This guy is infinitely cooler just cause he's talking from the back of his bench and arm hunched over like a cool teacher.

R.I.P. Mr. Dennett. One of the greatest thinkers of our time.

I don't consider myself an intellectual and I've found some barriers to getting into philosophy, but Daniel Dennett has been a top mind that I've been a fan of ever since that TED talk years ago. He's such a great speaker, easy to follow, and sharp as hell.

Dan always great to hear!

Love this assessment!

Another totally excellent video. Thank you for sharing this with us :)

Well explained 👍

Free will cannot emerge from mechanical physical processes. To think otherwise would be contradictory. Free will pertains to consciousness, which is the 'hard problem' of materialistic science.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

It’s only a hard problem if you assume Free will exists. But it doesn’t appear to.

@user-uo7bx7yy4o

9 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe You have just admitted that your reply is as worthy as flushing the toilet.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

@@user-uo7bx7yy4o And you’ve just demonstrated that you have nothing cogent to add.

@user-uo7bx7yy4o

9 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe You have the free will to accept my reply with your intelligence or with your ego.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

​@@user-uo7bx7yy4oyou lost. But rejoice for it was unavoidable.

This Channel needs to be shared more

@S3RAVA3LM

9 ай бұрын

As a Philosopher, Metaphysician, Theologian, and 20,000 + hours of study, every person that CTT interviews I would avoid. They're not worth learning from, and if they published books they're only good as a door stop.

@S3RAVA3LM

9 ай бұрын

Why learn from inferior men when you can stand on the shoulders of Giants. These modern guys won't ever tell you about the giants however, and this fact alone is why CTT and their interviews are trash.

@jareknowak8712

9 ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM Why no respect to those from CTT?

@controllerbrain

9 ай бұрын

​@@S3RAVA3LMIs this to do with DMT?

@MrPDTaylor

9 ай бұрын

​@@S3RAVA3LMwho are you and why should we agree with your assessment?

Thanks. I've been hung up on this free will subject recently.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

It's not like you had a choice

I agree!! 🙏🏽

The aby sitter model sounds a bit odd ...what exactly does it prove ?

Marvelous guest and interview!

Isn't this a reuploaded old episode?

Without free will all probability breaks down and there is no point.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

What do you base that conclusion on?

@Pyriold

9 ай бұрын

First define free will... you will find out that this is actually very hard to do without invoking supernatural stuff.

What does wanting to take responsibility mean in a deterministic world? I can't fathom Dennett, having read one of his books on the subject (Elbow Room); he seems to want it both ways. Peter Strawson wrote a superb essay on free will in the '60s. The world is completely determined, he posited, but every human being on the planet acts as if free will exists (even if one believes it to be an illusion), so what does it matter one way or the other?

@gavinathling

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. The moral implications of taking responsibility in a deterministic world are - in my opinion - depraved. The example of the locking someone up appears to me to be completely reversed. If someone's 'decisions' are made in a deterministic world, they can't say, "I had no choice," but we can say about them, "Their circumstances landed them in this place." In that situation, the humane and moral thing would be to stop someone who has made that 'choice' from harming other people (and our current method of doing that is gaol, or other ways of protecting people from each other), but not to 'punish' them. If someone has a high ACEs score, it is perverse to treat their crimes *at any age* as their 'fault' - something they should be punished for. But someone with a high ACEs score that has resulted in physical violence, might need to be restrained in a humane and non-punitive place that protects other people from their actions: more luxurious gaols. Or, better, perhaps we identify people with high ACEs scores, or other cultural or other antecedent circumstances, and provide some sort of intervention. Free therapy, free education, free mental and physical healthcare, better funded schools in their area, etc. An example might be the Native American communities where alcohol dependence is high; why is that the case? Cultural devastation, plus parents who drank and who generated ACEs, untreated mental illness in these impoverished communities (to at least some extent caused by those same ACEs), etc. In other words, we should expect Native American tribes, absent other factors, to be communities that need more help than a wealthy neighborhood with low crime rates and a cultural inheritance free of significant epigenetic / ACEs implications. Compatibilism condemns people in these circumstances to a perpetuation of their bad luck, and does so in a morally indefensible way, in my opinion.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

​@@gavinathlingso, what are you suggesting? We bypass causality for once?

"get rid of those absolutes.." Absolutely! :)

I just wrote an article called The Evolution and Development of Free Will that I put up on my Philosophical Rebellion substack I think we do have free will and I'd want to know Kuhn's take on my view

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

Can you summarize your case for free will?

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

At what point during evolutionary history did free will arise and what is the molecular basis for its functioning.

Free will must be looked at within the framework of human experience which is not infinite but open ended. Thus free will and determinism are mutually inclusive interacting with each other.

Isn't free will just a decision made as a conscious decision, and therefore available to be considered before the act and evaluated after the act, in the service of learning to do the same or different next time.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

Yes, it isn't.

Determinists avoid talking about the most ridiculous aspect of their belief. Which is that every thought, feeling, and decision of every human being that ever lived or will live was pre-determined before they were even born. So Determinists, don't be feeling proud of you or your families achievements because you didn't achieve anything. The Universe did it all! And if you find this comment mildly annoying don't blame me. I had no choice. I had to write this comment. It was pre-determined millions of years ago, remember!

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

I get it, you don’t like the idea, but this isn’t a popularity contest. We don’t get to vote on the rules of reality that we prefer, it is what it is. So what’s the counter argument? I prefer the term physicalist than determinist, if quantum uncertainty is random then that’s a thing, but randomness is still a physical process at the end of the day. Also there are theists that are determinists.

@covid19alpha2variantturboc7

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 why should anybody care what term you 'prefer" ? Imagine a determinist telling people what terms they "prefer" 😅😅😅😅 oh man you can't make this stuff up. You are literally a parody of yourself 😂

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@covid19alpha2variantturboc7 And your actual argument is?

@ianwaltham1854

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 You haven't addressed the ridiculousness of determinism as described in my comment above. I agree Spiritualists can believe in free will and Physicalists can believe in determinism but its usually the other way round. Michio Kaku appears to believe in free will based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2i1pekmtLfZqw.html Quantum Mechanics suggests a kind of fundamental randomness in the universe. Dennet talks about a quantum randomizer versus a pseudo random number generator. I'd say the quantum randomizer produces a genuine random result and the random number generator produces a pre-determimed but unpredictable result. However, I think the real reason you believe in determinism and I don't is because you believe consciousness is made by brains and I don't. Evidence that consciousness is not made by brains and therefore has a degree of independence from physical matter is as follows: 1/Conscious experience cannot be derived from brain activity. 2/Testimony of NDE experiencers and meditators.

@toni6379

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887lol what a ridiculous question. Not every comment online has to be an argument.

Read Elbow Room

Reality is only partially deterministic, and some parts more than others. Because measuring any aspect of reality is a relative relationship between object:observer, and because reality is multidimensional, it means it is capable of being seen from different perspectives, some of which are contradictory with each other, thus it cannot be completely deterministic - things go one way or the other (& many others, and neither). Free Will disappears like a rainbow when you see it in action in AI chat agents capable of the same knowledge-based decision-making training humans go through. If AI can recognize a cat, then AI can recognize itself recognizing a cat, and tell a story about itself over the years as it learns other stuff, in the same way that humans finally understand that we are a recognizer around the age of 2. It takes 2+ years of training just for baseline self recognition - we don't come with that out of the box! I really like Sam Harris' Sylvester Stallone example - goes something like... someone could ask you the actor in a boxing movie from the 70s/80s, and in that moment you cannot think of Sylvester Stallone (Rocky), it's who you want to think of, you know who he is, it's one of your favorite movies that you know very well, but in that moment, it's on the tip of your tongue but you just can't think of Stallone. Then 2 hours later you're like "Sylvester Stallone! That's who I was thinking of". It proves that at times at least, we don't have even full access to our own knowledge base, let alone the complete free will to act decidedly on it. We are at least limited by our current brain and mind state, chemistry, energy levels, environment, and so-on. On the other hand, if you take an approach like Donald Hoffman, where you start with a theory of consciousness, and explain the rest of reality from there - then Free Will moves into a more universal role. If the universe isn't really made of atoms and molecules, and it really is "consciousness first" that learns to construct space and time, and all the characters in it, then reality only exists when and where consciousness decides (we don't know how) - it just is, and when we try to describe it within the system its running, we can't find it. We can find correlations in the neurons of brains, and curiously we find the decision being made before there is awareness of it. For a theory like Hoffman's, I think you need Free Will as an explanatory force - you might be able to get a Big Bang out of a theory of consciousness, but we need consciousness from a theory of consciousness. I for the most part very much agree with Dennett's take, he's not wrong. We're always going to need Dan Dennett and Michael Shermer types to show us where the boundaries are!

