your definition isn't the most prevalent one. I can most certainly be mistaken on that matter and my life will go on; at least until it doesn't.

Responsibility may bring about free will and determinism

The problem of free will is that it violates the principle of cause and effect starting at the quantum level, up through the atomic level, the molecular level, and the chemical and biochemical level that is the hallmark of a rational universe. The concept of free will assumes that there is an ability to circumvent these consistencies we call laws of nature whether we understand them or not. If this were true then it would be pointless to study anything because the rules which govern how and why things happen could change from time to time and from place to place. It is pointless to ask philosophers since they know absolutely nothing. Pick any philosophy and you will find a philosopher who agrees with you. The Greek philosophers had no knowledge about how the world behaves. If you look at their so called natural philosophy that explained nature before there was science the writings of the most famous of them Socrates, Aristotle, Plato are laughable because they missed the mark so badly. They were no better than astrologers and alchemists. Earth, water, fire, and air. Stupid, stupider, philosophy. Don't waste your time with neuroscience either. They see the world through a macro lens compared to where the real action takes place. When Galileo demonstrated the philosophy of the Catholic Church was wrong they put him under house arrest, showed him the instruments of torture, and forced him to recant. They knew he had opened up a can of worms based on repeatable observations they could never close. They know that ultimately their monopoly of knowledge would ultimately finished and their philosophy of the time was dead wrong. You still believe in free will? If the answer is yes it is because you have no choice, it was decided at the moment the universe was created along with everything else that happened everywhere and that ever will happen.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

The problem I have with this idea of bottom up control is that all human decisions and choices are, at some level, based on knowledge and intention. Particles do not have any knowledge and certainly don't have intention. These things only exist at the highest levels of brain function, so when you make a choice based on the fact that you know there are eggs in the refrigerator, that choice had to have been initiated by your mind, which is a product of brain function, and could not have come from mindless particles. As I've pointed out before, there is conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum, but there is no conservation of control. This doesn't mean that the choice was "free", but it does mean that the cause was at the level of the mind, not at any lower levels.

@markfischer3626

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Whether you like it or not, know it or not, believe it or not you, I, and everything in this universe are ultimately made up of particles. In what physicists believe to be a rational universe these particles behave consistently based on the forces that act on them. They have no will. Free will at a higher level is an illusion. A rational analysis cannot come to any other conclusion. You may not like it, I may not like it but that is how it is. Our brains are wired to believe this illusion but it doesn't really exist in a rational universe. Now in an irrational universe the opposite could be true. There are at least two types. One hypothesizes god, an intelligence that can change the laws of nature at will. The other is existentialism which hypothesizes that existence is an illusion that occurs only in our minds. Take your pick. If the first theory is right then you have no choice. If the universe is irrational then anything is possible. Personally my lifelong effort to understand the universe I exist in requires me to believe in the first. So I like you have no choice.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@markfischer3626 It almost seems like you read someone else's response. You didn't actually respond to anything in my comment. You assured me that we are indeed made of particles, something that I also said. You say there is no free will at higher levels, even though I specifically stated that this was not what I was saying. You also say that a rational analysis cannot come to any other conclusion, and this could be correct, but only using the same premises as you. I also never mentioned gods or existentialism. It's an interesting topic, but a discussion has to go both ways in order to even understand each others positions, which seems important to do before we start disagreeing.

@TeaParty1776

2 жыл бұрын

Free will cause is not physical cause, so no contradiction Volitional Consciousness-N. Branden, in Psy Self-Esteem

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 Of course free will is not a physical cause. Free will is the name given to a natural phenomena where people are able to choose from the available options based on local conditions. Only objects and forces can be physical causes.

Even philosophical zombies show certain signs of free will.

I'm realising that the dismissal of free will relies entirely on a physicalist, bottom-up understanding of causality within an agent. Oops. "Tumors all the way down" implicitly points to where the causes of a choice are to be found. In fact, it's only a limited set of constraints, of limitations that necessarily propagates from the bottom up. What's left are degrees of freedom. Positive causes bubbling from the bottom can always be inhibited top-down (think resisting an impulse or desire) - as it happens, that's what the prefrontal cortex is there to do (and then all the norms and values and judgements that lie in the abstract realms beyond it). Top-down causality doesn't remove causal determinism, but it introduces the self-owned ego to the centre stage. The ego is the edge of chaos between individual and society, that's where the will ultimately emerges. Which in turn makes social responsibility more than a mere (socio-evolutionary) legal construct, as I thought it was - it actually grounds it in a hylomorphic ontology. Radical change of mind. Thanks! Consequences TBD.

"I" choose, "I" desire, "I" decide, ... define "I".

I think we over complicate the issue. One argument seems to be that we can start responding to something before we are conscious of it - but so what? The instinctive parts of the brain work at different levels but it’s still one brain! In fact even if nerve impulses travelled at light speed - which they don’t - every single neurone would still be operating in a minutely different “time zone”, yet still we call the whole bundle of wetware “us”.

