You didn't freely choose to use a clickbaity title. The reasons made you do so

@paulogeracao683

2 жыл бұрын

You spared me the trouble of phrasing my thoughts! TY!

@georgedoyle2487

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulogeracao683 “You spared me” Ho the irony!! Sorry but there’s no such thing as “you” or “spared” or “me” under a strictly reductive materialism, determinism, atheism or philosophical naturalism as “you” are just a determined machine, a biological and chemical robot. Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis!! The fact is that under this self refuting, strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system your ironic truth claims are nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur!! Sorry but was your “me” claim rational and moral or was it just determined? Was that a rational and moral claim or was it just the determined delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas? Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) Why “ought” we take the truth claims of determined machine, that is an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is truth, that is value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, objective morality, universals, the conscious agent, free will and with it rationality, truth, and science itself than to admit the soul/self. Once again, the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very (dogmatism) of which he accuses the religious believer, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed!! I rest my case!!

@paulogeracao683

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle2487 nice reply! too much of an effort for a playfull reply such as mine was, but i do apreciate it!!

@georgedoyle2487

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulogeracao683 This is beyond ironic!! Sorry but “too much” according to who? According to the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or according to a determined machine, a biological and chemical robot? Or perhaps according to a determined evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas? Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis!! Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive materialism, determinism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, “you” including your ironic “too much of an effort” argument are just the brains user illusion of “self” and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! The fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system there’s no such thing as “mine” or “nice reply” or “effort”!! These are value claims, ought claims and everything just (is) determined by accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless, matter creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities under this self refuting deterministic world view!! Your world view, your absurdity, your determinism, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with “logic” and “truth”? that is value claims, that is ought claims when it claims that something is “too much effort”? This is comedy gold and is hilarious!! “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your absurdity, your determinism, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth” “The belief that the most luxurious slide into the VOID and into oblivion is the highest ideal and virtue of the human being” Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting….

@TheSupreme-Seven

Жыл бұрын

Smh

I'm shocked at how precise his wording is

@KalebPeters99

2 жыл бұрын

It really blows me away every time how eloquent Alex is. He's such a wonderful speaker

@ray_x6959

Жыл бұрын

anyone can be like this. learning the definitions of words and how to use them exactly helps out alot

@stahu_mishima

Жыл бұрын

@@ray_x6959 true

@smilloww2095

Жыл бұрын

Yeah exactly. I feel like im decent at communicating when it comes to writing, as I can think about my words and even edit them later. But when it comes to speaking most of the time im just sitting there thinking about how to phrase something or what word to use...

@korviscapetrova5269

11 ай бұрын

How right of you we should aspire to become better

Good job Alex, you left them with no choice but to clap

@buttofthejoke

7 ай бұрын

I suppose they were _moved but reason_

@switzerlandful

4 ай бұрын

They had no choice since they had no free will. Or else it was Mr. Hypnotoad in the audience.

I have been clickbaited, but I'm not upset :)

@BriannadaSilva

2 жыл бұрын

Tehee me too!

@colinpatterson728

2 жыл бұрын

good for you - I hate bait and switch

@ScottsOnTheRottenCotton

8 ай бұрын

I mean they did boo

@WayWalker3

6 ай бұрын

Good choice. Or, was it really your choice? lol.

@Criticalthinking_

4 ай бұрын

How do u get clickbaited when the titel is factual? 🤔

Girl behind him seems to be impressed by his speech a lot.

@andrejmarkovic5644

2 жыл бұрын

exactly! :D

@Extys

2 жыл бұрын

Well Alex is VERY tall

@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke

2 жыл бұрын

That's his mum

@ASMRyouVEGANyet

2 жыл бұрын

Haha. Yeah, thirsty as hell. 🤣

@DarkMatter1919

2 жыл бұрын

@0:51 she yawns... She's not interested.

People have told me that believing in no free will create psychopaths. That even if there is none, we should act as though there is. But to the contrary, I find it increases compassion for less fortunate. Where as free will justifies vengeance, a lack of forgiveness, and leads to the conclusion that less fortunate people are in that position because they didn’t care enough to get better.

@tangerinetangerine4400

2 жыл бұрын

We have no choice but act as if we have free will, even though we most likely don't. Even if everyone agreed that there is no free will we are still stuck with the illusion. There is no way to avoid that. I don't see how lack of free will can create psychopaths.

@GregVidua

2 жыл бұрын

Right. As I believe there is no free will, I realize that all addicts, criminals, homeless, are so because of no particular fault of theirs and as a society we should make it of utmost importance to help those people out - at the very least by following the Pareto's principle, of helping the most with the least effort. Which really means having paid by the society health care, retirement, child care, social housing, base income and so on.

@nickman9639

2 жыл бұрын

@@tangerinetangerine4400 You can certainly treat others as though they have no free will

@lchameleon

2 жыл бұрын

I very much agree and it's not just with extreme cases like this but with literally everything. Realizing that everything is ultimately out of people's control and that there are always reasons for everything helps us to be more understanding and become compassionate rather than spiteful as soon as possible.