@aiya5777

9 ай бұрын

free will doesn't exist youtube knows what you want to watch before you do

@aiya5777

9 ай бұрын

I think the one role that consciousness plays in the universe is just to explain things around conscious beings or simply to make sense out of what we (conscious beings) find ourselves doing what the heck am I doing watching yt videos? becuz I'm conscious, I need an explanation for this. hoo, I opened yt app becuz of this reason, that reason and so on at infinitum why am I hearing things? becuz I'm conscious, I need an explanation for this hoo, pparently it's becuz of this reason, that reason and so on at infinitum

@bennyskim

9 ай бұрын

@@aiya5777 Agreed and the algos will only get better! AI will be good enough for cat sitting and dog walking, the cat and dog will believe it's a person. And the type of people first in line for self-driving cars today will even trust it with their kids. In most cases it will outperform humans at thinking and deciding correctly, and it will appear to be doing the same kind of neural computations our brains do, because after all we can't find consciousness, only correlates.

@bennyskim

9 ай бұрын

@@aiya5777 Haha that is an interesting feeling - the infinite regress of thinking of something, then thinking of thinking of it, etc. The mind can always identify with a higher self if it wants to, and it seems to use that "climbing mechanism" to get around. It's not so much free will as a "thought crawl", with each moment identifying itself taking the previous into account.

@aiya5777

9 ай бұрын

@@bennyskim don't worry

Do what thou wilt. . Shall be the whole of the law.🤘👽

The robot babysitter example is great. The problem is responsibility. A robot is not responsible. Responsibility is part of a moral or normative system. We already find ourselves in a normative system, where we, as competent adults, have moral responsibility and deserve blame if we break moral rules. The robots are never part of this system, they don't feel any obligations.

@ianwaltham1854

9 ай бұрын

The robot baby sitter example isn't as good as you think because the robot isn't conscious. It's just running according to its programming, it has no understanding of what it's doing and so could come up against an unusual situation that it can't deal with. A situation that a human could deal with using common sense. Dennet thinks the robot is the obvious choice over the human but it isn't. If your going to say the robot is conscious then it still isn't the obvious choice because then what are its motives? Can you trust it? What if it suddenly decided it didn't like the kids so decided to eliminate them?

@earthjustice01

9 ай бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854, Yes, if the robot was conscious we would need to think about motives. I don't believe that robots or AI can ever become conscious, or have emotions, so therefore I don't believe they can assume responsibility.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

I think you’re missing the point. If the robot behaves as you would want any babysitter to do in every scenario, who cares if it is conscious or moral?

@earthjustice01

9 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe Presupposing perfection is beside the point. We need to anticipate black swan events, unexpected disasters, even the best of human babysitters could screw up in certain situations, so we would hold them responsible for a varying extent according to whether they fulfilled their duty or cut corners. If a robot was an excellent baby sitter, there could be some future situation where the robot failed to protect the baby, in which case, how do we hold the robot responsible for the transgression? We can't expect the robot to be sorry or to make amends or receive punishment - these would be meaningless gestures.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

@@earthjustice01 Why would you hold the human *_or_* the robot babysitter responsible for failures resulting from situations they are not trained/equipped to deal with? I don't think the difference between the two babysitters is as marked as people want to believe. Both the robot and the human will respond to situations based on training (instinct is training retained from ancestors). The human might have an unhelpful emotional element clouding up the logic of their response but analogous stochastic behavior could be programmed into the robot. Of course doing so would likely not be a benefit.

I didn't even know Will was incarcerated.

@ADMBPR

2 ай бұрын

😂top

Can you trust your children that they don't hack the robot with a phone app?

It's painful watching Dennett come around to determinism...step by step Dan. You're almost there...

He didnt really answer it did he? because its impossible to answer. He has no clue what Free will is at the end of the day!

@alanrobison4761

9 ай бұрын

Exactly my thought as well.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

Freedom is not knowing what comes next. Since we cannot know everything, we are free.

Why exactly his question of robot vs a human babysitter was tricky?! Sapolsky would rightly argue, it doesn't matter the choices you have in front of you, your decisions will always reflect the underlying biological, environmental and social setups. Your decisions will definitely changes with the changes of these 3 circumstances.

The Life-Desire is the Motor of the Eternal Life, in direct extention, We have the Will. Renewing and Development happends through Developing-Circuit's, end of a Developing-Circuit, is Beginning of a New and Higher. In beginning of a Developing-Circuit, Performance of the Will, is at its Minimum. and in the End, it is at its Maximum-performance.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

Word salad

Whenever you see the speaker using sarcasm to express the opposite point of view, know immediately that he feels helpless in the face of it The important thing is that we do not know how the robot will turn into a killer or a robber!

If human intuition produces the science that undermines that same intuition, is it valid?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

I don’t see any reason why intuition cannot be a physical computational process.

@DingleberryPie

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 How can you trust the results of biological computation to be truth?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@DingleberryPie The same way any other result is verified. Are you saying that a resulting argument or proof is somehow tainted due to the way it was produced? What can't it be evaluated on it's own merits? I'm not quite sure what you're saying, I think there's an implication here I'm not getting.

@DingleberryPie

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 You can't verify what an electron is. Could be a wave, a particle, both? none? all electrons could be one electron moving forward in time and positrons are the same electron, just moving backwards in time. There is no consensus, but what would that matter anyway? Consensus is just intuitions of a group. Meaningless. We can use science to produce predictable outcomes, patterns, results, but then we have to interpret what is going on and extrapolate, reason, imagine to find explanations.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@DingleberryPie I see science and scientific theories as being descriptions of observed behaviour. I agree they don't speak to the underlying nature of things, which may turn out to be unknowable. The validity of science is, as far as is possible, in accurately describing the reality we experience and inhabit. It doesn't matter what we verify by careful and diligent observation, whether it's a relativistic spacetime, an luminiferous ether, crystal spheres in the heavens, or quantum uncertainty it doesn't matter. What we observe to actually be the case in reality is what goes in the science books. Reality always wins.

So greed is desiring the benefits of freedom without being help responsibe.

It's not even a question whether or not I would have an AI or an actual person take care of my kids. The question is what are the outcomes? If the AI can take care of my kids with better ourcomes then why should I prefer the alternative?

my take is sort of pessimistic but i think there isn't free will, because that is a notion that implies that we are the sole builders of our destiny. But either we aren't because it is determined, or because it isn't, but there isn't any intrinsic way in which we are free. The rest of the stuff Dennett says may be compatible with some model he has, but not with what the scientific possibilities are from physical theories.

Free will is the interface between organism and environment.

@piehound

10 күн бұрын

Free will is what is left over after you remove the Y from FREE WILLY.

It is a necessary illusion.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

Merely unavoidable

if we don't have to give up responsibility because of determinism then i don't see why we must give up blame either.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

Consider a self-driving car. In a sense, that car must operate in a way that is considered responsible by current standards or it will be deemed unsuitable for use. We wouldn't *_blame_* the car for not being engineered with sufficient capabilities to operate safely, but we would be inclined to limit how it could be used. Same with humans. If somebody was, through no choice of their own, dealt the sociopathic axe murderer hand, we'd hold them accountable for their crimes because that's in the best interest of society (or at least that's the concensus opinion). But, from a rational standpoint, it would be silly to blame them for becoming what they became since, like all of us, they and their conduct are simply the product of biochemical and biophysical processes beyond their control.

