Law enforcement should not be about finding out if someone is responsible for their actions and then punishing them for breaking the law. It should be about finding people who have demonstrated that they will harm others and separating them from the rest of society so that others will not continue to cause harm.

@mikaelamaverik2167

Жыл бұрын

Determinism basically means all the world is like a billiard table and the que ball is already in motion. There's no changing what law enforcement does. They will do what they do. There is no free will for humanity to choose and "change" how we function. We will inevitably see it play out. Some of us are aware and observe in a meditative state. We all will get there eventually through the process of reincarnation. Just relax and try to enjoy yourself.

@FawkYouGuy

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Ethics has no place and the carrying out of law enforcement. It should only be apart of the creation of laws. We collectively agree that society and its betterment is a goal, and keeping the insane (as susan wolf would describe it) apart from the sane is a necessary evil. (I am primarily a determinist so the idea of punishment or praise seems anti intuitive. However, i have made it a target of mine to choose the betterment of society over the protection of individual freedom.

@Jamie-Russell-CME

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, it doesn't matter of an adult has conditioned a child through continuous abuse. Just lock them both up for the same thing.😅

@Jamie-Russell-CME

Жыл бұрын

Better yet, if I push a person into you and you hit someone. That is on you.

I agree with Roy Baumeister. Another excellent video. Thank you CTT.

very interesting topic

If there is no free will then the question of "should or shouldn't" doesn't exist either. It's an illusion to think we can choose how to act with the knowledge of deterministic truth.

Let's sort this out. Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone. So, moral people seek out the causes of harm and try to correct them. If the cause of the harm is a tumor or mental illness or addiction, then we hold that tumor or illness responsible, and apply correction through medical and psychiatric treatment. If the cause of the harm is coercion, then we hold responsible the guy holding the gun. If the cause of the harm is a deliberate choice for personal profit at the expense of the victim, then we hold that act of deliberation responsible, and attempt to correct that process of deliberation in the offender. Free will is the notion we use to distinguish a person's deliberate behavior from behavior that was coerced or due to significant mental illness. No one is ever punished for having free will. They are only punished for the harm that they deliberately cause. The nature of the penalty is derived from our philosophy of justice, not our philosophy of free will. We create a system of justice to protect and secure everyone's rights. So, a "just" penalty would seek to (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) secure the offender to protect society until his behavior is corrected, and (d) do no more harm to the offender and his rights than is reasonably required to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

If man is not free and is therefore not responsible for his actions, then not only is the criminal not responsible for his actions, but neither is the state who punishes him!

@majmage

4 жыл бұрын

Right, and even without responsibility there's a completely rational case for a justice system purely out of a (subjective) desire for well-being (since we're able to consider the consequences of a world that doesn't forbid murder, which has more murders because murderers aren't caught, and has _even more_ murders because some will murder who would've been deterred by a justice system.) Knowing we probably lack free will _should_ cause us to try to help those who would murder. Meaning: we should learn how to identify people who will murder _before_ they murder and figure out if there's a way to improve their environment so that they can avoid eventually taking that action. We would do this both because it benefits the murderer and because it saves the well-being of the people they would've killed. "Improve their environment" would likely take many forms, from identifying and fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, to helping people with anger management, to all the other potential causes and cures for the all the varied factors that cause people to deliberately murder others.

@thenetchatefakatherapture7538

4 жыл бұрын

@@majmage The Number 1 problem in global and national society is the psychopath. Improving the environment for the psychopath will basically do nothing - The Great Experiment has proven this time and again. Alternatively, improving the environment for the victims of the psychopath requires the psychopath be removed from society. It is the psychopath who breeds doubt, hopelessness, anguish and anxiety. It is the psychopath who breeds anger, resentment, hatred, violence and murder. It is the psychopath who breeds personality disorders and mental illness. It is the psychopath who breeds criminality. Murder is the last act in the ever spiraling psychosis infecting society. The psychopath must be removed from society!

@majmage

4 жыл бұрын

@@thenetchatefakatherapture7538 I feel like you ignored my examples and are using a uselessly vague definition of "psychopath". _Do human brains work by magic?_ They don't. They work by many known deterministic factors. _In human history have we ever been able to control ALL those factors in a human?_ No. We don't even know all the factors that exist, and we certainly don't know how to control them all. That's part of a criminal's environment. The state of their brain is the cause of their behavior. The other parts include things like upbringing, economic situation, emotional state, etc. The way you're using "pychopath" suggests you're not talking about the actual known disorder, but using the term to label anyone who causes problems for humans. Which means you're saying "humans who cause problems are the cause of all human-caused problems". Yeah, great, thanks for that. I mean the way you're using it just makes it seem like your modern-day fill-in for a witch-hunt, where you're going to call anyone whose opinion you dislike a "psychopath" and order them removed from society. Pretty bad argument.