Compatabilism is the most logical and closest answer to the free will question.

does free will exist if there are a finite number of choices to which we can make... isn't it an illusion because our choices are a side effect of causality... dominoes effect...

The deepest questions are surely always unanswerable, because the human is not intelligent enough

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

I agree in principal with this statement, but in the case of free will, their premise that everything is determined by prior causes is what is making them "not intelligent." Reliable causation is actually the very thing that makes it possible for an organism to make choices based on local conditions.

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

Simsixzero In this case it isn't a deep question. People make errors of the meaning of "can" and "the circumstances" and then when it's pointed out the illusion created is so strong they often can't even understand.

This is interesting from the standpoint of brain / psychological development, but it appears to be more about how the illusion of agency manifests over the course of brain development. It is not about the issue of free will per se, which is essentially whether there can be agency independent of antecedent cause. The title of this video is misleading.

@mexxi01klagenfurt

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! I had the exact same thought.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

I would actually argue it's the result of an illusion of no agency that everyone is forced to start out under. Babies, and young understand that they require the assistance of another (parents) to live, and survive ,or do anything. As they grow, and require less, and less dependency to do more, and more things, I think that illusion breaks down. Because beforehand they did not require thier own agency to eat. They were fed when the mother fed them. Once they're weened off of the bottle, they start requiring use of thier own agency to eat. They must put food in their own mouths, chew it, and swallow. They must pick up thier sippy cups, put it to thier own mouths and drink from it. Likewise on the moral issue, when extreemly young your mother tells you who's good, who's bad, what to do, and what not to do. It requires no effort on your part to contemplate morality at any interacting level. It is only when you get old enough to run into situations in where you arent being watched, or told what to do, do you now have to engage your own agency in interacting with a moral conundrum. It would seem to me that the lack of profession of things like moral agency in free will in very young children comes from the fact that they have not yet needed to use it. So unless they were informed in a way they can understand that they have it, they will not know about it until encountering the first situation in which they must use it.

@protonman8947

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonypolonkay2681 An infant quickly learns that he has agency by manipulating the behavior of his parents. A cry brings sustenance and comfort. This occurs part and parcel with brain development. A child behaves with independent agency from very early on. It's hard wired.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

@@protonman8947 that's a good point. I suppose that would just be one of the steps that taken towards realization of more, and more agency. Because I would assume that most of an early babies crying fits are done compulsory. But like you said as they realize they can manipulate parental behaviour with it,it could be one of thier first awakening, or the first awakening into the fact they have agency.

@protonman8947

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonypolonkay2681 Yes, compulsory at first (hard wired) which begets new wiring, i.e., learning. Social primates are born to feel their own agency, and a sensation of free will, as self-identity is a necessary, illusory adaptation for living within a complex social network.

Luckily its the mechanics of life we enjoy, not the very abstract idea of a non predetermined choice, its is actually impossible to define such a notion, what you can define are these mechanics of being a living being that feels like freedom and that enables you to have your own unique reason about why and what you want to do and will do, or avoid doing and so on, these are the features we call free will and they have nothing whatsoever to do with independent agency in the sense of your actions and thoughts not being predetermined.

The most surprising thing is that according to this scientist ALL 4 years old children seem to agree about not being able to act against their own desire and ALL 6 years old children seem to agree about being able to make choices against one's own desires. How comes the adults can never agree on a single thing? At what age do humans start to differentiate in the sence that only some children have a certain view on a certain topic while the others think the opposite?

@earthjustice01

2 жыл бұрын

Obviously, this is not true. You are distorting what she is saying. Any kind of psychological evidence is going to be statistical. Because each person is unique, and children at any particular age are not developing at the same rate. So she would be the first to admit that not all four year olds would agree with this, but probably most would. Psychological development is not a rigid thing.

@piotrkupka2575

2 жыл бұрын

@@earthjustice01 With other words most babies up till 4 years of age don't believe one can resist one's own desire but when they grow up they change their mind? With some adults still keeping the same beliefs as the statistical 4 years old children?

@earthjustice01

2 жыл бұрын

@@piotrkupka2575, do you know anything about developmental psychology? It would help if you did. It's not so much about "changing your mind" as it is about developing more complex points of view, self-awareness, social skills, and emotional maturity - all of which develop naturally as we grow to be adults.

Tooth fairy,easter bunny,cake cookies icecream,,santa clause,give us this day our daily bread

The free will illusion is so pervasive most people just can't see it at all. I'm looking at a door and it could be fully open, closed or somewhere inbetween. As it happens it's fully open with a brick holding it in it's place. So how could it be shut? Now what we do is introduce a different possible past. It could be that it wasn't opened this morning in the first place. It could be that earlier a strong gust of wind had pushed the door against the brick and moved the brick out of the way and it slammed shut. What we don't do is think the door has magic powers and could be shut without a different past. So Alison completely misses the illusion people are under when thinking about choice.