@tangerinetangerine4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickman9639 You can certainly be more understanding of people's behaviour. Or choose to ignore it. Do something about it or not. If you do something, it's going to be something specific that you chose. You are still stuck with the illusion of choice in regard to that understanding.

Very well said! 😃

@psychologynerd7280

2 жыл бұрын

Free will doesnt exist for spectators especially if you're done a riffle force.

@psychologynerd7280

2 жыл бұрын

@No One lmao. Did you even understand what i was saying

@ASMRyouVEGANyet

2 жыл бұрын

I remember seeing your comment a while back, then checking your channel, only to be disappointed that you were no longer uploading magic videos. Glad to see you started again

I got so scared by the title but then Alex's speech calmed me down.

@braeduin

11 ай бұрын

Same here, I was hoping that he got booed because he went to Oxford. Glad to see I was right.

Mate… I hope you made a move on that girl behind you. She was completely in love dude, giving you the eyes !

@ASMRyouVEGANyet

2 жыл бұрын

🤣 she waa thirsty as hell

@anagonyaowusu3119

8 ай бұрын

@@ASMRyouVEGANyetthat’s his mom! 😅

@elien832

4 ай бұрын

​@@anagonyaowusu3119 bffr?????

@ComplexConfiguration

Ай бұрын

Uhm.. I wish you gl in life, you're gonna need it, if you think that was "in love" eyes..

You can see Hitchens' influence in his every gesture

From being booed to being applauded. Cosmic justice served! lolol

Whenever i make a mistake, my coping mechanism is just that i didnt have free will so its not my fault

"You don't have free will - now let me try to change your mind".

@switzerlandful

4 ай бұрын

But even the people who disagree with him had no choice to disagree since they had no free-will according to Alex. And even Alex himself, if correct, didn't arrive at his position due to his will, so I'm not sure why anyone would applaud or boo him unless its just what they're doomed to do in the end. I honestly don't think his position makes sense.

@switzerlandful

4 ай бұрын

This reminds me of Raz Algul's line "...training is nothing, WILL IS EVERYTHING!"

Reason moves you, not the other way around. Well said!

he knows how to milk the clickbait out of every title. lol

@samvandervelden8243

2 жыл бұрын

He doesn't milk, he is vegan

@benzenefire

2 жыл бұрын

@@samvandervelden8243 a title isn’t a conscious being, though, so ethically speaking he can milk it all he likes 🤷

@KomalGill

2 жыл бұрын

@@samvandervelden8243 he milks almonds

@yoavco99

2 жыл бұрын

@@samvandervelden8243 soy milk

@proudatheist2042

2 жыл бұрын

@@samvandervelden8243 mylk* lol.

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex! Damn, exactly as I predicted! Way back, when you were trying to decide the name of your channel, and you took us to the Tea shop you worked at, I said you were going to be 'up there' with the Four Horsemen! Love these glimpses into your life. I hope you get to see the boys ,'SWISH' once in awhile. You've important work though. The most important, taking down the Animal products industry! 👍🥰💝✌

@DarkMatter1919

2 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah.... I believe you! 🤣

@faznaz7455

Жыл бұрын

The last comment aged like milk😂

@laurajarrell6187

Жыл бұрын

@@faznaz7455 Yes, I know now that he's no longer vegan. But I believe he still feels the industry is horrible. And he did always say, even if you can't go full vegan, being aware is the most important factor. 🥰✌

_Booed by the Cambridge Union_ At least they couldn't help it. ;)

I didn't click this video because of my own free will. I just wanted to see someone confirm stuff that I already believe.

Pretty good ... was that THE Dr Dennett in the room? Then it was pretty bold, too. Well done ;)

Where you been? My brain been ingesting KZread trash and shorts? Maybe you have recommendations of other channels you personally watch?

2:02 The girl with the low cut dress is absolutely *swooning* for Alex.

@pratyakshkumar8940

8 ай бұрын

Fr

@nolo5220

6 ай бұрын

no, you morons just don’t go outside. she is just listening

Proud of how fricking far you have come. From such humble beginnings and now this. Very well done, I congratulate you deeply sir.

@WayWalker3

6 ай бұрын

Yes, he has really developed himself. That's not just of benefit to himself, but to others who may like to gain understanding of what can be quite subtle exchanges.

@switzerlandful

4 ай бұрын

Why be proud of him? He didn't do it out of free will, but rather was destined to whether he wanted to or not (that is if he has no free will).

That's the British way of dropping the mic I believe

So... if I am quite hungry (but not necessarily starving) and my body craves food, but I decide against what my body wants (due to my knowledge that its wrong to steal), did I use will power to go against what my body craved? Or was I destined to do it regardless? And if there is no will or free will, then why was it hard to struggle against my physical craving?

The 2nd girl on your left has a crush on you

@marcinkanski2878

2 жыл бұрын

had to rewatch it a few times 2 get what u mean but u might actually have a point

@OldCleisthenes

2 жыл бұрын

She has no choice otherwise. She’s been smitten by reason.