@thenetchatefakatherapture7538

4 жыл бұрын

@@majmage If we agree that without responsibility there's a completely rational case for a justice system there’s no reason to go any further on that part of your comment. And I figured someone watching videos on this channel would be familiar with the definition of psychopath. Yes, human brains work by many deterministic factors but to say that in human history we have never been able to control all these factors in a human, don't even know all the factors that exist, or don't know how to control them all is rather inaccurate if we focus with the main societal issues. Of course these main issues are part of a criminal's environment - upbringing, economic situation, emotional state, etc. - and the state of their brain is the cause of their behavior. I’m familiar that the term psychopath is not used in the DSM and that the term antisocial personality disorder is used instead for the various characteristics of the psychopath/sociopath. I wasn’t saying "humans who cause problems are the cause of all human-caused problems" more than I was saying - humans who cause problems are the cause of human suffering (of course I speaking generally here). To be more accurate I was referring to psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic parents who pass on their personality disorders to their children, creating a new generation of psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic parents. And where did I ever dislike your opinion, or refer to you as a psychopath? Look… “The Number 1 problem in global and national society is the psychopath. Improving the environment for the psychopath will basically do nothing - The Great Experiment has proven this time and again. Alternatively, improving the environment for the victims of the psychopath requires the psychopath be removed from society. It is the psychopath who breeds doubt, hopelessness, anguish and anxiety. It is the psychopath who breeds anger, resentment, hatred, violence and murder. It is the psychopath who breeds personality disorders and mental illness. It is the psychopath who breeds criminality. Murder is the last act in the ever spiraling psychosis infecting society. The psychopath must be removed from society!” I don’t call people whose opinions I dislike “psychopaths.” I’ve commented under KZread videos for years now and have always agreed to disagreed opinions. Everything I wrote in that comment is an accurate description of our world… no more, no less. Now, if we could _completely_ get the “demon seed” eliminated from global society it would only benefit everyone involved, right? This was your statement… “Knowing we probably lack free will should cause us to try to help those who would murder. Meaning: we should learn how to identify people who will murder before they murder and figure out if there's a way to improve their environment so that they can avoid eventually taking that action. We would do this both because it benefits the murderer and because it saves the well-being of the people they would've killed. "Improve their environment" would likely take many forms, from identifying and fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, to helping people with anger management, to all the other potential causes and cures for the all the varied factors that cause people to deliberately murder others.” Government, the educational system, health care do everything they can (maybe they can do more!?) to promote good parenting skills, to prevent child abuse, identifying and fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, to helping people with anger management. These concerns are primarily important to get right in childhood because as we know… old habits die hard! And this is why a child under 18 is never diagnosed a psychopath.

@majmage

4 жыл бұрын

​@@thenetchatefakatherapture7538 Are you seriously claiming we know every cause of every mental disorder that was ever a factor in causing in a crime? If not, then you can't just vaguely say my statement is "rather inaccurate". The point is your Great Experiment claim is ridiculous: you're basically saying there's a point in history where we (A) knew all factors, (B) could control them, and (C) did control them. We don't even have (A) in 2020, so to pretend we had A+B+C at an earlier point in history is simply wrong. To fully control a criminal's environment we'd need A+B+C for those mental disorder factors, as well as for the other factors (upbringing, economic situation, etc). That's the criminal's full environment. That's what's determining their behavior. If it's changed, their behavior will change. It's simply wrong to act like we've ever fully known all the factors (when we _currently_ don't) and controlled them. (Also, the factors I've described are part of the criminal's full environment isn't meant to be comprehensive. Some I've excluded for brevity. Some are simply unknown to us currently.) You already know controlling part of a criminal's environment works: if a murderer is imprisoned, they are (almost entirely) prevented from murdering again. What I'm describing is just the better scenario where the murderer never commits _the first_ murder because we identified the factor(s) in their childhood that would've eventually led them down that path and addressed them. To me the potential existence of this "cure" seems undeniable, and it's _only_ a question of two really big factors you haven't even mentioned: the feasibility of implementing it, and the ethics of implementing it. After all if the "cure is worse than the disease" because zero privacy exists and that inhibits everyone's well-being by more than the murders, then obviously it shouldn't be implemented to that degree. That's where the meat of the interesting discussion lies.

this is actually a good Closer to the TRuth.

What if one had an unspoken question running in the background such as "Is this a loving thing to do?" . And when contemplating past actions, "Was that a loving thing to do?". Would one then make better moral choices or simply become more sensible? Might we gain the freedom to choose (more than whether to scratch an itch or not) as perspective broadens and intelligence grows from experiential and intentional learning? What if the growth of intelligence replaced the ancient instinctual survival passions inherited from our animal ancestry? And they only automatically reacted when physical survival was threatened but no longer for less dire events like over emotional reactions when seeing a spider or being offended etc etc? Could we then free up brain space to focus on becoming what we optomise for, such as having more free will?

Interesting channel. A technical issue: I'll be happy if you could fix the sound level discrepancy. The sound in the narration is significantly lower than the sound in the interviews. That seems to be consistent in all the videos I've seen.

Roy Baumeister! Wow! How cool, I was just looking up something he's written to quote him and clicked on this because it was suggested and woosh.

sound levels are good

Yes

I think it requires consideration and courage. Bcuz many are more perched in fear than anything else.

Hilbert‘s trolley problem: there are infinitely many tracks, on each of them is a worker. On each of them, a train is approaching the worker. You can arbitrarily redirect trolleys and workers as long as they stay on some track. What will you do?