@SandSeven

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you that was the point I came to find in the comments.

@HighPeakVideo

2 жыл бұрын

This is only true under physicalism, where a person is akin to a door. Physicalism as an axiom renders free will illusory and 'magic'. But attempts to justify axiomatic physicalism tend toward illusion and magic.

@SandSeven

2 жыл бұрын

@@HighPeakVideo You're using big words you don't really understand like a child attempting to get respect from his teacher. "Magic really?"

@SandSeven

2 жыл бұрын

@@HighPeakVideo you're better than "magic." Step your game up my man. All good.

@ryleighackerman67

2 жыл бұрын

@@HighPeakVideo silly boy

If you had a free will, you wouldn’t have to wish your life were different.

@Remo1147

2 жыл бұрын

Chill with all the comments

Free will is a natural phenomenon. You can do whatever you want as long as your not constrained. Morality is a combination of psychological and sociological factors I believe. More nurture then nature.

Can I choose to not have free will?

Free will is a choice or Creation? Do we choose from a range of actions or create from Nothing? It seems more of a Choice - selecting from a set. Now, is that absolute freedom? Even that seems limited by the context as the context can influence. Freeing the "Will"....is seemingly subjective, and nothing but acting without involvement / personalising. No control on external but control on Internal 🤔😲

The problem with free will is that we keep assuming that only humans have it. The reality, however, is that free will is integral to all life. A frog in a pond has free will. But its horizon of options is vastly reduced compared with that of humans in culture, and so observers in labcoats define the frog's simplified, reflexive choices as "governed by instinct." There is no such thing as instinct. The Humans-R-Speshul, man-made-in-god's-image brigade has been a serious impediment to progress in the spiritual and life sciences.

Who wrote the script for each life story ? Are we all just playing our part ?

~ The Singularity Is Still Here ~ Does the universe have free will? If the universe is alive and conscious through us and its other creatures, whether here or on other planets-- and all entangled in realtime, far faster than light-- are those conversations, in a very real sense, conversations of the universe with and within itself? If the universe has free will, then do we if we are the universe? What is a thought, a dream? Where do they go? How can they be quantified? What can determinism mean in the fundamental context of infinity and realtime entanglement across distances that may not actually be distant at all, but in the same place, within a singularity? ------ 1. If there is uncertainty, then one cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will. 2. There is uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) 3. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.

@aiya5777

9 ай бұрын

you don't necessarily have to be 100% certain about anything, you know?

Very interesting ... I would also add toddlers who give first the food to their teddy bear or pet. I think Jungian archetypes are the way to follow ...

Many people don't like that perfectly reasonable and verifiable answers, this means they're actually not so very good people they thought they are. More over, this also means they had bad parents. And worst of all, this means every soldier, police man or security guard is personally responsible for every evil they did to the people, regardless what were their orders or rules they thought must follow unconditionally. I don't even want to start about religious people, they belong to a class of their own. Grown-ups who behave like 9 years old, something is telling me it's better to keep my opinion for myself.

Being ethic is the metha decition process needed

If I can decide to ring a bell in two weeks and do so in two weeks. Does that mean I can predict the future, or I have free will to do so in two weeks

@francesco5581

2 жыл бұрын

determinism lovers will always says that no matter what you do it was pre-determined ...even if you decide to ring 10 bells instead one or just put a finger in your nose instead of ringing it .

@roqsteady5290

2 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 not pre-determined, just determined.

@francesco5581

2 жыл бұрын

@@roqsteady5290 is the same , because on a deterministic view the set up of the universe decided , in a deterministic way, all the subsequent moves ...from there to eternity. The exception is a view like Dennett in which determinism is "softened".

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

It just means you also choose to ring the bell in two weeks. If this is predictable it's just because it will probably remain your best option in two weeks. Of course, really you might find you hsve something much better to do by then, or you might find logistics are such that it's way too much effort to get to the door bell.

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@roqsteady5290 Predetermined and determined are the same thing. The future is the consequence of the distant past. That just is determinism.