@ASMRyouVEGANyet

2 жыл бұрын

Thirsty as hell 🤣

I did know this debate was going to happen!!! I love you both. I'll watch the debate right now. 😀 😀 😀 Although I'm pretty sure you're both in agreement about the facts.

I did not freely choose to click on the video, the clickbait title compelled me to do so

I’m so confused and feel betrayed.

The choice comes before the debate. You allow yourself to be convinced or not. Certainly people decide never to be moved or convinced no matter what evidence you present them with.

Much vegan love from the Caribbean

Well damn. That’s one of the best responses I’ve ever heard.

I have no choice but to be convinced.

A lot of traditional methods of motivating hasn't really been effective for me. Most of the time it is because someone will say something like "you just gotta learn to motivate yourself" or some nonsense like that. However, when I can break something down and see how my actions are determined, I've actually been a lot more productive. For me, free will not existing is actually a good thing, so I'm not sure why people defend it so much.

@fragileomniscience7647

2 жыл бұрын

Learn mathematical logic, computability theory and information theory. You'll become a human god.

@JM-us3fr

2 жыл бұрын

@@fragileomniscience7647 Well I am a mathematics masters student, but I've never studied computability theory or information theory. I certainly hope to be a human god someday lol

@balintvarga5146

7 ай бұрын

Quite old comment, but I'll take my shot: in what way does it help you? What thought process leads you to be more productive by giving up on free will?

@JM-us3fr

7 ай бұрын

@@balintvarga5146 Yeah I left out a lot of details. The idea is that once I restrict my thinking about my possible actions, I can focus on only that which I _can_ do. It also helps when I am feeling guilty about the past because I can more readily see how past events were inevitable. It also helps me be more compassionate, seeing others’ mistakes as circumstantial rather than intrinsic to their character. Similar reasoning has also made me more tolerant of people’s differences. In general, having a deterministic mindset has generally made me a better person. Focusing on the causes of people’s actions helps me see how the world will play out, and accept the inevitable rather than rage against people’s mistakes due to a supposed lack of integrity.

Spot on. If there is something to be called free will, we obviously haven't figured out how to define it clearly, and certainly not well enough to test/demonstrate it. I can't choose to like chocolate. I either do because certain pathways of my brain made that association or they didn't.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

If you have five pieces of chocolate in front of you where you like all equally, what makes you decide whether to pick one or the other?

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

My question would rather be; do you follow some soft form of determinism; "A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills", or do you believe in hard determinism where you are bound by your fate?

@Voidsworn

2 жыл бұрын

@@paddleed6176 Good question, but it doesn't include the variables that would influence my decision. Assuming the pieces are identical...how are they arranged? How does the light hit each piece? How far are each piece from each hand? When I saw the pieces, did I see any of them before the others? Was I already looking in a certain direction and therefore focused on a certain piece when I saw them? All of those and any personal psychological quirks, not to mention just regular old neural noise affecting the neurons involved in this decision.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

@@Voidsworn Assume you stand in a circular room with the items in a perfect sphere around you in identical conditions. Also assume the room is mirrored so you see all the identical items at the same time in the same way no matter where you look.

@Voidsworn

2 жыл бұрын

@@paddleed6176 if you are covering all the controllable variables, then all that's left is my personal specific neural quirks and noise ( such as do I have a tendency to reach for what's closest to my right hand? Or do I reach for things left to right like when I'm reading or top of a stack?). A room like you speak of likely wouldn't exist or would send confusing days to my brain, kind of like the floating image illusion using mirrors.

Whew! By the headline, I thought he'd got booed for being an atheist, but only for having belonged to the best debating society in the UK.

Where is the self that either has or doesn't have free will ?

What was the reason for this Cosmic Clip?

The verbal tilt on this guy

Put out the whole vid.

I completely agree with you Alex. I always say, for those who don't agree with him, choose ANY proposition about WHATEVER subject you prefer that you think is true (or false) and try sincerely believing the opposite. Even better, if you really believe that you can choose what you believe, try choosing to believe that you can't choose what you believe.

@pl3459

2 жыл бұрын

A binary system can be switched and flipped.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

This is in itself not an argument for or against free will as you are the reason, it is not something separate.

@felicien93

2 жыл бұрын

@@paddleed6176 Well, please try sincerely changing your opinion about any truth claim (any subject just you want, science, theology, sociology, you name it). Use your free will only and share your experience. I would be very interested.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

@@felicien93 You are implying it is not possible to delude oneself. How do people start believing in things like the blank slate, flat earth, astrology and religion?

@felicien93

2 жыл бұрын

@@paddleed6176 If someone is trying to know whether a proposition is true or false, he/she can not choose what he/she believes. Different things can make you change your mind about a proposition. I can think of: -learning new facts about it -changing your core values - realising that you were wrong (for example if you realize that you did not understand an argument) I probably forgot things, but I think that choosing to change your mind because you prefer the opposite of the proposition is not one of them (if you are actually trying to know what is true). Someone could use my grandmother as a counterexample. She believes that heaven is real and that we will all get there when we die. I think she believes that because it comforts her but she is scared by what the truth might be and thus will not look too much into it to stay in her cozy ignorance (which I respect and don't want to disturb). This counter-example doesn't work because she chose what she believes, but only because she is not that interested in knowing the truth. You could ask, if we don't choose what we believe, then why don't we all agree on everything? There are lots of reasons: we don't all know the same sets of facts, we have different sets of values, et,. If you think that you can change your mind because you choose to, then I have a challenge for you. Choose a proposition that you really believe is true or false. It could be anything. "Abortion should be (il)legal" "reincarnation does (not) take place at death" "there is a ninth planet in our solar system" "breakfast is the most/least important meal of the day",... It must be something that you really want to know whether it is true or false. Then, without learning any new facts about the proposition, try to change your mind about it. I think it is impossible.