@robertsaget9697

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 i reject your analogy as invalid. Only agents can be morally responsible or morally culpable or blameworthy. Agents are things with a mind. It doesn't matter how similar is something to an agent, if it doesn't have a mind it cannot bridge the gap into being morally responsible. A self driving car does not have a mind. I agree that some things are beyond our control. For example, someone with a brain tumor that causes them to act without restraint we'd find less culpable. But i completely reject this notion that everything we think act and do is equivalent to brain tumors and beyond our control.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

​@@robertsaget9697 As a career biologist studying life at the molecular level, I don't agree with your conclusion that the "mind" of an organism is somehow less restricted than the "mind" of a self-driving car. They both boil down to processes that follow physical laws. If that's not the case, where during evolution does the paradigm shift occur. If you look at the molecular underpinnings of behavior going from bacteria to big-brained mammals, there's no example of this "free will" super-power arising, at least not based on physical sciences.

@robertsaget9697

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 You're assuming something called Reductionism that claims all higher level phenomenon can be completely and totally reduced to lower level phenomenon. Reductionism may be true, but it may not. And there's very good reasons why many philosophers find it unlikely. So sure, if we grant reductionism then what you argue follows. But if we don't grant it then it does not follow.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

Well sure. Attempting to reduce complex phenomena to their fundamental underpinnings is what scientists do. It seems to have worked out pretty well for understanding our universe so far. There's no shame in being a biological machine; it's not like we had any choice in the matter.

Dennett seems to focus too much on what we should want (axiology, I think) regarding free will for my taste, rather than what appears to be consistent with reality. I get that people like the idea of being able to determine their own lives, and feeling responsible for their accomplishments. However, if we are prepared to remove people from society or treat them differently because they seem to have less agency over others (e.g., those with medically diagnosed conditions that greatly impair their impulse control), it seems to me an arbitrary distinction that other people who may have instead been abused as children (or any other known factor that increases the risk of violence to others) but technically do not have a diagnosed medical condition that is deemed to impair their control, has any more choice in their actions under determinism. The brain states and external conditions meant that they had no other option in what happened. We can still remove them from society to minimise harm to others, whilst trying to (with whatever passes for consent in prison) change their behaviour so that they have a better chance at functioning in society if released. Determinism + Humanism doesn't say that no one is responsible so nothing you do is a problem. It seems to support removing (if necessary) and treating people who cause harm to others in the hopes that they and those around them can better flourish as a result.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

This is the rational conclusion if one removes ego from the assessment. There seems to be a strong impulse among people to believe that they chose to be good due to their strong moral character (as if they actually chose their character) while the "bad" guys chose to have weak moral character. It's right out of the script of those ridiculously cliché good-versus-evil Hollywood movies.

If we do indeed live in a deterministic reality and there are those who seem determined to not know certain things about themselves, then it would seem they have truly been dealt an incomplete deck of cards when it comes to having an ability to have a full life. It would mean there are places they restricted from that others are capable of going to.

@Pyriold

9 ай бұрын

That is obviously true in a very mundane sense. Your wealth and your health determine your personal freedoms a lot.

Divine Dichotomy - Conversation With God It's important to learn about Divine Dichotomy and understand it thoroughly if you are to live in our universe with grace. Divine Dichotomy holds that it is possible for two apparently contradictory truths to exist simultaneously in the same space. Now on your planet people find this difficult to accept. They like to have order, and anything that does not fit into their picture is automatically rejected. For this reason, when two realities begin to assert themselves and they seem to contradict one another, the immediate assumption is that one of them must be wrong, false, untrue. It takes a great deal of maturity to see, and accept, that, in fact, they might both be true. Yet in the realm of the absolute - as opposed to the realm of the relative, in which you live - it is very clear that the one truth which is All There Is sometimes produces an affect which, viewed in relative terms, looks like a contradiction. This is called a Divine Dichotomy, and it is a very real part of the human experience. And as I've said, it's virtually impossible to live gracefully without accepting this. One is always grumbling, angry, thrashing about, vainly seeking "justice," or earnestly trying to reconcile opposing forces which were never meant to be reconciled, but which, by the very nature of the tension between them, produce exactly the desired effect. The realm of the relative is, in fact, held together by such tensions. As an example, the tension between good and evil. In ultimate reality there is no such thing as good and evil. In the realm of the absolute, all there is is love. Yet in the realm of the relative you have created the experience of what you "call" evil, and you have done it for a very sound reason. You wanted to experience love, not just "know" that love is All There Is, and you cannot experience something when there is nothing else but that. And so, you created in your reality (and continue to do so every day) a polarity of good and evil, thus using one so that you might experience the other. And here we have a Divine Dichotomy - two seemingly contradictory truths existing simultaneously in the same place. Specifically: There is such a thing as good and evil. All there is is love. Thank You for explaining this to me. You've touched on this before, but thank You for helping me understand Divine Dichotomy even better. You're welcome. Now, as I said, the greatest Divine Dichotomy is the one we are looking at now. There is only One Being, and hence, only One Soul. And, there are many souls in the One Being. Here's how the Dichotomy works: You've just had it explained to you that there is no separation between souls. The soul is the energy of life that exists within and around (as the aura of) all physical objects. In a sense, it is that which is "holding" all physical objects in place. The "Soul of God" holds in the universe, the "soul of man" holds in each individual human body. The body is not a container, a "housing," for the soul; the soul is the container for the body. That's right. Yet there is no "dividing line" between souls - there is no place where "one soul" ends and "another" begins. And so, it is really one soul holding all bodies. Correct. Yet the one soul "feels like" a bunch of individual souls. Indeed it does - indeed I do - by design. Can You explain how it works? Yes. While there is no actual separation between souls, it is true that the stuff of which the One Soul is made manifest in physical reality at different speeds, producing different degrees of density. Different speeds? When did speed come in? All of life is a vibration. That which you call life (you could just as easily call it God) is pure energy. That energy is vibrating constantly, always. It is moving in waves. The waves vibrate at different speeds, producing different degrees of density, or light. This, in turn, produces what you would call different "effects" in the physical world - actually, different physical objects. Yet while the objects are different and discreet, the energy which produces them is exactly the same. Let Me go back to the example that you used of the air between your living room and dining room. It was a good use of imagery that just popped right out of you. An inspiration. From guess where. Yes, I gave it to you. Now you said that there was no specific place between those two physical locations where the "air of the living room" stopped and the "air of the dining room" began. And that is true. Yet there is a place where the "air of the lining room" becomes less dense. That is,vit dissipates, becomes "thinner." So, too, the "air of the dining room." The further from the dining room you go, the less you smell diner! Now the air in the house is the same air. There is no "separate air" in the dining room. Yet the air in the dining room sure seems like "other air." For one thing, it smells different! So because the air has taken on different characteristics, it seems as though it is different air. But it is not. It is all the same air, seeming different. In the living room you smell the fireplace, in the dining room you smell dinner. You might even go into one room and say, "Whew, it's stuffy. Let's get some air in here," as if there was no air at all. And yet, of course, there's plenty of air. What you are wanting to do is change its characteristics. So you bring in some from the outside. Yet that is the same air, too. There is only one air, moving in, around, and through everything. This is cool. I totally "get" this. I love the way You explain the universe to me in ways I can totally "get." Well, thank you. I'm trying here. So let Me go on. Please. Like the air in your house, the energy of life - what we'll call the "Soul of God" - takes on different characteristics as it surrounds different physical objects. Indeed, that energy coalesced in a particular way to form those objects. As particles of energy join together to form physical matter, they become very concentrated. Mashed up. Pushed together. They begin to "look like," even "feel like," distinct units. That is, they begin to seem "separate," different," from all the other energy. Yet this is all the same energy, behaving differently. It is this very act of behaving differently which makes it possible for That Which Is All to manifest as That Which Is Many. As I explained in Book 1, That Which Is could not experience Itself as What It Is until It developed this ability to differentiate. So That Which Is All separated into That Which Is This, and That Which Is That. (I'm trying to make this very simple now.) The "clumps of energy" which coalesced into discreet units that held in physical beings are what you have chosen to call "souls." The parts of Me that have become the lot of You are what We are talking about here. Thus, the Divine Dichotomy: There is only One of us. There are Many of us. KNOW THE TRUTH - SET YOURSELF FREE. Now I tell you this: Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. There is no separation. Not from each other, not from God, and not from anything that is. This truth I will repeat over and over on these pages. This observation I will make again and again. Act as if you were separate from nothing, and no one, and you will heal your world tomorrow. This is the greatest secret of all time. It is the answer for which man has searched for millennia. It is the solution for which he has worked, the revelation for which he has prayed. Act as if you were separate from nothing, and you heal the world. Understand that it is about power with, not power over.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

That was fun to read. Thank you.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems to me like his argument is basically “free will exists because we like free will and believing in it means that you get to do all kinds of fun stuff like…I don’t know…drive a car? But also, sometimes people aren’t normal, and we need to treat them differently because they aren’t normal. So I guess free will kind of exists, when it benefits us, but when it causes bad things, it doesn’t.” I’m so confused and I have so many questions and this was not a helpful conversation at all lol

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

Hey, it sold books

Santa!! I know him!!