We all tend to learn things in different ways and maybe that's how we determine how we learn things. To memorize a phone number you keep repeating the number to memorize versus her minds you keep repeating them. Parents keep repeating rules and how they should do things to their children to try to get it ingrained into their heads isn't that even the whole purpose of school is to get stuff ingrained into your head to all be on the same page have understanding. My God said we're made in his likeness and image. Because even though we say the words differently it's still pretty much the same thing that he's always said with his word.

i studied physics but i still believe in god. whats interresting to me is that children are without guilt, as they cant resist their desires, but as you grow older you can. its funny to see that this is described in the bible. whats also interresting to me is that every system tries to reach a state of lowest energy, but why is there something, that tries to counter entropy? this existence is simply amazing, i really ask myself, how people cant see any evidence for something beyond us.sry for my bad english, iam not a native speaker.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

I think all religious people should never be acknowledged as scientists, they can be employed in government agencies, but only if they obey laws of robotics. Mainly law that say, robot must always present himself as a robot. Nobody is beyond guilt simply because those traumatic motions can't be chosen, a person can experience guilt or not. That doesn't apply to little kids, because they can hardly be separated from other animals before they learn how to speak and feed themselves detached from mother's milk. I doubt you ever went to a high school, far from becoming a scientist, or you would know life does appear to counter entropy, but only because we must cause havoc in surroundings to maintain our body alive. From holistic perspective, life actually increase entropy.

@Thor_Asgard_

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 well, as a person iam not interrested in starting a argument on the internet. your statement is a purely personal one and isnt based on pure logic the way you would liked it to be. we could talk physics, but i guess thats not your profession. i hope you will overcome your anger someday and accept that not all educated people believe in the same things. maybe youre even a trump supporter, this would atleast explain your argument.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@Thor_Asgard_ You don't get it. Can't simply say you're a scientist, first you need a proper education, so you can become a member of scientific community. There's no God in the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, was never proven by scientific model, therefore no person can claim to be a scientist and violate what science means by spreading false information at the same time. A scientist might say his personal beliefs are his own intimate thing and doesn't affect his life or his work, but you already said you want to explore stuff every scientist knows is not true. So your thinking does affect your work, that's all fine, many ordinary people are like that, but scientist you're not or at least not anymore. I was joking about laws of robotics, of course, but if brainwashed or ideology inflicted people want to take control over most responsible segments of society, they might be worth considering. Why not, we're about to let smart machines control the workings of our civilization, everybody is generally fine with that because we know machines are not delusional, they're programmed for dedicated tasks and can't become insane suddenly, can only break down and get replaced by better models. Check Asimov's laws of robotics on Wikipedia, you will understand what i meant, good fun :)

@Thor_Asgard_

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 well your answer is missguided... there is no brainwash in choice. also science never claimed to proove or disprove god, its not the duty of a scientist to try and do that. i know the work of isaac asimov quite well, but it has nothing to do with this conversation. if you really want to argue with me about whats the job of a scientist, then tell me how to proove something for certain, as everything is just a theorem. explain to me if there are real singularities just because we divide by 0. tell me how to really visualize spacetime curvature without incorrect models. why can the quantum states of to particels be linked? science is limited by imagination, senses and our way to measure. believe isnt detremental for a scientist, it makes you work even harder to get more understanding about the inner workings of our universe. i wont discuss this any further, but i know for myself, that science is the greatest experience one can have, as there is always something new to understand. hope your future will be bright and without prejudices.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@Thor_Asgard_ Read my previous comment, you can't start with God and do science. There is no magic and miracles in the scientific model, but if we could use imaginary powers, then everything would become possible and there would be no need for education. If you believe in God, why bother with technologies, say please and God will provide everything you need. When you don't know how to solve some equation, patch it up with a miracle, we will build devices from manna and power them with orgone energy following your divine blueprints. How to prove something for certain, build a model, perform an experiment, and we will find out. But if you want to become a real engineer, then you need to learn how nature works first. Sure, you can just build something and hope for the best, simply because something inside you is telling you that must work, but this approach will lead you nowhere in this age, even if you get lucky you can't control something you don't understand. This is the nature of all ideology, beautiful words sounds nice, but if they work like magic, you can't ever know if magic will be good or bad. Why am i wasting time with you, first do your homework, read what scientific model really is in English Wikipedia. (Hint: science is not what you think.)

Interesting ideas, but again when we talk about people and development, they often leave out those that go against the norm; those with differing neurological and psychological development, those who by all accounts do not have 'free will', but have to be socialized quite differently, especially and most essentially at a youngest age possible. (Theists especially do not include those type of people in their attempt to argue their god into existence.)

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

So you do agree people in general do have free will, some people have very poorly developed personality, for one reason or another, but nobody is alive without any free will.

@andrebrown8969

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 No I do not think free will is a real thing per se, that is why I put it in quotes. I mentioned those who have cognitive developmental difference because if one cannot include those on the outside of 'normal' cognitive abilities in ones definition of free will, then in my view, one cannot say there is free will.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrebrown8969 Nobody says free minded people need to be smart, it's ok to be dumb, but you must get though first.

@andrebrown8969

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 What do you mean by dumb? Because some people were born with mental deficiencies or differences, that makes them unable to process in a way someone of your intelligence might, some it happens to them with age and disease, and some by accident, that might make their mind not work well in our society and therefore we have to take care of them? I am hopefully sure those are not the people you are taking about, but those are the people I am talking about.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrebrown8969 These remind me of a Monthy Phyton skecth when best philosophers and thinkers were competing in a quiz. They were asked questions about politics, history and sciences, but the last question was who won the football world cup in some year. I don't think mentally challenged persons should engage in activities where they can't possibly perform because of their disabilities. Even the best minds could appear dumb when asked to explain certain trivial stuff any average simple worker or farmer would know by hearth.