Free will doesn’t exist, not just in the deterministic sense, but also in the “Nobody actually knows what the hell it is.” sense.

Reason moves us if we allow ourselves to be so moved. Has it never happened in the history of the world that someone has refused to "listen to reason"?

Maybe we should say that the basic definition of free will does make sense.

You’re an amazing speaker …

“If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” _Fyodor Mikhajlovitj Dostoevsky_ ? I do not think like this myself, but it is very interesting to think about. Because how would Fedja live up to what he wrote, if he was actually convinced that Christ is outside the truth?

So, ultimately, how did you choose the things you chose to say? If i want to hit you, but i dont, what ultimately decided that Im not going to hit you? If I want to smoke, and I choose not to, how did I do this? What stops you from doing 1 more push up?

I am compelled...

Being convinced by reason or argumentation does not necessarily mean that a person will believe your claim no matter how compelling your argument is. People will either act on or reject your claim depending on whether or not the person cares about truth. Most people don't care about truth but just rely on feelings. Personal preference is the immediate determining factor to a decision. Personal bias also comes into play in one's reasoning as to whether or not an argument is convincing

I take issue with the definition involving the possibility to have acted differently (or that it's the definition most people would use), because ... how and why would you want to act differently? If put in the exact same situation, in the exact same mental state, with exact the same amount of information you had at the point, you will always weigh up the pros and cons exactly the same and take the same action. That is deterministic, and the alternative suggests randomness, not a lack of freedom. You take all the pros and cons and come to a conclusion about what the best action would be (in your opinion). If you would take a different action if you roll back the clock, that suggests in one or more cases you're not taking the action you'd most prefer to take, which sounds like the opposite of freedom, or it suggests what you consider to be the best action changed, which contradicts the assumption that everything is the same. If I go to the same restaurant every day and order the exact same thing, then what I eat is essentially deterministic. It doesn't mean I'm not free to pick anything else (not from the point of view of free will, but rather just in the sense that they also serve other things that one could order). If, on the other hand, they just bring me the exact same thing without asking me what I want, that's still deterministic, but I'm not free to choose. If they just hand me some arbitrary meal, then it's not deterministic, but I still wouldn't be free to pick whatever I want. If I pick a random thing every day, it's not deterministic, but I have the freedom to choose. If I end up eating the same thing (or taking the same action, to bring it back to free will), it's deterministic, but I could either be doing so freely or not. Those are 2 unrelated ideas. Yes, I'll concede that free will can't exist given determinism if we use the definition you used, but the definition just seems like the exact and direct negation of determinism and I can't conceptualise how that definition would make someone "free" (it's an unreasonable definition of free will). Although I'm not convinced a reasonable and useful definition of free will even exists. We have free will in the sense of being able to act according to our own wishes. But we lack free will in the sense that those actions and wishes, as well as the entire rest of our minds, have been determined before we were even born (as a direct result of determinism). Both cases are trivially true and that raises the question of what idea one would even want to convey with the term "free will".

@montaltaria8547

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with most of what you've said, but I think where we differ is that your definition of free will as having the possibility to make a choice if determinism is ignored contradicts your recognition we act out our own wishes, as you mentioned in your conclusion. It is true that we are able to act according to our wishes, but your following point, that we lack free will because those actions and wishes were determined before we were born, contextualizes why I believe you're wrong to call acting out our wishes free will. If we lack free will because our actions and wishes were determined before our birth, then actions and wishes cannot be defined as us. In this vein, seeing as in your second paragraph you described free will as your realized self being able to choose (given your example of picking a random meal every day), then your recognition that your wishes, as separate entities, make the decisions, disproves the concept of free will given your use of the word, because you show a characteristic difference between the decision-maker, and your realized self.