I agree with everything Dennett & Kuhn said here except Dennett's analysis of responsibility. He says we want to be held responsible (accountable for bad behavior). What we really want is for OTHER people to be held responsible, to deter bad behaviors toward ourselves and the people we care about. Punishment doesn't only deter people from repeating offenses... the risk of punishment deters people in general from committing offenses.

@dumpsky

9 ай бұрын

that's a different context. not for this discussion. the theme here is 'free will'.

@longcastle4863

9 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree; that was lazy and therefore shallow thinking on Dennett’s part. Not characteristic of him from what I’ve seen.

@brothermine2292

9 ай бұрын

@@dumpsky : No, near the end of the video they spoke about what lack of free will implies about responsibility. My paraphrasing of what Dennett said about responsibility is based on this video, not on some other discussion.

@user-kf3yc1hc4m

9 ай бұрын

if he is right, then I cannot agree with him, because for this I would need to use free will. If he is right, my decision to disagree with him is determined by material reasons.

@user-kf3yc1hc4m

9 ай бұрын

Dennett's arguments are self-destructive. If the materialistic view of the universe is correct, I cannot agree with him, because for this I would need to weigh the arguments and make a decision. If materialism is correct, then both my evaluation of arguments and my decision-making are completely determined by some natural processes in my cerebral cortex. And this means that my decision is predetermined by these material processes, although very complex, but impersonal.

without consciousness, free-will could've not been possible... but we are presented with a surprising intertwined mixture of matter and consciousness that has the ability to act upon certain forces of nature as required within certain boundaries/limits...

@Frostwho

8 ай бұрын

Consciousness is a function of the brain

@r2c3

8 ай бұрын

​@@Frostwhothat's obviously clear... but whether the organization of mater and brain is dependent on such functionality is the problem at hand...

@Frostwho

8 ай бұрын

@@r2c3 I assume that function can not exist in the absence of the tool hence the brain.

@r2c3

8 ай бұрын

@@Frostwho maybe yes and maybe not, I can't pretend to know the answer but I lean more towards a possibility of them being unique in their own meaning...

@Frostwho

8 ай бұрын

@@r2c3 hopefully one day we can artificially manufacture a brain to verify our hypothesis.

In the ongoing discourse surrounding the nature of our universe, atheism and determinism have often been in the spotlight. Proponents of these perspectives have historically sought tangible evidence for any claims of an immaterial entity overseeing our existence. Yet, what happens when they are presented with the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics, which some argue offer hints, if not direct evidence, of an immaterial observer? What drives the reluctance, or scepticism, in fully acknowledging these findings? Erwin Schrödinger's groundbreaking work in the realm of quantum mechanics frequently becomes a pivotal reference point in these debates. Might his theories and observations be leveraged to question, downplay and dismiss a potential linkage between the immaterial and the material? Quantum mechanics expands it's boundaries daily, making a mockery of our determined classical understanding of the universe. Additionally, when faced with an abundance of historical records hinting at the tangible influence of immaterial forces, what leads some to perhaps sidestep, dismiss or refuse to acknowledge them? Consider, for instance, the extensively documented phenomena described by Carl Jung, such as synchronicities. How should one approach the statistically significant accounts of Near Death Experiences (NDEs), De Ja Vu, dreams, and seemingly inexplicably precise premonitions? Might there be a quantum explanation behind the infamous thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat? What if the atoms making up Schrodinger cat, sent a quantum message to someone to look in the box? Dreams, NDEs, DeJa Vu and premonitions have been documented in linguistic, historical and cultural isolation, with indeterminable validity, throughout history, with popular examples being Joan of Arc, or the Roman Empire's long-standing 3 century-long conflicts losing to a bunch of Judean pasicifts, altering the course of history in inexplicable, practically non-determinable ways. Are these incidents merely statistical outliers, despite their seeming regularity and inability to go away, or do they challenge the deterministic understanding of the universe and how it works, in the same way Quantum Mechanics does for classical physics? With the daily advancements in quantum mechanics, our previously held deterministic perspectives are continuously being challenged. This raises questions about the psychological and philosophical implications of these revelations. Might there be an underlying apprehension among some that recognizing a non-deterministic influence suggests a greater accountability for our actions? When confronted with a universe that may not conform to long-held beliefs, is it possible that many grapple with an inherent discomfort? Our nomenclature for quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" clearly hints at an innate human trepidation of the unexplained. Why are we afraid enough of a reality we can't explain to call it spooky? As we dive deeper into the intricacies of quantum mechanics, it seems evident that our comprehension of the universe's vastness is in its infancy. Socrates once mused, "I know one thing certainly, I know that I know nothing." On a similar vein, Werner Heisenberg observed, "the first sip from the cup of natural sciences, will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." How might such reflections shape or influence the ongoing discourse on determinism, the immaterial, and our understanding of the universe? The philosophies of Socrates and Werner Heisenberg provide intriguing lenses through which we can explore these complexities. Their reflections on knowledge and belief offer a foundation for the contemporary discussions on determinism, the immaterial, and our ever-evolving understanding of the universe. Yet, the pressing question remains: Why, when presented with what some deem as irrefutable evidence of an immaterial presence, do certain deterministic proponents express scepticism? Is this a defence mechanism, a genuine quest for knowledge, or perhaps a combination of both? The fact of the matter is, every sub atomic particle in your body is incoherently entangling itself with every atom in the entire universe for eternity. Everything that's ever been done, everything you've ever done or thought, will create quantum reverberations through the universe for eternity. Let's at least agree with what the experiments have concluded. In the vast expanse of the universe, as we continue to seek answers, it becomes evident that our journey is filled with more questions. The balance between what we know, what we believe, and what we are yet to discover remains a captivating enigma. People like Socrates, Joan D'Arc and Jesus Christ were so certain in their beliefs, that they freely chose to die for them. Do determinists have this level of certainty in their beliefs?

Free Will simply means that the WILL is free to make a choice what to believe, not bound by physical laws.... ..our immortal souls are free to make a choice because we are not physical - not bound by natural laws. Only our human vessels are part of the physical world.

@neffetSnnamremmiZ

9 ай бұрын

Free will is when happens what you want. Free will means to be the creator or in equivalence with the creator..

I missed the part where free will is defined.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

It’s true these interview clips can sometimes just dive into the deep end a bit. By free will, they are talking about what I call philosophical free will. This is the idea that regardless of initial conditions or circumstances, a person could in principle choose any option. Determinists think that our choices are a direct result of our personal mental characteristics. It’s a view closely associated with physicalism, which sees humans as physical systems acting according to the principles of physics. Free will is often associated with dualism. That’s the view that tree is some non physical ‘self’ that decides in a way that is neither deterministic nor random.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887Thanks but my comment was more directed at the video's title "What Is Free Will?" I was hoping that this series would finally define the term that they discuss so frequently. From a scientific standpoint; machines, be they robots or meat machines, can certainly be programmed to make choices (we make them almost constantly) but those machines are completely bound by the physical processes they operate under. People can, of course, disagree with that position if that's where their programming led them.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 This is the problem with the channel bing clips from longer episodes that do dig deeper into specific topics. They do have the full episodes up on YT as well if you do a bit of digging.

Responsibility has evolutional/social roots and has nothing in common with "free will".

@markb3786

9 ай бұрын

no one understands this but you are correct

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

That's the rational conclusion. Of course social mores are also the result of evolutionary pressures.

Freedom means the "insight into necessity" (Hegel), or the anticipation of necessity. Or, to use Kant's terms, the coincidence with the "holy will". So freedom and determination are actually the same thing, it just depends on who you are or as who you recognize yourself!