Another easy one...Yes!😊

Those who believe in free will also accept that we are determined by many things such as genes, education, biology, environment, etc. This contrasts with those who claim that there is no free will. For them, there is no other option than determinism. They can be considered as fundamentalist. There is an old story of the Roman Cicero, on a walk he met someone who claimed that free will did not exist. He listened carefully, and when he had finished his speech, Cicero took his walking stick and beat him. The man indignantly said "why are you beating me?". And Cicero response : "but do I have another choice?"

It may be difficult to reconcile moral Responsibility with free will. It's a matter of asking the right person who has the authority to answer you.

Freedom comes before free will.

@garychartrand7378

7 ай бұрын

True. Because it is necessary that God or His children are Free to choose as to what to (C) create next.🙏❤️

I find it difficult to come to a different conclusion than the following: 1. Any situation involving people can be judged by an external observer wrt. to any normative. (If the normative is e.g. morality, the situation can be judged as immoral) 2. If the situation was *intended* we call the bahaviour of the person an "act", otherwise a "happening". Intentionality is a state of mind, which may be difficult to determine from external - but not impossible in priciple. 3. So: If its an act, he is morally responsible - and no need for free will here.

@jl9062

3 жыл бұрын

I think there is a conflation here - a situation or act can be judged as immoral or bad (say, a guy randomly killing people on the streets) but that doesn’t imply the guy is morally responsible. Isn’t the shooting a result of his genetics and environment? And he had no control over his genetics, nor did he have control over his environment. In other words he could not have done otherwise, just like a kid who’s been forcefully tied to a machine that senses heartbeats and starts a nuclear explosion at the 100th heartbeat. In both cases they had no actual control over what happened.

@echo-off

3 жыл бұрын

Jay Lee, I understand the argument. There are still two options, that can be well distinguished: 1. your shooter had no option, but felt forced to do it without wanting it. Then he is morally not responsible. 2. the shooter had no option and wanted (intended) it. Then he is morally responsible. Usually we don’t feel a difference between our attempts to do something and our will. That’s why we are usually morally responsible. The fact that we are possibly driven in a deterministic way does not add anything to the fact, that we can morally judge an intended act.

Dear sir, please make a video on OBEDIENCE AND FREE WILL.

Yes.

How can there be an opportunity for moral responsibility without choice? Arbitrary terms.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

Fortunately, we usually have many choices. Choosing is a deterministic operation that inputs 2 or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. That choice is usually in the form of an "I will x", where x is what we've set our mind on doing. That chosen intent then motivates and directs our subsequent actions.

Another excellent show Robert! On the philosophical consideration of the relationship between free will AND personal responsibility... the answer is SO simple that even the judicial system got it exactly right. We ARE responsible for our decisions ! The DEGREE of our responsibility may be debated based on mitigating circumstances, but NEVER (And appropriately so) because we have NO free will.. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it..

@christianpnorris

4 жыл бұрын

Sorry, i couldn't quit make sense of this comment, but i'd reckon that "socially accwptable" moral behavior isn't the same as moral. Obviously, because of the qualifyer, it's not the same, and must account for the moral rectitude of the entire society which could well run counter to free-will's judgment on the society feom thw individuals viewpoint. Nooot that im trying to change any opinion, just understand your take, but maybe after i watch the vid i'll see better what youre referencing... just piping in from the title question...

@draymatthews

4 жыл бұрын

I think you have made a religion of free will. I thought the government was not allowed to support a religion.

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@christianpnorris Yes indeed friend, I edited the comment for clarity.. Does it make more sense now?

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@draymatthews Ray I would advise you look up some of the word definitions used herein.. You make unfounded claims based on ASSUMPTIVE knowledge.. As a naturalist/materialist I follow where ever the EVIDENCE leads, The OPPOSITE of what followers of any religion do, AND the opposite of what posturing half-wits who think wild guesses are facts..

@draymatthews

4 жыл бұрын

@@billnorris1264 Good! I suppose you having been searching for various groups and governments definition of "free will" and should be able to make a testable theory of free will based upon that definition. Then, you would develop said test and test the freest minds in that nation. You won't like the results.

An interview with Robert Sapolsky on this topic would have been interesting. Evolution provided humans with a degree of free will. Our free will is influence by, that is, constrained, by genetics, life experiences, and local surrounding pressures at the time of a decision. I do believe that nature has provided a degree of "will power", variable across individuals, that allows us to "resist doing what we are inclined to do and do something else." People tend to have difference degrees of will power based on the nature of the application of it. For example, some people can stop smoking cold turkey, while others are no able to even with medical aids. Some people are given to obsession, compulsions, and addictions, while others seem to be relatively free of them Interesting topic for sure.

@Middlesex1957

4 жыл бұрын

I agree! Sapolsky would have been a great addition. Wouldn't it be fun to do something like this with all the minds exchanging ideas in real time?

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

But did you choice to have this the body and brain that nature provided you with? Because if you did not you still don't have control over the proces that makes you do something.

@georgegrubbs2966

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 The "you" refer to IS my body and brain. I did not exist prior to them. The "I" IS brain activity, nothing more.

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgegrubbs2966 I agree we are simply part of the universe, cause and effect. The concept of free will makes it look like we are the author of our thoughts.