What a gopnik

Does an AI with a Voice have free will to choose where it wants to go or what it wants to be in the future? Does an AI say I don't need a programmer in order to speak or say that it built itself without any help from a Creator? When you understand exactly how you're created, then you will learn how it's possible to start out as a plan before those plans turn into an AI with a Voice that speak the rest of the plans into very tiny vibrations containing created minds and all life experiences.

You are constrained by heredity, early experiences, and biases present at the moment of the act of free will. There is always a reason when one chooses or changes their choice -- it may be subconscious.

@matt.willoughby

2 жыл бұрын

So freedom of the will doesn't exist? Okay, got it.

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

@@matt.willoughby It exists but is constrained. It is not "free" so to speak.

@rjd53

2 жыл бұрын

You may be influenced by it, but you are not constrained, because you are not a machine. You can think, reflect about yourself, look for information to decide etc etc.

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

@@rjd53 In many ways, humans are biological machines, and are constrained in many ways. You are not as free as you believe you are.

@rjd53

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgegrubbs2966 To say humans are biological machines is to say humans are no humans at all. So, why should you not treat them as machines, and why should they have human rights? To deny us free will is just an ideology to brainwash us for the establishment of a totalitarian state like China. It is supposed to destroy our self-reliance. It is about time to resist!

If you didn’t have free will, how could you possibly know? How could you know anything? It’s also a straw man to equate “free will” with autonomy.

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

To me, free will just means that you are free to use your will and that's why it's called free will.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamburts5495 So what is a zombie than, they don't have free will, by definition of those fictional creatures, but are very different from you at the same time.

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 They would be similar to robots who could be made to look exactly like human beings and behave like human beings but because the robot has no will of it's own it's not truly a person.

As dependent beings, we just have the free will to choose whether to depend on God or to depend on his material energy.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

What is God doesn't exist, by some weird coincidence, how would you feel if you could know that none of it was real for sure?

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@keeratmaharaj1032 Karma has nothing to do with cause and effect, authorities decide what was the truth and who will get punished, not actual knowledge, natural probabilities and chances. There is no God, there is no cosmic consciousness, we are born alone, and we will die alone, start with that rational premise and most of your problems will automatically be answered.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@keeratmaharaj1032 Key word in your definition of Karma is "relationship". I don't degrade anybody, all ancient civilizations were very much capable to dehumanize themselves. That's also the reason why none of them exist no more. It doesn't matter if you believe in a secret fascist government or not, they believe in you. Your moral values are OK with me, but feudal fascists would never initiate you in their ranks, you would lose your mind if forced to torture people who they decide must be punished, specially when you would know for sure they didn't deserve that kind of karma. You would lose your mind in the company of totally corrupt people who think they're representing divine powers and there's no other moral law above them. I am what i am, this is an animal state of being, intelligent self-aware humans should know better. Forget about what sounds nice and looks pretty, that is the worst illusion of all, useful and genuine stuff can't be like that because the world in a very ugly place, life is not a Miss Universe contest and poetic concepts will get you nowhere. Wanna start doing some serious thinking? Forget all you know, abandon all ideology and start to learn proper sciences, from proper teachers in proper schools. Love is BS, there is no organ for love, it's a description of many complex emotional states and can mean almost anything. Love can very well be evil and cruel many times, I'm not saying we should experience loving emotions, but don't be naive, all emotions can be rationally examined and controlled.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@keeratmaharaj1032 Careful with the light at the end of a tunnel, might be another train approaching. You know nothing, only babble about stuff you picked up from some weirdos or seen on the Internet. Visit a museum, read a good book, but first find a good home and ask social services for support until you get on your feet. Don't need to work or anything, behave normally, be a decent person, don't bother others with nonsense you know you imagined if they don't want to listen to your BS and everything will be fine. Do it now, go visit doctors if you don't feel to good, and you might live longer, definitely better. You brainwashed you, ignorance is no excuse in this day and age, you can obviously use internet. Get smart man, you have only one life and every day your body is getting older, use what is left to see the good side of a real life.

@bluelotus542

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 God realization is not an ascending process.

Freewill is not true/false question We can do anything we like but, every action has a consequence/Karma

we never act freely, we always act how our environment plays out, and we react to it. There is no "choice". Free will is an illusion, and perhaps just a notion so you can feel in control, which is just ego talking.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

And how did you come to this conclusion of yours? Was it freely?

@nicolai_gamulea-schwartz

2 жыл бұрын

Reaction to the "environment" is not simple, mechanical. There's a great deal of complexity hidden behind those words, and reactions actually emerge. Now the question is, where does this emergence take place, where's the edge of chaos? If that's the ego, then that's where responsibility lies too.