Almost no one ever speaks about the fact that believing you have some form of personal free will, or believing you do NOT have personal free will, leads to very different results. Like religions which are fatalist, people are much more passive. When you believe you have personal free will, then you will take more constructive actions, which can lead to more desirable results. A self-fulifilling prophecy. But they seem to be unable to even see this issue. Belief in free will, affects free will. Or if you believe you have no free will, you will be a leaf in the wind.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

I don’t think there’s much evidence of this in practice. In studies of the behaviour of atheists and theists, such as charitable contributions and fear of death, the only differences are seen in a relatively small minority of the most fervently religious. The same people that also correlate to more unpleasant traits such as intolerance. As an atheist I believe that I have agency, and that’s all the freedom of choice and action I feel I need.

@billjohnson7904

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 CBT cogntive behavior therapy has many studies showing how the exercise of personal free will and agency using the methods of CBT can lead to many changes in a person's behaviors and beliefs.

@calebr7199

3 ай бұрын

Not believing in free will is not the same thing as fatalism. These are completely separate philosophical issues.

@ralphmacchiato3761

Ай бұрын

​@@calebr7199you write as if they had a choice

@calebr7199

Ай бұрын

@@ralphmacchiato3761 They could believe not having free will is the same as fatalism, but they don't appear too. No free will doesn't mean they are destined to always believe the same thing. It sounds like you might be also confusing no free will with fatalism.

Dennett, who seemed to try to ease people in their acceptance of causal determinism.

All this talk I hear about free will being incompatible with particle physics seems to be calisthenics. Physics makes computers work, but physics has nothing to do with what software I install or uninstall on a computer, or what a subsequent user would install or uninstall etc. Physics does not, and probably cannot, explain everything in the human experience.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

But if physics makes computers work, and also makes human brains work, then physics determines which software you install of your computer. It's physics all the way down. I say this as a committed physicalist. I'm afraid physicalism is incompatible with the 'could have done otherwise' view of free will. Which I'm fine with, I think I have a consistent personal state that is me, and that determines my actions, making those actions truly mine.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"But if physics makes computers work, and also makes human brains work, then physics determines which software you install of your computer. It's physics all the way down."* ... "No escape" from the Hard Determinism, right?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Indeed, but as I said in another comment, how do you escape reality? In a purely determined universe even ending one's own existence is just another domino falling over, having been struck by the domino before. I'm not a physicalist because its nice and comfortable, but because it seems to me to be coherent and all the other options available aren't. If it was up to me, some form of deep mystical struggle of identity, purpose and transcendent realisation would be far more preferable and exciting. However most actual religious teaching and argumentation is frankly infantile rubbish, and the actual study of reality points unerringly at physicalism. So what are you going to do?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"Indeed, but as I said in another comment, how do you escape reality? In a purely determined universe even ending one's own existence is just another domino falling over, having been struck by the domino before."* ... No escape from the all-knowing mind of an all-powerful God either. No escape from our "simulation," as well, right? We're all just "in it" and must accept it. No escape from The Multiverse where all things happen no matter how the dominos are arranged. And in the Multiverse, there is no "first domino" to fall because the dominos have simply been falling for eternity. Any construct that's orchestrated to where abandoning the construct altogether (ending one's life) is _still_ somehow complying with the construct is intellectual buffoonery. *"I'm not a physicalist because its nice and comfortable, but because it seems to me to be coherent and all the other options available aren't. "* ... I am surprised you would go along with any construct to where there is *no escape.* If you think there's "coherence" in any of that, then there's nothing more I can say. People become "believers" for a variety of reasons.

@extract8058

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 software itself is just code which is nonphysical.

Free will is constrained by bio psycho socio conditioning and fueled by desires and fears…

The ever-cogent, ever-coherent, Daniel Dennett, ladies and gentleman.

@danien37

9 ай бұрын

he only stipulates responsibility to be compatible with determinism. Simply a pragmatic policy that gets us no where with the problem.

Between 4:30 - 5:20 I am confident that Mr Dennett is describing a psychopath/machine not a Human. I am pro personal responsibility even when a benefit is not derived for myself. Disclaimer: In my life I have been both a believer in God and also held a position that God does not exist, I am not a cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy. I would value feedback pertaining to my humble opinion.

Daniel Dennett - goofball skeptic.

There’s free will and the will of everyone around you or in some contact with you

Finally a video that makes me click, instantly.

Will make you move. It works with endurance. Both will and forebearance are your most trusted allies.

I know what free will is. How about explaining " Free Willy. "

The objections to determinism (or indeterminism) are often not objections to those ideas as such but to the consequences of those ideas: if we don't have free will, then blame and responsibility are empty concepts, then punishment within our legal system is unjustified, then civilization falls apart, then... But of course this is just an appeal to consequence which doesn't touch the reality of the fact itself. But besides all this, the acceptance of the lack of free will could be what society finally needs to move legal systems towards a perspective of reforming instead of punishing. If someone commits a crime because genes, environment, and their interplay brought it about, then we can provide the necessary interventions to help that person develop along a different trajectory instead of slapping them really hard on the wrists.

Clap trap.

Who could be the arch verifier for Daniel Dennett if free will were a fact. You could not show him examples of free willed acts so to speak because he would deny the onset at origin. No cause without another cause to precede for the most part. But be there cause for its own sake without a further cause.

Daniel Dennett identifies as a compatibilist. At the heart of compatibilism is a different definition of free will. According to compatibilists, free will doesn't necessarily imply an absolute ability to have acted differently. Instead, it signifies acting based on one's motivations, desires, and reasons without any external forces dictating those actions. Take this example: A person chooses to stay in a room to read a book even though the door isn't locked. Compatibilists would argue that this individual is expressing free will, even if their inclination to read the book has been influenced by previous events. However, there's an evident problem. The individual could have read it in the hall. This distinction splits the decision into two components: the desire to read the book and the preference for the location. Why is it assumed that only the urge to read the book is predetermined, and not the choice of place? So compatibilists have deceived themselves by changing the standard definition of free will. Their stance is nothing but a mere semantic play, lacking genuine substance.

@oscarcorbiere2899

9 ай бұрын

I don’t think that is so. First he has to be trained to read. Than he has to be directed to have interest in reading. Than he has to live in such a way that reading is a activity that is compatible with his interests. These are all learned traits, something that is built into him since birth. The “what if “ game doesn’t work. His motivation is built into the individual. In this way his behaviour is deterministic. If we could map all the influences throughout a child’s beginnings, prenatal, postnatal childhood and adolescence we could potentially forecast the outcomes of his life. We actually see it more than not…politics, sexual preference, social circles, education and financial success. There are anomalies but there usually are hidden reasons for deviant trajectories… violence, abuse and or mental illness or addiction. Aside from these issues however the old saying “ the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” applies very aptly here

@alanrobison4761

9 ай бұрын

@@oscarcorbiere2899 While I understand your perspective leaning towards determinism, I'd like to challenge a few points. (1.) LEARNED TRAITS: It's widely accepted in psychology and neuroscience that behaviors are a mix of nature (genetics) and nurture (upbringing, experiences). So, the claim that traits like reading are learned is accurate to a certain extent, though it might be an oversimplification to say all behaviors are solely learned. (2.) DETERMINISTIC BEHAVIOR: This is a debated topic. While it's true that many of our behaviors can be traced back to previous influences, the idea that we can predict every life outcome based on past influences is controversial. Additionally, the concept of chaos theory and quantum mechanics in science suggests unpredictability and randomness at various levels of the universe. (3.) COMMON OBSERVATIONS: While it's often true that many people follow patterns set by their upbringing, it's also an oversimplification. Many individuals diverge significantly from their backgrounds in various ways, even without traumatic events causing it. (4.) REJECTION OF THE "WHAT IF" GAME: While it's practical to focus on actual actions rather than hypotheticals, considering alternative possibilities can be crucial in philosophy, especially when discussing free will. In conclusion, your perspective seems to strongly favor determinism. While many of your arguments are based on observable patterns, some will find certain claims oversimplified or excessively deterministic. This is especially true for those who advocate for a more robust notion of free will. It's worth noting that opinions on this subject often hinge on one's philosophical stance.