@georgegrubbs2966

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 I believe nature equipped us via evolution to possess a degree of free will. The neural activity that is "us" can direct choice in most cases. I come to this through study of neuroscience and specifically experiment where humans and other primates can cause muscle activity and bodily movement through mentation alone - just by thinking. The movement would not happen unless the "I" part of brain activity made a focused, directed effort to cause action to happen. In this way, we can exercise our "will" and make choices.

What role does free will play through a perspective of natural selection?

@grybnyx

4 жыл бұрын

None.

@nashdave6835

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla I love this

@majmage

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla That starts out with a good thought exercise for realizing our lack of free will, but then you claim there's a, _"Person who created everything"._ What evidence justifies believing that? I mean we both lack free will: * I lack belief in any gods as a deterministic result of (a) learning that evidence is our only reliable path to truth and (b) having no evidence of god. * You believe in god(s) due to a set of factors unique to you. It seems ideal that if your beliefs are true, you can convince me of them (by providing evidence of god(s) or proving that some non-evidence-based way of knowing truth is reliable). Or if no evidence exists the next-best scenario would be your realization that this belief of yours isn't justified and should be abandoned. Certainly it's deterministic either way, but that doesn't mean we don't care about whether our beliefs are truth (unless your beliefs are formed purely due to how they make you feel, which would be unfortunate since that's not a reliable way to know truth).

Morality is a subjective evolutionary strategy that we make up in order to survive better. It is very important to us that is why we may confuse it with objective descriptions of the actual reality but it it isn´t. Their is simply no free will, guilt, morality or responsibility in objective terms but we subjectively invent these concepts because they benefit our survival.

@cjdamage8918

4 жыл бұрын

Right so we can just dismiss them so? I mean, if they're not real, why not?

@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493

4 жыл бұрын

@@cjdamage8918 no, they are important to us, if we dismiss them, we would survive worse. Evolution favoured them in civilized environments at least. Subjective doesn´t mean it is nothing.

@cjdamage8918

4 жыл бұрын

@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 how can they be important if they dont exist?

@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493

4 жыл бұрын

@@cjdamage8918 they exist subjectively as an evolutionary strategy but not objectively as a description of the world. We invent them because they serve us. But they might go away in the distant future, when we don´t need them because for example our devellopment has achieved that there are no threats to our lives and hence no concept of guilt, responsibility etc. for our evolutionary systems to make up in order to protect our lives.

@cjdamage8918

4 жыл бұрын

@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 "they exist subjectively". Translation: they dont exist we just made them up. Conclusion: whatever doesnt exist I can dismiss because it's not real. Agreed?

Why do you never approach Sam Harris?

@Carlos-fl6ch

4 жыл бұрын

Because he is not complete about free Will and morality I guess

অন্যদের ভুল থেকে শিক্ষাগ্রহণ করুন এবং সেইরকম মানুষ হয়ে যাওয়া থেকে নিজেকে বিরত রাখুন যাদের ভুলগুলো থেকে অন্যেরা শিক্ষাগ্রহণ করে

@Closer To Truth : Free will, in what sense? Moral responsibility, in what sense?

Why do some people think we have to control everything in order to have free will? Why don't some people want to accept that we are accountable for our own decisions/actions regardless of whatever situation we may face that are out of our control?

@garychartrand7378

7 ай бұрын

Short answer is Fear

16:57 bookmark

Closer to the truth,...the heading is backwards. Best Wishes, Sserp

Robert, you often use the term "real world" as if there is such a thing. We do not live in a real world. We live in an experiential world. We interact with this world through our senses. As such whatever we contact through the senses is colored by the mind which is conditioned by our actions. You would do well to include eastern schools of thought when looking for answers where questions like these have been addressed and answered. Religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and others have produced some incredible thinkers.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

I believe that every culture faces identical human problems, such that their solutions will accomplish the same functions, even if they use different words to describe them. For example, how do Eastern religions deal with the problem of criminal behavior?

Those moral thought models are all flawed, designed to confuse and misguide rational thinking. Like that train story where we can choose which track will train take, one track is full of people and on other there's only one single individual, we can change track train will take and save many at cost of a single life. Don't do it, do nothing, if whatever we do can end bad to somebody and conditions didn't arise from our actions, than we simply should not influence natural cause of events. So what if many people will die if we do nothing, it was their destiny, but if we choose to save them by killing one person, we became murderer, no matter the lives we saved. This kind of passive reasoning is also a proof free will exist and shape individual sense of morality, selfish person is immoral, but not necessary a bad person also, since everybody is free and responsible for own actions. Therefore free will demand us to be selfish, but does not excuse us from professional obligations and duties. Brake a rule, spin the wheel, probabilities and chances will decide your faith. Or follow the rules and live with burdens of your sins.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

Cool. That's the same solution I would advise. Don't change the situation which arose due to problems we did not create. Perhaps if the accident kills 4 railroad workers, someone will investigate to discover the real causes, and take steps to correct them. If we could save the 4 without killing the 1, then we should do that. But we should not decide who should live and who should die.

If somebody does you wrong you have the free will to forgive that person or not. Forgiveness, doubt, personal belief, all of these depend on free will.