@blueredingreen

2 жыл бұрын

@@montaltaria8547 "your definition of free will" - I didn't define free will. I was criticising on Alex's definition. It contradicts my recognition that we act according to our own wishes because that's my entire point: Alex's definition implies that it's possible for us to _not_ do the thing we most want to do, and we therefore wouldn't be free. My point is not that if someone always acts according to their wishes, then they are free. My point is that if it's possible for someone to not act according to their wishes, then they are not free (because in that scenario they wouldn't be doing what they want to do). (If you don't understand the distinction above, consider: "if it is not raining, then uncovered ground is dry" vs "if it is raining, then uncovered ground is not dry". The former is false, because you can wet the ground in other ways, but the latter is true.) "I believe you're wrong to call acting out our wishes free will" - under which definition of free will? But yes, under one definition of free will, that wouldn't be free will, as I acknowledged in the last paragraph of my previous comment. Under a different definition, it would be free will. The issue is with which definition of free will we're using. "your recognition that your wishes, as separate entities, make the decisions, disproves the concept of free will" - pretty much, yes, but, again, only according to a specific definition of free will. Alex made a video a while back about free will not existing. At the time I basically fully agreed. But that was just going by the colloquial understanding of free will (which roughly translates to non-determinism). I don't think he defined free will there. Once we actually get around to trying to define it is where I realise the issue. One definition of free will suggests you'll do things you don't want to do, while the other claims that you can be free even while all your actions have been decided before you were born. They can both be valid definitions, but both fail to match the colloquial understanding of free will. This is probably because the colloquial understanding just doesn't make sense and it all seems to go terrible wrong when we try to turn it into a concrete definition.

What is the reason for holding one belief over another without free will. The answer is always just the big bang. If you want to have different reasons for belief either you have free will or simply aren't engaging in reasoning.

@victormd1100

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, we analyse the arguments from both views and our minds decide which one seems more reasonable to us, then we just follow the specific one because it gives us more dopamin or whatever chemical. This, i think, is what's going on when we start holding one belief

What if I'm just not sure? Do I choose to not be sure or does it choose me? Because I'm still not sure.

i hope someday i'll find someone that looks at me like the girl in the back looks at Alex

At what point in this video does he get booed?

Me watching someone say free will doesn't exist on the day before my test makes me not want to study more 😂 Hey I'm not free to decide otherwise!

What? No mic drop?

Reason does indeed move us. At least, those of us willing to listen to it.

Yes, but you can chose the evidence you observe and you can also chose more precisely which proposition’s evidence you chose to observe, thus choosing what you give mental assent to.

@LordOfTime23

2 жыл бұрын

No you can't. Just like you didn't choose to read my comment. It just happens.

@JohnnyHofmann

2 жыл бұрын

@@LordOfTime23 Well, your comment provided no evidence. If I were faced with 2 books, one titled “Evidence for Elephant’s Existence” and another titled “Evidence against Elephant’s Existence” and I only chose to read one, I thus chose what proposition I potentially give mental assent to.

@siraf1234

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnnyHofmann Yes, but you were still moved by reason from the book. Even if you didnt pick up a book you mightve been moved by a reason that the books are rubbish and not to be read. You dont move the reason the reason moves you

@LordOfTime23

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnnyHofmann tell me when exactly today you decided to put before your eyes these exact letters written by me. Knowing what these letters say. Knowing what they will cause to you. And you decided to cause 1 thought instead of other.

@JohnnyHofmann

2 жыл бұрын

@@siraf1234 Yes, I’m not denying we’re moved by reason. I’m simply saying we can chose to search for what reason will move us.

Hello Alex, love your work, and I always check out your videos. I recently came up with a strategy that could reach a large population to connect with the animal exploitation effectively. I just need this plan to reach an activist linked to a wider network, to pull it off. I've tried on groups, DM ed profiles but no luck so far This could prevent killings in the upcoming seasonal rituals, combined with the shortages. I'd like to share the plan with you, let me know how I can reach you. Thank you

Excellent clickbait. Had me laughing!

Is this the next Christopher Hitchens?

And then there are these roadblocks in place, installed by whatever ideology, that makes one not be moved by reason.

LOL love the opening.

Brilliant 🤣 you show them Cambridge lot who’s boss.

Though in principle everything comes down to physics, I think chaos theory applies: differences in starting conditions too small to measure can lead to wildly divergent, unpredictable behaviour. We have evolved to deal with chaos. Also, there are feedback loops between speaker and audience, so neither can predict the other's behaviour. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to learn and adapt. Another thing is that I know of two theories of consciousness: it's an epiphenomenon or an emergent property. If it's an epiphenomenon, i.e., an aspect of neural activity, then it doesn't make sense to see one as the cause of the other. If it's an emergent property, then just as it is impossible to measure temperature by adding up the kinetic energy of molecules - even if you could, the act of measuring would disturb their state - so it is impossible to reconstruct consciousness by observing neural activity, or possible only crudely. The free-will model works on a social level. There is an experiment supposedly proving that free will does not exist: a subject hooked up to an EEG machine is told to press a button "when he feels like it," and the EEG shows neural activity preceding the conscious decision. But so what? The experimenter's instructions are transmitted by sound waves, converted to neural activity by the ears, then processed by the language-processing part of the brain and presented to the executive part in the form of an "idea". The executive then delegates the idea to some part of the brain in charge of "feeling like it". which builds up an action potential, measured by the EEG. When the action potential reaches a threshold, the executive then instructs the motor apparatus to press the button. And the experimenter's instructions are formed by a similar process -- so you can analyse the interaction at the level of ideas, without bothering about the mechanics. Obviously there is neural activity at both ends throughout the interaction, but that's no more than an abstraction. By your argument, you could never change someone's mind. Reason is all very well, but reasoning rests on postulates - and then we have to consider Goedel's theorem: that there are true statements that cannot be proved from any given set of postulates, so they have to be incorporated as new postulates. That holds even for mathematical reasoning: in the real world, postulates are much fuzzier, coming out of different realms of experience. In effect, the person you are talking to is an alien being. That's why you didn't get anywhere with Peter Hitchens: you kept hammering the same points, until he became irritated and left. Human interactions are not mechanistic, however much they ultimately boil down to physics. I bet you aren't convinced: is that because my argument is irrational, or because you are ego-committed to your own arguments (like everyone else)? Incidentally, I have a D.Phil. from the other place, and my book has won three prizes. For that very reason, it generates vitriolic hatred in those whose postulates it challenges, so I know whereof I speak.