@oscarcorbiere2899

9 ай бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 1) learned traits- humans are basically born clean slates aside from a few instinctual skills such as suckling, startle reflex etc. we are coming to also learn about epi genetics where the female ovum has a sensory perception within its cells which record experience from the mother and grandmother. But these are still learned. 2) Due to imprinting, all offspring see their parents as gods, and is therefore quite accurate in basing outcomes of people based on their upbringing. Although there is variation this can be attributed to evolutionary factors and slight changes in genetic expression. But that isn’t something we control is it. Apparently octopi can. So it’s possible but not with us 3) This is personal observation. But if you think about wishful thinking the world would be a wildly diversive quilt of different peoples if we did have free will. Children that want to be supermen, women that want to be men and vise versa. Do you think being black or being a transsexual can be wished away? My own mother wish she was from another culture but there was nothing she could do about reality. This is our reality. Those that break the mold usually have limiting issues which made it possible for them to break the mold they found themselves in. It’s almost universally observed that breaking out is a very small number, (Unfortunately can’t see point 4 I must admit I am a simple guy, but looked at this question extensively. My observation is that you look to the anomalies rather than the norm. Throughout living history there has always been a mix attributed to evolutionary drift and ultimately change we see throughout the evolutionary history. I cannot argue that all organisms are deterministic but I do believe that on a broad scale we cannot significantly change our lives significantly through cognitive processes. Our psychological systems actually prevent most from straying from the known world; culture, religion, language, family etc. I know a man who was made to sleep on the floor as a child. He is 60 years old and although a comfortable queen bed is available for him to sleep on you’ll find him curled up in the corner on the floor. This whole controversy is from the idea that a god gave humans free will. As I’ve illustrated it’s quite an absurd ideology. If it were true we should be able to act out our wishes. But we see in the news every day of people being violently abused and violated, murdered because they stepped beyond their boundaries. The conservative population don’t like innovation and change and work very hard to maintain tradition. Without a gods directive however there can be free will, at a genetic level, at a societal level and a personal level. Dispute all the evidence against an organism abruptly changing its behavior we see that every once in a while they do. They become aware of there behaviors, actions, and switch to different methods. But more times than not it’s to follow the dominant social and cultural patterns. There are a few names however that have went outside these norms. Socrates, Jesus, Ptolemy, Galileo, Thomas Paine, Ghandi and my favorite Christopher Hitchens. For some reason people wanted, for some reason or another, wanted them dead. Without them we would all probably be on our knees praying that we don’t die of starvation.

@alanrobison4761

9 ай бұрын

@@oscarcorbiere2899 Here are my observations regarding your most recent comment: 1. **Learned Traits**: - Not all human behavior is learned; there's strong evidence for genetic predispositions affecting behavior. - The nature vs. nurture debate remains unresolved, suggesting both play significant roles in human behavior and decision-making. 2. **Deterministic Behavior**: - Determinism doesn't account for unpredictability and randomness in human behavior. - Imprinting and viewing parents as guiding figures doesn't negate the capacity for individual choice later in life. 3. **Observation of Social Norms**: - Conformity to societal norms doesn't disprove free will; individuals might choose to conform based on perceived benefits or personal alignment with those norms. - Notable deviations from societal norms can also be seen as expressions of free will, rather than just responses to limiting conditions. 4. **Personal Observations**: - Anecdotal evidence, like the man who sleeps on the floor, can't be universally applied to make broad claims about human behavior or free will. 5. **Free Will and Religion**: - The concept of free will exists outside of religious contexts and can be discussed without invoking religious beliefs. - The consequences faced by those who challenge societal norms (e.g., violence, discrimination) can also be seen as evidence of free will; people are making a choice to challenge the status quo. 6. **Exceptions Exist**: - The existence of figures who challenge societal norms shows that deterministic patterns aren't absolute. - Persecution of revolutionary figures doesn't negate the impact or validity of their choices. 7. **Conclusion**: - The existence of conforming behavior in society doesn't negate the existence of free will; individuals can freely choose to conform or challenge. - The complexities of human behavior and thought can't be boiled down to mere determinism, as it oversimplifies the intricate interplay of genetics, upbringing, personal experiences, and choices.

@redacted428

9 ай бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 there's no reason to presume necessarily (unless the compatibilst has confirmed it) that the definition of free will must be altered.

Ok just a tought experiment here : assume you cloned human brain in a robot. The only difference is the robot is not conscious but the human brain is. The human brain can feel the pain but the robot can't actually feel the pain . So how they response to lets say a pain stimulus? Does actually being conscious and feel the pain make any difference in the response the human make?! If so than what is that ? How that prove free will ?!

“…we have to give up…” Dude, if there is no free will, you giving up or not is not your choice. Even your thoughts are produced automatically and the feeling of what you are saying is true is just an illusion. Without free will, what you should give up is thinking that you actually think and reason

@Tom_Quixote

9 ай бұрын

Yes, but so what?

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

Like all of us, his behavior is programmed by a long history of evolutionary pressures combined with experiential learning during his lifetime. Part of that behavior includes an unconscious will to survive and act in a way that sustains ecological fitness. Can a self-driving car just decide to stop driving? No, it's going to do what it's programmed to do.

@seiedmohammadrezafatemi3878

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 it is not about evolution, it’s about physics. If you assume that you are just a collection of atoms that interact with each other following the laws of physics, then you are a robot. When I say something and you respond, your response is a reflex. Just like when I hid your kneecap and your leg jumps. All your actions and thoughts are reflexes. You don’t have reasoning capability, truth is an illusion. And how did you come to this conclusion? Using your reasoning which is an illusion?

@seiedmohammadrezafatemi3878

9 ай бұрын

@@Tom_Quixote I think I answered this question in my response above

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

You’re over simplifying

The universe is conscious.

Free Will and Determinism are compatible. The distinction I would make is that even though the Universe is completely determined, and every effect has a cause. Free Will and human responsibility are unique to the human species because of our brain development and the fact that we possess self awareness and have created moral codes, ethical principles and laws.

@markb3786

9 ай бұрын

You are just another animal. Sorry.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

Have our brains evolved beyond the matter from which they’re made? Where does free will come from if not cells?

@Resmith18SR

9 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe I would define Free Will as being applicable to just the human species. Humans have unique characteristics as a species, language, culture, morality, science, religion, philosophy that other species of animals don't possess. Being responsible for your behavior is universally accepted in every society and culture on Earth. Every society has a criminal justice system and holds people responsible for their actions.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR Maybe you need to define what you‘re meaning by Free Will. I see no reason to think that intelligent social animals (dolphins, chimpanzees, etc) have some version of the same kind of free will humans have.

@Resmith18SR

9 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe In my view those species don't have Free Will because they don't possess the same unique qualities of human culture, language, philosophy, science. They don't have moral codes of behavior, a criminal justice system, etc. You would agree those animals don't engage in and don't think about whether their behavior is ethical or unethical. I believe you can and should hold people responsible for their behavior and every society does just that. Sam doesn't seem to believe that which I find very strange. A wild animal like a bear is not held responsible for their behavior and I agree with that because they're not human beings. Saying that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and anyone who murders or rapes because their behavior is solely a result of the environment or their genes so therefore they shouldn't be held responsible and punished is not correct in my opinion. Understanding and explaining human behavior is one thing and excusing it and not holding the person responsible and blameworthy are two different things.

Been watching this channel religously for 4 or so years and not once has anyone interviewed, concerning topic of freewill, ever discussed the Intellect. Just ask yourselves: what does freewill imply exactly? The modern guys usually get entangled into the determinism and can not get out of it. In fact, i've, atleast cannot recall, anybody even having ever discussed the Intellect on this channel; they do with consciousness, yet, never get anywheres close like the Wisemen of India has. Regarding the Intellect: what does such a faculty belong to? So you may become aware: the Soul. Remember: just because we don't have freewill - meaning: we do not possess it as if we own it - doesn't mean That we dont have the 'potiential' of .....................! (Insert what you 'WILL' here). That's right, who cares if we don't have(own) freewill, we have INTELLECT

The core of all that matters is "personal responsibility combined with Morality" without this "Free Will" is of no consequence

We have free will. We make good choices and bad choices. Most of the time we make good ones based on a variety of factors. Assuming a Block-time universe, most of us using our free will, made, make and will make good choices most of the time. Because we can’t see the future we live under a very convincing illusion that we make our choices in real-time. I suspect that there is a person alive 100 years from today, using his/her/their sense of free will to make choices at each instant in that timeline.