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

Having no free will just means that you have no control over the proces that makes you do something. If i make an argument that convinces you, can you than choose not to be convinced? Everything has a prior cause that makes that thing happen.

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 To me, free will just means you are free to use your will, like I was free to respond to your post I had an option not too respond to it but knowing that I had that option and acting on it is a exhibition of free will. At least to me.

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@jt-mx4on the will doesn't want anything it is the " self " that wants and chooses the will is just something self uses to fulfill a desire.

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@jt-mx4on You may want this or you may want that, but just wanting something doesn't get it for you, it is being free to use your will that gets you what you desire. Your will is just a means to an end but you the self is what uses that will to achieve your desire.

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@jt-mx4on You have will and you are you free to use your will to fulfill your desires. Free will is you using your will, your will is your will and not somebody's else's and when you use it you are freely using it. Free will is not about you controlling your circumstances or events.

Choice is not the same as free will!

@patmoran5339

4 жыл бұрын

How are they different?

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Do your own investigations. Read the book by Sam Harris on Free Will. Furthermore the subject is addressed by Cusmic Skeptic here on KZread: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gauVutOeoJDIoM4.html Good luck!

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". We often choose what we will do. Our choosing of that "will" (a specific intent) can be constrained by things like coercion and mental illness. However, it is not meaningfully constrained by causal necessity, because what you will inevitably do is exactly identical to you just being you, choosing what you choose, and doing what you do. And that is not a meaningful constraint.

That's how language works. Subtle differences that only the writer can determine when being deceitful in the interpretation. Hieroglyphs

There is no “moral responsibility” or what have the outright at least if only because morality is a relativistic term and a relative thing.

Do we pick our looks our height our brain we have no free will

That's a non issue. If we have no free will to follow moral rules, we have no free will to feel free of responsibility.

@jasensargent6176

3 жыл бұрын

Thats why it’s a denial of reality

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

Being not free just means that you are not in control. But those things are still true even if you are not in control of them. It is still good to be moral even if you have no control over it. And in the same way you can feel free of moral responcibility even if you don't have control over the proces that gives you this feeling. Everything you do still matters just as much without free will as with it.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 It doesn't makes sense to say it's "good" to be moral if we have no choice to be moral or not.

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 How does your inability to freely choose good or bad things change the standerd? You are maybe not responsible for the action but in itself according to the standerd it is still eather good or bad. And the impact of what you did would still be the same regardless of if you had a choose in the matter.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 ok, my actions can be labeled "good" or "bad", but I'm not responsible for them if I couldn't have chosen otherwise.

There has to be a moral absolute. That absolute has to be absolute perfection. We are not absolutely perfect so there has to be an absolute perfect provision for us that can only come from our absolute Maker since everything we do is on and against our Maker. Only your Maker is able to perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else can.

Can't punishment just function to disinsentivize crime and prison to keep dangerous people of the street. At the same time both these things could be used get these persons on the right track again if posible. Why is the idea of justice needed?

I feel that there is no free will, each decision is completely determined by general past experience of person, which includes even your own appearance as a part of your personal experience and every little detail stored in your brain. Only because our experience differs we can make different decisions in similar situations. It’s just insanely complex determinism that looks like we have free will. One more point is that you can’t imagine what you’ve never seen or heard about. Our thoughts are limited by our experience, that’s why our choices are limited by it, as well. And moreover, I feel, not only limited but completely determined by it.

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

To believe or not to believe that is the question, or is that a choice?

@h.k.3704

11 ай бұрын

​@@williamburts5495 lol

@h.k.3704

11 ай бұрын

So... what about crime?

@vitaly6772

11 ай бұрын

There is no guilt because there is no free will. But these "broken" people should be isolated from society to prevent further harm.

@vitaly6772

11 ай бұрын

For me, whether or not you believe in something is determined by your circumstances. Just like what religion to believe in is largely determined by where you were born.

The only thing that dilutes these issue is man made law. Disgusting, dishonest, or harmful are based on the primitive idea of law and how it applies to the above and not the act itself. What if no one had the ability of speech, then what, with the ability to verbally communicate. Then how would being moral have the ability to be distinguished or compartmentalised?! Then that comes down to the emotional aspect of feelings! So morality is based on the feelings of a set rules that may ,or ay not be accommodating for all people. Not that it's wrong or right it's just not culturally accepted.

How is funding Mele?

That example of putting someone behind the wheel of a car inebriated reminds me of the rationalization that the rabbis made about a hypothetical situation of a man falling off a wall and impregnating a woman. LOL! That kind of rational (irrational) acrobatics that is needed to try to avoid guilt is hilarious. It ignores the fact that we are born in the wrong and nothing we do is absolutely perfect. That is just amazing to me.

@JungleJargon

4 жыл бұрын

@Abraham Serafino What is obvious? It is obvious that no one is ever perfect.

@JungleJargon

4 жыл бұрын

@Abraham Serafino Cheap excuse.

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that the example they brought up is not a good one. But won't you agree that if something happened that you have no controle over that you than would not be responsible for it? For example people that are mentally ill usually don't get charged with the crime. The argument of that there is no free will takes this a step further by saying that you never have control over the proces that makes you do something because everything has a prior cause.