@gspaulsson

8 ай бұрын

The short version of that is that people are irrational, even you.

Nice set of cannons left and right

Unfortunately this assumes the best nature of those listening. Many many many ppl will hear the truth, be moved, then completely disregard said truth for their own pre-conceived notions. There is absolutely a large percentage of life which has nothing to do with your own free will, that doesn't mean there doesn't come a point where you have a choice to make. In fact, life comes down to a surprisingly small amount of choices.

err where is the booing

Have I been clickbaited?🤔🤔 Nnaaaaa🤭🤭 Thank you ,thank you 😎😎

It seems Alex is referring to "logos" in this brief 2-3min speech he gave. Interestingly, I've just been doing a little research into "logos" simply because it's used by the author of The Gospel of John when they wrote their opening words that were translated into english: "In the beginning was the word". The actual greek word (the language that the text was written in) was "logos" (actually, the letters were different, but using this alphabet it's "logos") And then we can see that "logos" was used by Homer and Heraticlus in the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, and has even been found in text(s) dated back to the 9th century BCE; so this term "logos" was there for 800-900 years even before the Gospel of John's opening words used it. And it's even in use today: professional speaking coaches, that might educate rising leaders on how to write compelling public speeches, will coach their client in using "logos" which is pretty much how Alex is describing it in this short video.

@CosmicSkeptic, the correct conclusion to your argument is that free will does not apply to beliefs. That should not be a surprise, and implies forming or changing a belief is not taking an action. I don't think that's controversial.

Brought the house down in 2 minutes

There is no debate. There is no such thing as free will.

I didnt hear any booing..

Can't i be more open to being convinced? Or simply just try.

Regarding O'Connor's take on "moved by reason": isn't being moved by reason dependent on the individual being 100% reasonable/rational? You may be presented with the reasonable answer or path or solution to something, but you may choose not to accept it (for religious reasons, ideological, etc). So it wouldn't be true that you would be exercising free will by essentially negating reality? Which we almost certainly do every single day of our lives (denial as a defense mechanism, etc).

Looks like this video's title was the very bait-and-switch "Bayden Switch" that Alex was talking about in this short clip haha Given it's only 2-3mins long, I won't give the spoiler but let the newcomer discover for themselves...

Good point and it reminds me of that quote which says "you don't choose who you fall in love with", although that's emotional instead of rational.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

Yet you certainly choose who you spend time with giving the possibility of developing some form of love.

@shlockofgod

10 ай бұрын

You can choose who you fall in love with by making various choices throughout your life.

this guy put all of his skill points into speech and intellect

I mean solid argument but why the clickbait title? Seems like your channel is doing fine without these weird tactics

where boo?

Didn't you also have a debate wit mikhaila?

@ASMRyouVEGANyet

2 жыл бұрын

Did they debate or were they hanging out as friends? Wish he'd address this.

"Reason" isn't autonomous - orbiting magically in space, like a large yellow tea pot no one can see, conforming to its own rules, which may never be broken by insiders, nor diverted from the hallowed course by an outside influence no matter how persuasive. Same sort of huffle-puffle that whipped up "non-resistant non-belief".

_CosmicSkeptic Gets Applauded by the Cambridge Union_

you are one of the best for these arguments, there is no counter argument even

I really liked the content of the clip but felt sufficiently free to decide that I'm going to undo my click of the "like button" because of the clickbait title. N.B., I realise that my ultimate choice was inevitable, but then again, it depends on whether one is talking about Atlantis or Sicily.

Suddenly I have a craving for a glass of milk

Alex's position about "reason moving you "and "no choice in the matter" doesn't really make any sense. It's a figure of speech, it has nothing to do with reality.

2:13 not a very good argument "you cant decide whether youre convinced or not you just are"

I choose to forgive this click-bait.

Iv heard Alex articulate this argument many times, yet i cant really make it fit with the fact that i seemingly am able to block out reason at will. Example, i cant find any convincing counterarguments to veganism - you might say i know i would be convinced if i let it in - yet i keep eating meat and dairy - i seem to choose to ingnore that that could convince me knowing perfectly well that it could. Explain how this is not choosing my belief?

@macmac1022

2 жыл бұрын

You are not choosing to ignore it anymore then you are choosing to accept it. You are finding out if you are convinced or not.