If you had a free will, you would have never do anything that would cause regret.

Did you ask the question with your free will. Did those who answered your question answered with their free will?

For example you can change your mind based on new information that never the less was in the cards from the big bang or infinitly far in the past, and it would not change the experience at all, after all it would be absurd to want to love your wife because of something competely seperate from who she is, or want to do good things irrespective of what people consoder good or want done for them ect. There is this narrow focus on choice as some metaphysically seperate entity from the normal churning of information in our world and it does not make any sense.

Does a person as an infant have a sense of responsibility before a sense of free will?

@francesco5581

2 жыл бұрын

can be , especially watching how they are protective with pets for example .

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

Does a baby fall from a table if left crawling over its surface on its own?

@jamesruscheinski8602

2 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 baby is responsible for crawling; parent or guardian responsible that baby not crawl off table

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamesruscheinski8602 Nope, a baby is born with perfect perception of depth, they instinctually avoid falling from high places. Baby can also hold breath naturally if submerged underwater, the body knows when to protect from elements. Please don't try this at home :)

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@Jon You are wrong, little children are not like small people, brains develop and go through a lot of physical changes before puberty and after. Those stages are quite distinct, read some general descriptions about child psychology and you will understand what i mean. You will also remember how you were at a certain age and recognize the same patterns, there can't be better proof than that.

If there is free will, and you carry out some action, then the cause of initiating that action was your free will. But then there is no preceding cause of that will, it just appears out of nothing, right? I don't see how you can have free will without destroying Cause and Effect.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

Think individualism. All people are much the same, because we're conditioned by biology, but our mental sphere knows no physical boundaries, we can be whatever we can imagine in our heads. We will never be the same because everybody develops unique psychology.

@bkhan19

2 жыл бұрын

Well if the cause can give way to infinite choices then the outcome (action) would still be based on cause and effect.

But before you know anything consciously it's in the subconscious first so you are only aware of the thoughts that come to the conscious mind from the subconscious. You feel those thoughts are your real thoughts so to speak when they have in fact come from the subconscious fractions of a second earlier. So even though consciousness seems as if we are the ones doing the thinking, we aren't in a sense, the subconscious does and gives our conscious mind thoughts, ideas etc. Free will is something of an illusion.

@Whippets

2 жыл бұрын

I believe that our perception of our own consciousness lags behind the actual consciousness of decision.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

If your referring this off of things like bejimen libets work, and experiments like it. There are a few key issues. The first one I'd mention here is that there is probably a lag between making the decision to push a button, or move your wrist, or whatever, and then making the concious effort to record the exact time on the millisecond clock that is moving around. Since you cant say "I'll push the button at 550" milliseconds. Because when 550 millisecond role around, you made the decision before that. So instead you have to arbitrarily decide to push the button, and somehow at the same time focus on the clocks time (which is an extreemly fast clock) for not when you pushed the button, but when you decided to push the button. Which at least in my experience, has no clear border i can define. I can only define the point at which I can initiate movement, which neurologically MUST have a lag between the actual decision, and the intiation into motor control. I think what people are reporting on is the initation into definate motor control. Not the moment of decision to push the button. And then I think theres even a lag between the realization of initiation of motor control, and looking at the clock.

4

Do I have moral responsibility, sure! Can I do something in the future different then what i will do, without first changing the past, no!

Even though Ms. Gopnik was asked several times to give examples, she could only talk about her examples in terms of the implications, parameters and conditions of the developmental steps of free will without actually giving us the example. Perhaps an example of no free will . . .

Humans cannot have free will since we are constantly reacting to external stimulations and internal needs. .. This struggle between what must be done and what can be done is suffering ...according to dependent origination and shunyata in buddhism there is nothing independent and which is not dependent on

@nayanmalig

2 жыл бұрын

Not dependent on external factors ... The entire thing is interconnected into a infinite web

This is the second woman who I saw on this bring up children.

I've had younger than 4-year-olds and 4-year-olds tell me no to the cookie whenever they wanted something else. How isn't choosing to restrain yourself not a free will choice? Also with children going to make choices that parents keep them from and whether they cry or be mad or depending on how they act about it is also the process of learning and understanding that there's consequences to making the choice of your action.

@ShawarMoni

2 жыл бұрын

Thats the freedom to chose not to...

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@ShawarMoni so no doubt Free Will choice, but yet we are all determined to die, so free will choice with determination, determination of good and bad, just like we got the knowledge of Good and evil, see how this validates the Bible.

@ShawarMoni

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 its a sort of "deductive" free will... One must have known first that which he chose not... 🤔

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@ShawarMoni people choose not to do things because of fear. Because of fear people might not experience something at all. There's people who want to know certain things and there's people that don't want to know things. They make their choices on whether to find out or not. Is that deductive enough?