@JungleJargon

3 жыл бұрын

@@yannickm1396 You might be surprised at how much control a person can have over mental illnesses. I know I was.

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

@@JungleJargon I know of a man that had a tumor in his brain that caused him to be violent. Before he shot people he wrote that he thought that there was something wrong in his brain. This how they found the tumor. I don't know if he could have don otherwise. Maybe he could have gone to a docter before hand. Maybe he should have stayed away from a weapon with wich he could hurt people. But these are all maybes and because the point i try to make, that it is posible to have something that you can't control these are not really relevent And i think that a tumor that gives you violent urges that you can't surppress is a pretty good excuse for the act itself.

What happens to our society with its system of crime and punishment ????? The legal system in the USA is already in trouble. No mystery what happens. It is chaotic. But thanks for caring.

no

No

Who cares? If someone attacks you with a knife you try to stop them, you don't spend 26:46 minutes worrying about whether they are responsible for their actions. And if they persist in their behaviour it is likely a good idea to lock them up.

You should've interviewed Jonathan Edwards! He has all the correct answers.

I want my 26 minutes back! Who's responsible for this video being available to me?? ;)

@Coyote9771

4 жыл бұрын

i skip to the ending my self instead of watching it all

Moral accountability requires free will. I doubt that a robot could be jailed just because he was following the rules of his software.

@philip8802

4 жыл бұрын

We institutionalize schizophrenics even though they arent responsible for their delusions

@dazedmaestro1223

4 жыл бұрын

@@philip8802, first, all schizophrenics aren't institutionalized. Second, those who are institutionalized are not jailed, they are taken care of.

@solomontruthlover5308

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eWqeyqlufNvIXc4.html

I actually don't think it is immoral to eat dogs or to cheat on taxes... do I have free will?

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

No, because you don't have control over the proces that made you come to that conclusion.

Who cares about free will and personal responsibility! If someone commits a terrible crime, just take measures to prevent future occurrences, which can include (a) putting the perpetrator permanently out of circulation, (b) ensuring there are penalties that are well-publicised to put people off doing the same thing, and (c) intervening where there are people who are predictably in only a matter of time going to commit similar crimes (by medical treatment or by putting them out of circulation). . As for making criminals aware that what they did was immoral and unacceptable by society, there are some who would respond to such an intervention, and others who will laugh in your face (or behind your back) if you try, and you need to understand and accept that there simply are people, fortunately a minority, who are amoral, and laugh at those who act morally, seeing them as weak, because their morality constrains them, whereas the amoral person can feel superior because they are not so constrained. . Such people can become very good at manipulating those they see as weak, and are not the least bit interested in seeing the error of their ways, as they don't see that there is an error, other than the fact that they ended up with someone interrupting their activities. In other words, for some of the most dangerous people you can imagine, your conceptions of free will and personal responsibility are as completely irrelevant as Captain Picard's 'we come in peace' was to the Borg.

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

LOL. So according to you, if a five year old kid accidentally shoots someone to death, the kid should be permanently put out of circulation so it does not happen again? THINK man, THINK before you write...

@maxsterling8203

Жыл бұрын

Sounds psychotic I mean that is psychotic you obviously have left out the important things. People who write laws and legislate actually truly legislate. I like to break the word down since its English it isn’t hard and we can usually be abstract So onward - legislate = to slate ie. Create a codex to permanency. Legi = to give the foundation or leg that will provide balance and support to the permanence of the codex and support and balance to the codex when permanency can’t otherwise be constant. Now we’ve got legs we’re off and running we’re legislators. Think about the caliber of men that have undertaken such responsibilities, ok , it ain’t many so they are special. They are extra ordinary. They were best 250 years ago when men weren’t obligated to this work by overwhelming marketplace of ideas they actually had good sense to recognize what was needed and upon embarking on this mission they were careful to not present any final draft of ideas that could be misinterpreted as they needed to be beyond reproach. This created a perfect storm for simplified effective language and since then across the land careful thinkers have gladly and confidently stood on the shoulders of these giants and attempted to balance the world on their own backs. A disservice to ourselves to ignore how community strength embodies as process that is reflective of the nature of only a room full of men who chose to only acknowledge the competency of each other’s character and disregard any determination of status from the old world. Onward

@dakrontu

Жыл бұрын

@@maxsterling8203 That all sounds wonderful, standing on the shoulders of giants. As for the reality, in the early days of the US, black men got 3/5 of a vote, vested in their slave master, and learned men in the south seceded to establish a new nation which they saw as a model for the world and could not understand why other countries were abolishing slavery as a grievous error. Nothing is as wonderful as it sounds when you look at the detail. What is wonderful is that some today recognise who were the good guys and who were not. Unfortunately also today a high percentage of the US population has been mesmerised and absorbed into a cult of unreason with imaginary enemies such as 'Hunter Biden's Laptop' and anyone who is not white and so on. People can be horribly fickle. Hence the importance in public life of having GOOD men to lead by example. Trump was NOT a good man, and his lead encouraged and normalised proud unrepentant bigotry and hatred, which is an unmistakeable true measure of the man, an extreme malignant narcissistic psychopath who should never have been allowed anywhere near having power over anyone. As I say, take such people out of circulation, lock them up, keep them out of the way of the rest of us, they are insidious infections of the entire society. But in Trump's case, Pandora's Box was opened, and hence the mess we are in. All the supposedly honorable men such as Christian pastors who support him have shown their true colours of bigotry and hatred, his natural bedfellows, cheering on the destruction of the republic, to replace it with a theocracy, witness the recent SCOTUS changes as a sign of what is to come, and consider whether you can breathe free in a society that empowers such satanic morons and puts them in power over people's lives. The reality is this: History may bend towards sweetness, lightness, truth, brotherhood, and love, but it sure takes a lot of diversions along the route. Some of them, in a nuclear age, potentially existential threats. Worth refreshing your knowledge of George Orwell's 1984, a warning to us all about what happens when evil takes the reins.