@thewackenpilgrim

2 жыл бұрын

@@macmac1022 i dont know if i agree. It is more like my environment influences my belief, i can predict how the environment would change my belief if ii let it, i can change my environment to not change my belief cause i am afraid of what awaits me (just close my eyes and ears) - > i have indirectly chosen not to change my belief

@macmac1022

2 жыл бұрын

@@thewackenpilgrim >> i dont know if i agree. It is more like my environment influences my belief, " I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. Lets try this for example. If you did not know fire burns your skin. You then encounter fire and stick your hand in it. It burns you. Now are you choosing to believe it burns you or do you now just know it burns you? I can screw with this a bit though. I can stick my bare hand in a torch flame and it will not burn me. Its called an aqua flame. They are produced by HHO It will melt pretty much anything inorganic, like rocks and tungsten. But when put to your hand, because its basically just water turned into gas(HHO) it will condensate so much that the evaporation of all the moisture it is putting on you hand and evaporation causes cooling so it does not burn your hand. Its really interesting stuff. >> i can predict how the environment would change my belief if ii let it," Hmmmmmm. I dont know about this. To be able to make a prediction like that would require you to already have knowledge/beliefs about the environment already. Like with example of the fire burning. Once you know it burns, is that ever going to change? If you dont know it burns, how would you know anything about it to cause a predictable change. But this is a very new thought for me, I will need more time to think on it OR, can you give me an example? >> i can change my environment to not change my belief cause i am afraid of what awaits me (just close my eyes and ears) - > i have indirectly chosen not to change my belief" There is only so much you can control about environment though and so much you cant. For example with the fire, You wont be able to close your eyes and ears and somehow stop the fire from burning you. You are not going to be able to change being hungry or thirsty if there is no food or water around. If there is no air, can you change the belief that you need air to breath? Again, not too sure about this, will have to think on it unless you can give me an example.

@thewackenpilgrim

2 жыл бұрын

@@macmac1022 thanks for your insight. I have not fully thought this through, i am rather exploring an intuition. by prediction i do not neccessarily mean an accurate prediction. I dont have a perfect example but lets stick to veganism. Having experienced that Alex's arguments are hard to challenge i extrapolate that if i watch enough of his videos he could shed serious doubt on my pro meateating lifestyle or even convert me. I might have friends that would make fun of me if i go vegan, i like consuming animal products and find it convenient to keep my belief that meateating is right. Out of fear to get challenged i start skiping all videos of alex talking vegan and start watching pro meateating videos. I have now actively altered my environment to strengthen the belief i want to have and thereby at least indirectly chosen my belief. So here is what i think about this. In a libertarian sence i did not choose freely because my urge to withstand changing my belief was somehow rooted in external factors. The thought itself was not uncaused. However i did still in a sence choose my belief, so the simple challenge "try choosing what you believe for a sec - see you cant do it" is not sound evidence against LFW and is somehow confusing.

@macmac1022

2 жыл бұрын

@@thewackenpilgrim >>thanks for your insight. I have not fully thought this through, i am rather exploring an intuition." I am still on the fence between free will and determinism myself. But I do have to say, doing research on both I often find the arguments for free will mostly come from theists and their arguments just do not seem logical to me. I have questioned the crap out of myself and I really can see the causes that make me who I am today, so I am leaning more towards determinism now days. While questions are not statements, I find there is more knowledge in trying to answer a question then trying to prove or disprove a statement. >> by prediction i do not neccessarily mean an accurate prediction. I dont have a perfect example but lets stick to veganism. Having experienced that Alex's arguments are hard to challenge i extrapolate that if i watch enough of his videos he could shed serious doubt on my pro meateating lifestyle or even convert me." AHHHH, yes. I as well eat meat even though I totally agree with alex. Its very hard to get beyond the dopamine release one gets from fats from eating meat. But this is the environment we grew up in. My parents fed me meat when I was young, I imagine your parents did too. But would a child who grew up in a vegan household have that same issue we have? Probably not. >> I might have friends that would make fun of me if i go vegan, i like consuming animal products and find it convenient to keep my belief that meateating is right. Out of fear to get challenged i start skiping all videos of alex talking vegan and start watching pro meateating videos. I have now actively altered my environment to strengthen the belief i want to have and thereby at least indirectly chosen my belief. " Very valid point. You did good, I now have an example and more of an understanding of what you are talking about. I am a little busy right now, but later would you like to talk about what carl jung talks about with the 4 state of ego? I think that is having a part to play here. >.So here is what i think about this. In a libertarian sence i did not choose freely because my urge to withstand changing my belief was somehow rooted in external factors. The thought itself was not uncaused. However i did still in a sence choose my belief, so the simple challenge "try choosing what you believe for a sec - see you cant do it" is not sound evidence against LFW and is somehow confusing." ya, I think we might have to get into the subconscious factors here. I think this could be a fruitful discussion for both of us. You have already got my thinking about things I have not thought about before I always enjoy new thoughts and new ideas. Just a little busy right now to really get into this though. I might be a few hours yet.

I don't normally agree with what Alex has to say, however, I've always had an issue with the term free will also as Alex points out.

Too bad YT disabled seeing dislikes, I'm sure it would be zero.