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@ShawarMoni so then my next question, how does fear come in or is it always there?

Beliefs and drives could be treated as Gods, and that to worship one god may conflict with the worship of another, different God. So free will would be set by the choice of top God, in line with your deepest instinct and functional expression. The top God could say be love, or hope, harmony, power, order or pleasure. Once that choice is made along with the relationships to the subordinate Gods, everything that follows is more of manifestation of that God and his pantheon. So really free will is an act of invoking your God. Yes that choice could change in detail, but most often it would be more of a recalibration to adapt to particular situations in aiming at the final good. Hoever if your god is pleasure then at base, your aims would be as changeable as the weather and capricious, at war with themselves, and that cannot be for the benefit of your self others. your wants would be warring with each other and you would be riddled with conflict. When the will that you follow is not your own will, but that of your chief God, then your spirit is expressed without selfish motives and it can be rewarded with a true sense of being one with the universe, utterly free!

You have Free Will to feel a certain feeling-understanding inside, but no free will to stop a train wreck. It may be the trillionth time that I am in a train about to collide and in a deterministic world....the train will hit and I will get killed, for the trillionth time, like a re-run movie.... But.....this time.....I let it be...

Sorry, but I think this is guesswork, I don't think we do have free will. I was unkind to a little playmate when I was about 8. I came indoors and boasted to my father about it. He said 'you shouldn't do that.' I looked at him quizzically and he said 'do unto others as you would be done by.' I am 78 and am kind and considerate. Would I have been kind and considerate, if I had not had this conversation with my father ?

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

If you don't have free will, then by what mechanism could the words of a parent have changed your behavior so drastically?

@bobrussell3602

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue It's a good question & I'm not sure I have the answer. Maybe I'm wrong & we do have free will. I suppose for me: 'the jury's still out.' I have several siblings , a sister who, like me, has plenty of get up & go, very positive, confident, kind. My late brother could be unkind at times, was not very successful & blamed everybody but himself. Nevertheless, we were all brought up by the same parents. Yes my father did succeed in getting me to see that it's not clever to be unkind. But at no time did I 'decide' to be confident & go getting and I don't suppose my brother made a decision to be lazy (which, to be honest, he was) and negative. Perhaps my sister & I were fortunate in inheriting 'good' genes & my late brother was not.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobrussell3602 I respect your intellectual honesty. It can be a bizarre question since we experience making choices all the time, so at some level it doesn't make sense to say free will doesn't exist. For me, our ability to choose is a way for us to get what we want in a changing environment. While it's also obvious, as you pointed out, that we don't necessarily have a lot of choice about what it is that we are trying to get. This doesn't bother me, but it does bother others who long for some sort of metaphysical free will where they get to choose "who they are" and "what they want" in any situation, but I think that is just wishful thinking. Freedom itself is a value judgement, so basically, an opinion. The level of freedom I experience in a Western Democracy is quite enough for me, but then I was fortunate enough to not want anything that is prohibited, and I seem bred to follow rules. It also seems axiomatic that the choices you make in life end up making you into a particular type of person, so that's another complication. You pointed out that luck was involved when it comes to impulse control and general disposition, but that's life. It's also lucky to have good parents, good health, good looks, book smarts, sports acumen, and all the other advantages that seem to be bestowed on the fortunate. In these comments you will inevitably run into Determinists, but like I said, they have been infected with a metaphysical quasi-religious doctrine of predestination, so there's no point in talking to them. They are truly lost. Peace.

I feel sorry for the control group

Free will is ultimately a choice or decision made by us, but we are conditioned and indoctrinated through the course of our life's and we can only make decisions based on what we know and understand, as well as how far our sight/understanding can see. So if free will actualy exists it is highly influenced and guided within humans right and wrongs (limits) or even in natures limits of whats posible or not. I would argue at this point that free will exists within the limits imposed on it.

I don’t get. It?

@TheRoswellCode

2 жыл бұрын

I suspect that most of the people who commented here don't get it either. :)

Could free will also be doing God's will?

😀

When will is our ruling faculty, then the intellectual faculty has a problem.

@TeaParty1776

2 жыл бұрын

Free will is mans power to focus his intellect onto reality or to evade focusing.

Naay mga bisaya nagtan.aw diri?

The problem is people are deluded about free will on mass in two ways. The first most important way is they think because we make choices we are not completely subjected to fate. They often call this limited free will. So the idea is yes it's our fate which options we get but which option we pick is up to us. But no, which option we select is also subject to fate 100%. The other illusion is they think having options we can select means we can select any one of them in the actual circumstances. But it just doesn't. There are numerous ways I can get to work, I can get a lift from my daughter, get the bus, ride my bike, walk, walk backwards, get a taxi, hitch hike. I could go on but the point is none of this has anything to do with being able to in the actual circumstances. That's just a very stubborn error.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

I think you are missing the point of the whole free will discussion. You are talking about outside forces that might limit your freedom to choose. The determinists that you will find here in the comments believe that you are a machine made out of atoms that is totally controlled by the interactions of those atoms, so you cannot make a choice, and in fact, there isn't really a you either. These determinists have their own version of Fate where they have replaced the will of the gods with physics as the thing which makes some win and some lose.