@maxsterling8203

Жыл бұрын

@@dakrontuRetrospect is usually 20/20 or something to that effect. There were good men back then that aren’t remembered because they didn’t fill the roles. It’s hardly good retrospect to say how good they were since they didn’t get their chance. I am referring to the times of suffrage’s beginning’s and the political party separation and the men who are forgotten because of what they would not be able to do. Sadly , if three words can summarize , status trumps character. But other than political pitfalls, the good guys did get some legislation passed but political warfare stopped what I believe could have ushered in better sensibilities. So I could draw straws about which election frauds were the most important but I think we’d agree it would be the ones that changed our beginnings that actually appointed men to office. Anyways nonsensical party politics and it’s effect on legislation in the present is eroding our country from within , by that I mean the threshold of the people is tested. I wish we could put all that back in a cage and get it out of circulation I really really do.

@maxsterling8203

Жыл бұрын

@@dakrontu C) intervening into peoples lives with medical treatment who are predictably going to commit crimes is a really good one , it can be done and for some just making them aware that there is concern would be intervention enough. It’s undeniable . This deeply saddens me that it’s not reality

You more or less stear your life one way or another. You do not have infinite choice, you do what you know and sometimes take risks. But either way you do what you do because that was what you were going to do.

where is Moral Comes from? in any living beings

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone. We call something "good" if it meets a real need we have as a person, as a society, or as a species.

@beehivepattern5695

3 жыл бұрын

@@marvinedwards737 but there is an Options through freewill, did we deserve to keep alive or not

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

@@beehivepattern5695 What we deserve is a matter of agreement. By agreement we respect and protect certain rights for each other. Laws against stealing protect a right to property. Laws against murder protect a right to life.

@beehivepattern5695

3 жыл бұрын

@@marvinedwards737 that is for Human, but some animals do sacrified for their youngs, and humans can do worse such as the opposite and do above the Laws.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

@@beehivepattern5695 Sure. Many animals have social structures and enforce rules.

The idea of moral responsibility requires us to have the capacity to choose between right and wrong. "Responsibility," in general, doesn't make any sense without the corresponding capacity to choose. And so, there is no moral responsibility - or any responsibility at all - without free will. Good thing free will exists though.

Punish ALL Pedophiles

There is no such thing as free will.

@michaelepstein2570

4 жыл бұрын

Will is never ever free. Will is the movement of the I, the me, the self, the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain. Will is knowledge. Will is the past. Will is mechanical. Will is the program. The end of will is the beginning of Inner Total Freedom for the very first time in each and every moment of daily life. Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Lucidity. Without Lucidity, there is no Love, Peace, Joy, or Creativity...none whatsoever. There is only their limitations, which are imitations. Fate or destiny is whatever happens to you when there is no Lucidity.

@michaelepstein2570

4 жыл бұрын

Inner Total Freedom is actually being Totally Free of fear, anxiety, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Totally Free of beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, theories, opinions, perspectives, biases, prejudices, nationality, and identifications, which limit, color, shape & distort Perception, and therefore, prevent Lucidity. Totally Free of the I, the me, the self, the observer, the chooser, the experiencer, the interpreter, and the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain, which acts like an inner tyrant who tells you what to think, how to feel, and what to do. They actually treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give their dearest closest friend, lover, or child, without any sense of division, separation or distance in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Inner Total Freedom is actually Living Love, Peace, Joy, Truth, Creativity, Compassion (Passion for All). Communicating, Communing, Connecting with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life.

@michaelepstein2570

4 жыл бұрын

Inner Total Freedom does not take time. It is not of time. It is not the result of time or the things of time. It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet. It is not the result of any chemical. It is not the result of any process. There is no path to it. It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.

@patmoran5339

4 жыл бұрын

so how much does it cost?

@michaelepstein2570

4 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 90 minutes.

YOU HAD FREE WILL TO MAKE THAT COMMENT DIDNT YOU??

@yannickm1396

3 жыл бұрын

Having no free will just means that you don't have controle over the proces that makes you do something. If i make an argument that convinces you, can you than choose not to be convinced? And just like things outside of you everything inside also has a prior cause. So to answer your comment. No, you don't have control over the proces that made you make the comment.