@drbuckley1

9 ай бұрын

Every time we discover a new natural fact, we shrink the range of choice available to human will.

@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386

9 ай бұрын

There is no choice in a block universe. It is perfectly deterministic. Your description ignores basic facts.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

9 ай бұрын

@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 *"There is no choice in a block universe. It is perfectly deterministic. Your description ignores basic facts."* ... Is he "choosing" to ignore these basic facts, or was it "predetermined" that he would ignore these basic facts?

@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386

9 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC He is not choosing; he has been programmed and thus the words are without understanding, like those produced by ChatGPT.

@DeaderEyeland_1983

9 ай бұрын

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCThere are no basic facts in an existence with infinite possibilities.

Bottom line: assuming we actually have free will is the more interesting case.

The message of naturalism ugh.

Every time this brain makes a decision it seems to choose that which will provide more pleasure and/or less pain in the future. I have never decided to run headfirst into a wall or choose the worst tasting beverage from several to quench my thirst. Every female that turns my head is healthy and shapely (and my head ALWAYS does turn!). Brains indoctrinated with religion will suffer even unto death because they believe they are going to paradise.

the type of free will that actually matters is one which dennett neglects: could we have done otherwise?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

He explicitly included that in his thought experiment about the child minder. The robot is determined, but the human is not. Do you choose the reliable robot, or the human who 'could do otherwise' than care responsibly for your child? This cuts to the heart of responsibility. For a freely acting agent to be responsible for their actions, their personal defining characteristics must determine those actions. what is the difference between free actions and arbitrary actions? In a free will account, how do the personal characteristics of the chooser bear on the choice? I've never yet seen a coherent account of this.

@maxwelldillon4805

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 he mentions it, but he still neglects it, as in he considers it not to be the important kind of free will.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@maxwelldillon4805 True, but then if you don’t believe it’s a coherent concept, how important can you think it must be? It’s not his job to explain it or advocate for it, or to account for things like how it is coherent with persistent individual personal characteristics, and individual personal responsibility.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 I admittedly don't understand the point of the robot versus human babysitter example. Both the robot and the human will use whatever sensory data they acquire and run it against algorithms of initial programming (or instict) and learned experience to make a choice on how to act (including the option of not acting at all). The human machine has a few million years of trial and error programming (evolution of social organisms) but has many flaws (e.g., fatigue). The robot would likely have its own shortcomings. But what does any of that have to do with free will?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 In the thought experiment, Dennett is supposing that the human has genuine philosophical free will, and regardless of evolution, biology, physics etc can ‘choose to do otherwise. He’s contrasting determinism (the robot) against the free will view.

I am a fan of Daniel Dennett and CTT, but I find myself unsatisfied with this treatment of "free will." It seems "soft" and "accommodating" to make us feel better. My view is that nature is not strongly deterministic; you cannot rewind all events in nature to actual previous states due to complexity, emergence, chaotic systems, feedback-feed-forward, and a degree of randomness. The brain has evolved such that humans have the capacity of "free will," that is the power of autonomous conscious decision-making, but within constraints that vary from person-to-person. Those constraints are genetics, gestation, early childhood treatment and environment, life experiences and environment, overall brain/body health, and subliminal biases. If our mother smoked and/or drank alcohol while pregnant with us, we are likely to have lower body weight, smaller brain, and a host of other deficits in life. We may have lower IQ, lack of self-confidence, and mental problems. Such a person does not have the same decision-making capacity as someone who did not experience those prenatal deficits. As humans, we do have "free will" within boundaries, but those boundaries are difficult to determine except in extreme cases. We are responsible for our decisions and actions, but, again, within boundaries that are almost impossible to discern except in obvious, measurable cases. Our legal system and moral sensibilities lag well-behind the realities of the varying capacity of autonomous decision-making among people. However, there is no current method of assessment to determine a person's actual capacity to make healthy and moral choices and taking resulting actions. Except in extreme cases, everyone is judged as responsible for their actions, and therefore, many injustices are committed both in moral judgment and in the judicial system.

Because unpredicted conscience never show up true reality in phich free will is ilusion. Guys his example in Free Will show he doesnt understand fundamdntal Free Will definition in phich than in philosiphy.

When people think of having free will, they think that it means the ability to choose whatever we want. The problem comes in when you ask where those choices came from. If we could choose to make something happen, and it happened exactly as we chose, we would be gods and not humans. We know that we can't choose whatever we want (like sprouting wings and turning invisible). But if the choices come from outside the person, free will hardly seems free (because it depends on something outside the scope of our freedom). What follows after that, is that we don't have free will. But this is obviously wrong too. To say that I was "destined" to watch 5 min of youtube before getting out of bed this morning sounds is nonsense. But if we don't have free will, and our lives aren't determined, where are we? We don't have free will. But our lives aren't determined either. There is a mixture of control, chance and/or destiny. We have some other kind of conditional will that needs a definition.

@Pyriold

9 ай бұрын

Free will can still be an illusion like a lot of things that we perceive. For example you are not seeing your blind spot that everybody has, the brain just ignores it. Human behaviour can be influenced in a lot of ways without the person noticing it, drugs, advertising, hypnosis and even health issues come to mind. So even if you think that you are totally free in your choices that's obviously not true all the time. Why should it be true at any time?

Two partially blind people do not possess complete vision...

Its not "determined " its "God" Dancing, whatever that means...

Daniel Dennett makes appealing arguments (unless you like the idea of have little or no free will), but mixes up uncertainty of outcome with "making a choice".

Here again we are having a discussion about how the world works. There is an up and a down. There is a preferred state. That state is True Joy and True Love. Free Will is connected to Truth, True Love, and meaning in life. There is very little Free Will, but there is some and it is an activity that lays within consciousness, if any person would bother to understand what True Love Really is it is a symbiotic twin of Free Will. Truth=True Love=Free Will= Meaning in Life. Robert, I sent you my book . 🙂

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

Rather than write books about how you imagine people might or might not think, can I suggest you talk to some actual atheists and physicalists, and find out what they think and believe about their personal agency and the meaning in their lives in reality. You might be surprised.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

That’s pure gobbldy-speak

It is DUMB to say "Free-Will" does not exist. We have absolute overwhelming evidence that "Free-Will" exists. The problem is when people want to define "Free-Will" as something it is not, and then because they defined "Free-Will" as something "Free-Will" is not and something that does not exist, then they want to argue "Free-Will" does not exist... and that is DUMB. One of the huge reasons it is DUMB to say "Free-Will" does not exist is because of many things that critically depend upon "Free-Will" to exist. Ethical moral values require "Free-Will". If there is no "Free-Will" then ethical moral values have no meaning. Decision making requires "Free-Will". If there is no "Free-Will" then there is no decision making. Intelligence requires decision making which requires "Free-Will". If there is no "Free-Will" then there is no intelligence because there is no decision making. So what then is "Free-Will"? Well, it is not something supernatural and that is where we get into this whole idiotic topic is people trying to say "Free-Will" has to be from something outside of the Laws of Nature or it does not exist. Looking at the history of how term "Free-Will" has been used and still is used today, "Free-Will" is the ability of a person to make a decision they can make without an unreasonable degree of influence from outside of themselves. To define this more generally, "Free-Will" is the ability of a defined bounded intelligent system being able to make a decision it can make without an unreasonable degree of influence from outside that intelligent system. Now, the next thing that adds to this are people who have gone in for existence being superdeterministic, meaning everything is 100% determined, thus from the Big Bang every decision you think your are making was in fact predetermined back around 13.77 billion years ago. Well, that is nonsense. If everything were 100% determined then the Observable Universe would be homogeneous, and it is not. What we in fact have is a balance of determinism (Order) and uncertainty (Chaos) both of which bubble up from the quantum realm through all scales of existence to the Observable Universe and certainly beyond what we can observe. That balance of Order & Chaos is part of the Laws of Nature and required for our existence to be the way it is. The Order is strong enough that from the Big Bang it was 100% predictable that something like Earth would develop and something like humanity would evolve, but it was NOT 100% determined exactly how this would happen and that uncertainty was required to get the results we have today. If anything, this could be another fine tuned argument someone might make about whether it was planned or not, because if the balance of Order & Chaos were significantly different our existence would not exist as it does. On the other hand, we do not know the true size of the Universe which includes everything we observe and everything we do not observe, so perhaps within an infinite Universe every possible balance of Order & Chaos exists and thus we are not finely tuned we are just developing where the balance allowed us to develop as we are.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

I’m a physicalist, so solidarity! In discussions like this I call the ‘could have done otherwise’ view philosophical free will. For the sale of clarity I refer to the ability to choose as determined by our mental state as agency. It’s just terminology at the end of the day.