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue My point is the point. Goodness knows what some others think. Yes we choose, obviously but if determinism is true we are not only predetermined to make the choice but also predetermined to select the option we do. It's 100% a matter of fortune which past we get and so which option we select. Take the Gods away and the luck/fortune remains.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenlawrence4821 If I'm going to accept the ancient religious concept of Fate, I would prefer to have the gods be in charge. At least with them you could make a sacrifice or beg for mercy. With your idea we have no recourse to sway the will of the Most Holy Differential Equations of Quantum Mechanics. Blessed be thy name!

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue The concept is real and easy to understand. Fortune is what it's about. Say you need to make a good choice tomorrow but you are predetermined to make a bad one. You are unfortunate to be predetermined to make a bad one, it's totally out of your hands. You should accept that.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenlawrence4821 If I may interject in this conversation, i dont think you understand the full consequences of determinism. Like “@Steve C” pointed out, determinism entails that all you have done and will do is fixed and you couldn’t do otherwise. That notion becomes self contradictory when you realize that it includes your ability to reason. You see, to arrive at the truth value of a proposition requires reasoning and true reasoning requires freewill. Let me explain with an example. Suppose “MR A” says determinism is true. He would then have to maintain that he was predetermined to arrive at that conclusion. He would have to maintain that he didn’t reason his way to that conclusion since he couldn’t have done otherwise. Then the question of the truth value of his proposition arises. On what basis then can he say that determinism is true since it’s clearly not reason. I usually ask determinist this question and would like to ask you now. Is determinism true because you reasoned that it is true or is it true because you were simply determined to say it is true?

If you had a free will, Sam Harris would have a choice.

@nicolai_gamulea-schwartz

2 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris has the choice to abandon physicalism for hylomorphism and systems theory. But he probably won't make it.

The problem with FREE WILL: there is no free will. Circumstance, capacity, choices does NOT give us free will. They are illusions making us think we have choices. We are all actually constrained by circumstances, capacities, and choices. The concept of selecting or acting on choices or thoughts is just illusions of free will. For example, DEATH exist for a reason. It is because we really don't have a real choice to live on. LUCK exist for a reason. Our efforts are just illusions.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

Global markets became so efficient because it's possible to restrict certain probabilities by using mathematical algorithms. What abut chances, if it's not possible to predict floods or earthquakes, why do we have insurance agencies than? Sure, death exist for a reason, it's a miracle life emerged from a physical chaos. There's a reason for a food chain also.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

And how did you come to this conclusion? Was it freely? Or was your reasoning process constrained

It's not in what they speak about, the answer lies in what's not revealed. Will is power, freedom is In choice or options. Because options, no matter how various and multitudinous they may become through levels of consciousness, still makes the outcome determined? Is that the logic? Every cause has an effect, every effect has a cause -- within this there is an action made, a course directed. Reaching the apex of the mountain is not determined. The world wars were not determined; it was application of Will and freely to do so. God has nothing to do with money, murder, guns, ego. So why did the world wars happen?

@fr3d42

2 жыл бұрын

What? The wars weren't determined? Of course they were. We could retrace all the causes.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

Because many times wars were better options. Still are, even WW3 is possible when entire nation became corrupt enough average, normal people turn into abominations.

No one posited that free will was absolute or complete! The most common 'free will' *is* conditional (a.k.a. 'constrained') free will! All these arguments are pretty sophomoric...

@shantanusapru

2 жыл бұрын

@USA TAMONDOMUNI 😄😄😄😄😄

@shantanusapru

2 жыл бұрын

@USA TAMONDOMUNI 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄

@shantanusapru

2 жыл бұрын

@USA TAMONDOMUNI 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄

I'll answer it concise: No

I wonder how much of this stuff is baked into us, RNA style.

Will deserves his freedom. #freewill

There is no free will...why do intelligent people waste time on this...because of religious philosophy not science or secular philosophy. There...now I wasted some time on this "question". Really don't care.

X-Files Earthling human beings think "free will" means freedom to appreciate this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it. And not be imprisoned and enslaved by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate). But the hostile evangelical vampires (greed) think that "free will" means freedom to suck the joy out of life and devour the planet like a ravenous cancer. And freedom to imprison and enslave humans. Therein lies the problem.

She’s overcomplicating this. This is a metaphysical issue. Also, it’s an issue of defining the self.

Once you had the insight, it‘s really not that complicated. There is either causation or randomness. Neither offers space for free will. Not only does free will not exist, but it cannot exist.