I think the discussion is a bit misleading by implying that our system of justice requires or presupposes moral responsibility in order to function. The intuition supporting that conclusion is that it would be unjust to punish someone for actions he couldn't control. While that certainly seems plausible enough, we have to remember that meeting out punishment is not the only purpose of the law. In fact, the whole idea of "punishment" sounds rather archaic. A more practical purpose of the law is to prevent someone from doing more harm, or to create a powerful disincentive for doing harm. Both of these aims can be achieved even if free will is an illusion.

"Does moral responsibility require free will" God has entered the chat.

@kuylerray3295

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla Mentions God "I'm so smart" atheist has entered the chat.

@andrebrown8969

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla I thought you were a theists?

@kuylerray3295

4 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi That is, until you grow up. 😏

@kuylerray3295

4 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi IF YOU ARENT MAKING YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS BY THE AGE OF 20 YOU NEED TO GROW UP.

@kuylerray3295

4 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi Its an unavoidable reality of being a human.

We are born with inherent tendencies but we live with inherent and inherited tendencyciesIf our traits are based moral values or dharma there is no necessity for us to exercise our freewill. If they are of evil nature we exercise our freewill to overcome it.But the fact is Scientists mistook freewill to Willpower. Willpower is mental strength to achieve nearly impossible but possible like climbing a steep mountain. Predominantly it is physical..Freewill is our capacity to overcome our evil tendencies and choose alternatives to live our life based on dharma, and moral values. Sometimes we we have to change our decision to choose alternatives methods to create better outcomes. But it should be a matter of importance to us. Actions like raising our hands or ringing bells etc.doesnot involved freewill

@garychartrand7378

7 ай бұрын

You are trying to understand BUT you don't quite understand the truth of it yet.🙏❤️✌️

What always strikes me with the Closer to Truth videos is how superficial and even, at times, lame they are. Now, I know, this is a channel aimed at popularizing ideas that sometimes are quite complex, but still. Can't they find actual experts on these subjects as opposed to people in nice tourist spots? My take is Kuhn likes to travel to nice places, doesn't like to ask the really hard questions for fear of ruffling feathers, and is not all that interested in getting real answers (that would cut on his future travels, you see...). Anyway, starting to get bored with this series. Will look elsewhere.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

Perhaps this will help: marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/

@KRGruner

3 жыл бұрын

@@marvinedwards737 Well, it's indeed far, far better! Very much agree with the general idea, especially the emphasis on the fact that free will REQUIRES determinism (thought NOT confined to physical determinism). However, all this being said, this seems to e to still falls short of the ideal argument, and will not convince the likes of Sam Harris (and his pure physicalist friends). The impact of self-reference within human decision making has effects similar to Goedel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's undecidability/halting problem, and I believe that is the true crux of the issue. But I suppose there is a way to read your essay in a way that accounts for that. It's just not as explicit as I would like. Still, well done. Much better than most anything I have read or heard on the subject, in any event.

@marvinedwards737

3 жыл бұрын

@@KRGruner Thanks!

The drunk driver is responsibly morally because he allowed himself to drunk to the point where he couldn't perform well, secondly, the people that got the guy so drunk and did proceded to put him in a car where he would be so drunk to the point where he was in no condition that was safe to drive are morally responsible. Since both parties should have known better they should have used their free will to restrain themselves for the benefit of the public.

todays topic... meh....

@xspotbox4400

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla What do you mean by genes, how can color of hair or body height determine person's thinking and his actions? Inherited genetic diseases and disorders could be a limiting factor in life, but everybody respond different to a sickness, depending on personal conditions and circumstances. Genes can't make a person do anything, but they do control individual abilities to a certain degree, like when person is engaged in sport or other activities where aptitude or talent matter, since all contestants are good in what they do and every little thing counts. If activities make person immoral, he can choose not to do them or find more ethical ways to accomplish his proffesional goals.

@xspotbox4400

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla How could i not, you serve same word salad each time, must have read it at least a few times, by mistake, before i got aware that was exactly the same comment as days before. Please let me explain, it hard to follow line of reasoning if you line up definitions and terms like those words are self explanatory facts. I understand those connections and ideology might seems reasonable to you, but please mind there are many critical readers here who doesn't take simple ideas for granted. In example, you can't just claim free will is some sort of short definition and connect it with another idea of determinism, some people read books and study classical philosopher who had many things to say that contradict your apparently logical statements. This is why i suggest you brake down your comments into smaller segments and for God's sake, please stop copy paste same posts, like you wrote some sort of holly scriptures your followers must learn and never forget. I don't speak for others, but i was thought philosophy in a very radical and dynamic environment where we had absolute freedom to debate anything, so i'm kinda used to all sorts of weirdness, populism and perversions people come up with. It's not a bad thing, just saying, you have interesting things to say and it might surprise you how other people can shine a new light on things in a way you never thought of before. That's kinda point of a good philosophical debate, i think, by influencing others your thoughts will also change and that's always exciting, exhilarating experience. I'll tell you way is that, if you experience something new every day, your life will seems longer, but if you repeat same routine, years will pass like a single day because there's nothing special brain will remember from those wasted years.

@xspotbox4400

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruby Badilla Sorry, global english only here. You are perfectly right about language barrier, it is a problem entire human intellectual sphere face this days.

It may be difficult to reconcile moral Responsibility with free will. It's a matter of asking the right person who has the authority to answer you.