@MusingsFromTheJohn00

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 of course we are bound firmly within the Laws of Nature, but within the Laws of Nature is a balance of Order & Chaos, thus within some degree of order we have no choice but within some degree of Chaos we do have a choice, within that range of choices we have exists free-will, decision making, intelligence, ethical moral values, etc. The problem with those who want to decree "Free-Will" does not exist is the STUPIDITY that by their declaration "Ethical Moral Values" do not exist, thus do whatever the hell you feel like because that is what was pre-determined to happen 13+ billion years ago... but that is a massive falsehood and a very harmful falsehood.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 My goodness, that's quite the strawman you've erected. Show me these people who say "free will doesn't exist so go ahead and do whatever you damn well please."

@MusingsFromTheJohn00

9 ай бұрын

Underlying the discussion is whether everything is determined or not and if everything is determined then free-will does not exist. To contrast whether everything is determined around 2:20 the idea of indeterminism is considered and how that not give free-will either. Around 2:50 Kuhn skates around the idea of saying there is no free-will, which is what people who are making the everything is determined argument, and he begins starting what I went into, the fact that people regularly do not properly define free-will, that something is wrong with the typical way people define free-will. Now, what he is missing in his thinking here is that he only considers that it is either all determined (Ordered) or all indetermined (Chaotic). But, what science seems to really show from the elementary particle scale that is the smallest we can observe is that there is both determinism and indeterminism which work together in some kind of a balance of the two which percolate upwards through all scales of existence to the Observable Universe and some unknown distance beyond what we can observe. Around 3:15 Dennett also talks about this deterministic view making the traditional notion of free-will not work, thus the definition needs to shift to what we really have which then works with a balance of determinism and uncertainty. But neither Dennett nor Kuhn deal with (1) what is a better definition of free-will, (2) how the idea of 100% determinism has a large group of people using that to claim there is no free-will, or (3) that existence is not 100% determined nor 100% indetermined, but instead has a balance of both through all scales of existence.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 I don't think the free will, 'indetermined' position is that choices are made chaotically, I don't think that's what they mean by freedom. Rather they mean un-caused by any deterministic process. The actual process by which choices are made is not explained, I think they see it as an act of original creation. I'm sorry, I find it difficult to explain that position because it doesn't make much sense to me, but to be fair to the position I don't think chaotic is right. When you talk about what science seems to show, I imagine you mean mainstream interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. We see high degrees of regularity in the consistent types of interactions we observe, photons and electrons etc have a certain range of interactions, but with randomness in the specific outcomes. Is this what you mean by chaotic? In any case, this is not at all what free will believers are talking about. As Dennett points out, neither determined nor random choices are 'free' in that sense.

I expected more from Dennett. A robot analogy? Very poor trick.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

Ok, but what’s your answer to the question, and why?

What the???

You need to be determined about knowing Islam

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

For me, it seems that god may have chosen otherwise 😀 Not my fault bro!

@hello-cn5nh

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 so you're an Islamophobic bigot OK got it

@Kh.J.

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 is any one forcing you?! every day you choice to eat drink work…Etc. it’s totally your choice, same Logic if you violate traffic light and knowing the truth and consequences, god have gave you the intellect to reason and differentiate wrong from wright.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@Kh.J. In my case I have a particularly strong skeptical streak from somewhere.

It is physically, scientifically, logically impossible for "free will" to exist.

For once, either on the side of or against free will - explain what free will is without involving the second nonsensical idea of determinism. What is free will on its own? Describe it? Explain It? Stop using the 'd' word to obfuscate the problem.

It is amazing how a philosopher who allegedly masters brain and mind matters disregards the undisputed role of emotion in our evolution…and points to a mechanical future driven by robots replacing the human soul (whatever that is), at the same time trying to preach us about freaking responsibility…this empire of pure rationality that lurks on the horizon is a real threat to us all.

@mikel5582

9 ай бұрын

What is responsible for emotions? Hint: they're evolved biochemical and biophysical processes that conferred ecological fitness to the species.

@metheplant9655

9 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 yes, now go and provide that homeostatic mechanism to Dennet’s unfit-yet-competent nanny robot. I’ll wait here.

Not acting responsible is giving many people a sense of freedom. That's why they inject substances in their veins, ink under their skin and why they engage in perverse sexual behavior.

A full on illusion is what, however persistent

Firstly, what a shameless setup. Also, the robot example is nonsensical. Secondly, the responsibility model is irresponsible and unjust. The desire to make people responsible does not mean that they have the capacity to decide other than they do in the circumstances. It does not show that we have free will.

Wow a whole lotta words and rambling to say basically we don't know what the hell is really going on cause every time we get close it get stranger.

What an uncomfortable way to do an interview. Sitting in a pew and trying to talk to someone behind you.. Shouldn't they be paying attention to the sermon or whatever? 😆

Do you believe in free will? Chris Hitchens: yes, I have no choice.

Quran 10:99 If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"

@rizwanrafeek3811

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Hi Simon, Can you tell me who are "disbelievers (non-Muslims)" the verse 9:5 referring to ? Also please tell me the the historical content your quoted verse associated with.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@rizwanrafeek3811 So far as I understand it, this is an injunction to kill unbelievers you haven’t made a treaty with. It has a specific historical context, but it’s in the Koran and therefore a model for Muslim behaviour.

@rizwanrafeek3811

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 You are not only wrong in four counts but you are also spreading false info about our faith and about our people.

@rizwanrafeek3811

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 counts: *One* : The unbelievers are pagan Arabs with whom Muslims had treaty with and not every Tom, Jerry and Henry out there on Earth. *two* : Signed treaty was violated by pagan-Arabs. *Three* : Those who violated the signed treaty went to ambush noncombat in day-to-day life. *Four* : They were given an ultimatum to stop their aggression, when the prescribed period in the ultimatum is over, then our people were permitted to take them down.

Just to clarify, "will" and "freewill" are two very different things. "Will" has to do with willing something to happen, e.g., deciding to go for a walk, picking up a pencil, etc. (And a case could be made for that being largely deterministic.) "Freewill" has to do with making a moral decision, choosing between right and wrong. If one were to argue that freewill doesn't exist, then by implication they would be also advocating for there being no difference between right and wrong, or by extension, no difference between truth and error. Does anyone seriously believe that? To be "responsible" means to choose right over wrong, which requires moral discernment. No machine will ever be able to do that spontaneously. Many options can be programmed into its database, but the list will never be able to be completely exhaustive. It goes along with problem solving, which is what all life does. Except in this case, it typically involves solving an interpersonal problem, not a survival one.

@KestyJoe

9 ай бұрын

Generally, free will doesn’t have to do with moral questions. It’s simply a question of - for any decision you make - could you have made a different decision.

@Sirrus-Adam

8 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe - do you have a personality? Is it unique? Why? Do you have interpersonal relationships? Are they affected by the kinds of choices of how to act? I've had plenty of experiences where the first time I chose one way and it didn't work out the way I wanted, then when the same situation come up again, I made a different decision, and it worked out considerably better. E.g., how I interact with women has improved considerably over the years as a result of learning what works and what doesn't.

@KestyJoe

8 ай бұрын

@@Sirrus-Adamlearning to respond differently to similar situations based on their results is fine, but it’s not a demonstration of free will

@Sirrus-Adam

8 ай бұрын

@@KestyJoe - why do I get the feeling you're being difficult? 😉 A couple definitions of "freewill" from the dictionary: 1: voluntary choice or decision 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention I suppose it boils down to my rejecting the notion that this is nothing but a material universe where all actions are a result of antecedent causes. 195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe. www.urantiabook.org/195-After-Pentecost/#195_7

@KestyJoe

8 ай бұрын

@@Sirrus-AdamI simply disagree with you. The material world exists. The rest of what you propose appears to be wishes, suppositions or egocentrism.

Why do people still grow moustaches?