I have changed my mind intentionally, but that intention was not my choice.

@shlockofgod

10 ай бұрын

Word salad.

Ah yes, people from Britain’s best universities. Oxford. Cambridge . Hull.

@loki6626

2 жыл бұрын

Oxford's a complete dump!

@Anglomachian

2 жыл бұрын

@@loki6626 It's beautiful that someone still alive got that reference.

Reason doesn't move you if there is no free will. What would reason even be if you can't weigh evidence and choose a conclusion. Reason would just be thinking whatever way your brain makes you think. This is destructive of reasoning because there are clearly right and wrong ways of reasoning, but if there is no free will, then you can't choose how to reason. If you reason wrong, then you reason wrong. Oh, well. You could not reason otherwise. If you reason right, then you reason right. Oh, well. You could not reason otherwise. In fact, the seeming ability to reason better, as the obligation seems to imply, amounts to an argument for free will.

*CosmicSkeptic Gets Booed by the Cambridge Union* - and rightly so.

There is utility in both the theories and its effectiveness really depends on how mature the person is on an emotional or spiritual level. If the hypothesis is true that everything is predetermined, one does not have the capacity to accept or change this condition anyway. So that information does not serve them. What serves them is to stop overthinking about it and fixate their mind towards being a responsible individual. At that point it doesn't matter if its free will or if it was predetermined that they will take responsibility, they are doing it anyway! The best we can do is be the best version of ourselves. Does predeterminism have its uses? Well it does for two kinds of people, one is those who are doing well in life but lack humility. For them predeterminism would be a way to maintain some level of humility and they become grateful for the blessing they have rather than live in arrogance and self praise, The other kind it serves is those who have the habit of unnecessarily guilting themselves for their errors n shortcomings, It gives them a temporary relief that everything happens for a reason and that the creator has a great plan for them. Perhaps that hope will steer them to grow and better themselves. In the end if you have a strong mind that believes in taking responsibility, can see your mistakes as a way to grow and better yourself rather than living in guilt, you will not have a problem if either is true.

@KalebPeters99

2 жыл бұрын

This is a great comment and really echoes the conclusion I came to after a brief existential crisis in my teens 😅

If someone is trying to know whether a proposition is true or false, he/she can not choose what he/she believes. Different things can make you change your mind about a proposition. I can think of: - Learning new facts about it - Changing your core values - Realizing that you were wrong (for example if you realize that you did not understand an argument) I probably forgot things, but I think that choosing to change your mind because you prefer the opposite of the proposition is not one of them (if you are actually trying to know what is true). I think that this is valid in all topics, from politics to religion. Someone could use my grandmother as a counterexample. She believes that heaven is real and that we will all get there when we die. I think she believes that because it comforts her but she is scared by what the truth might be and thus will not look too much into it to stay in her cozy ignorance (which I respect and don't want to disturb). This counter-example doesn't work because she chose what she believes, but only because she is not that interested in knowing the truth. You could ask, if we don't choose what we believe, then why don't we all agree on everything? There are lots of reasons: we don't all know the same sets of facts, we have different sets of values, et,. If you think that you can change your mind because you choose to, then I have a challenge for you. Choose a proposition that you really believe is true or false. It could be anything. "Abortion should be (il)legal" "reincarnation does (not) take place at death" "there is a ninth planet in our solar system" "breakfast is the most/least important meal of the day",... It must be something that you really want to know whether it is true or false. Then, without learning any new facts about the proposition, try to change your mind about it. I think it is impossible. I think that this proposition is challenging to accept for people who believe that there is an omnipotent deity that wants us to know it exists and punishes those who don't believe it exists (which includes many denominations of many religions). Because since we don't choose whether we believe in it or not, but merely are convinced or unconvinced by the arguments for its existence, it must mean that either this deity is unjust or that all who don't believe in it choose not to do it and are therefore of "bad faith", which poisons all conversations.

@paddleed6176

2 жыл бұрын

You haven't met people with personality disorders.

I often swap sides in an argument, and I have no trouble being convinced either way. Most reasoning is just word salad. If you're ever moved by some reasoning, it's because you chose to be moved by it. That excludes strict formal reasoning, but you rarely encounter that. And even then, you chose to adhere to logic.

@Octochiken

5 ай бұрын

If it is just word salad, how can it convince you? Just because the speaker speaks with confidence?

@commonpike

5 ай бұрын

@@Octochiken verbal reasoning is the seasoning of word salad. If I give a compelling argument, it's just because you find it compelling; probably because you can't find a counterargument. But the presumptions and prejudices may be hidden deeply in the salad, and you may implicitly agree with things that aren't explicitly in the argument. You can shuffle the ingredients around to make it compelling to someone else. It's just a word game. Again, that isn't true for formal logic, like in math. But it's painfully true in politics, for example.

@commonpike

5 ай бұрын

@@Octochikenso actually, to answer your question, I guess people can't convince me :-) you made me think, thanks 🙂 in arguments, you can detect if a position is flawed, like self referential or baseless ... But if it's not flawed, it's a valid position, I'll keep it as an option.

Alex O'Connor for parliament!