LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice04241 If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

@CMA418

Ай бұрын

A fool blames others, blaming one’s self is sign of progress, but the wise blame no one.

@samandarkhan2431

Ай бұрын

short subtitles destroy coherence. either use subtitles consisting of long sentence or don't use it all.

@michaeljensen4650

Ай бұрын

This is a ridiculous theory. There are many things in life which are not in our control. Our actions and choices may be influenced by many factors but that does not make our choices and actions deterministic. If a baby is screaming and will not stop should I smoother the child and kill it? I could say that I had no choice because the crying was disturbing me? We all have urges and impulses, should we act on them with any thought or restraint. Only children and emotionally immature people behave this way. This is nothing but another useless philosophical exercise. Robert Sapolsky is a fraud. "Evolutionary Biologists" teach that human behavior is deterministic and solely driven by our instincts and biology. That is narrow, politically driven and counterfactual thinking.

@CMA418

Ай бұрын

@@michaeljensen4650 Yet you didn’t take on any of the arguments presented. 🤔

@michaeljensen4650

Ай бұрын

@@CMA418 There is no reasonable argument! I gave a perfect example. A longer argument would not be possible in this format. The data does not support Sapolsky's assertion.

'nothing is ever your fault' - sapolsky 'everything is your fault' - my wife

@Norbyyyyy18

17 күн бұрын

Your wife is a wise woman.

@JB.zero.zero.1

17 күн бұрын

@@Norbyyyyy18 Hmm - no, a lot of people like to use shame and guilt as leverage within relationships.

@Norbyyyyy18

17 күн бұрын

@@JB.zero.zero.1 I was not referring to what you're saying at all. I meant she's wise compared to this Sapolsky guy, because she understands the weight of responsibility.

@TravelingZebra

5 сағат бұрын

@@Norbyyyyy18 responsibility is stupid, morals are just human creations, so what if another guy does something bad? Why make a commotion? Why freak out? It's not that crazy, our world is much, much smoother than it was previously. You have no reason to do anything if you don't want, only do things that help your goal.

Dude your output of content is ridiculous. I discovered this channel like a month ago and the amount of videos you've put out since then is staggering. One of the hardest-working folks on KZread rite here. Great stuff. Well done

@alik5972

Ай бұрын

Also the quality as well

@alineharam

Ай бұрын

He is on fire. I'm afraid he will leave himself a bit singed. From California.

Thank you, young man. People like you give me hope for the world. Intelligent people who refuse to let others do their thinking. Please, don't allow anyone to quash that glorious curiosity.

I have a master's degree in philosophy and I'm humbled by your grasp of the history and scope of the various positions and your exemplary, objective, rational analyses. Thank you for doing this.

@Finnatese

Ай бұрын

I know, it’s great, it’s almost like he’s been researching each topic and creating a guide of his argument before presenting it. Still great research, composition and presentation though, don’t want to take away from that

@MattHabermehl

Ай бұрын

@@Finnatese lol obviously he's prepared, but it's no trivial thing to move from centuries of literature to a clear and accurate review of the conceptual landscape. Give the man his due :)

@MattHabermehl

Ай бұрын

@@Finnatese granted, now with chatGPT this is a lot easier than it used to be :p

Videos on these topics often lead with a very "pro" or "against" formula yet yours feel much more nuanced and respectful of your viewers' ideas and abilities. It's encouraging the viewer to be curious about a particular concept instead of trying to change their minds. While I love reading about philosophy, I'm not college-educated and tend to read things I partially agree with. The lack of exposure makes me react more emotionally to other ideas I'm not comfortable with, such as Determinism. Your content and most importantly, the way you lay it out, is helping me a lot to improve this. Just wanted to thank you for sharing your knowledge in this way!

@voxsvoxs4261

Ай бұрын

Yes, I'm quite happy with how unbiased he goes into these I suppose it might be put 'pop-philosophers' and explains their arguments.

Whether you have free will or not ultimately doesn't matter. The feeling of life stays the same. Instead acknowledging that we aren't absolute free agents, but vulnerable to influences outside our mind and body, can give us a more forgiving stance to reality!

@stickofthetruth9408

Ай бұрын

Pragmatic philosophy is my favorite

@StrangePerson69

Ай бұрын

This is pretty much what I concluded after a few months of trying to figure out what I thought about the free will/determinism question. Through life I experience free will, and life is in itself the only thing I experience. Whether or not there truly exists free will, is not relevant to my life.

@luxeayt6694

29 күн бұрын

Knowing that things can influence your thinking can be freeing in a way.

19 күн бұрын

Or a less forgiving one. You could just as easily follow that line of thought to removal of offending geneologies... Not saying we should but that it's so open you can take it however you want. Like Astrology but for people who haven't had as much hair dye side effects.

What a serendipity encounter! I came across this channel randomly and here I m in a absolute awe with the command over you language and the intelligentsia you posses.

You sure work a lot, mate. I'm always glad to have you putting all those videos for us to watch.

Omg thanks for uploading! I aspire to have this much knowledge and grip over the language someday😭 This is my favourite channel❤

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you! Though don't be fooled, I am actually quite dim a lot of the time

@Chigo-nr8jg

Ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198even humility looks good on you, nice one old chap!

19 күн бұрын

@unsolicitedadvice9198 Lol the true sign of a genius is knowing how absolutely idiotic we can be. Discussing great ideas while walking into a table or wall, and missing the most obvious solutions entirely.

hello, joe! your videos and passion have really encouraged me to continue my education in philosophy

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Ah thank you! I am really glad. That's exactly what I hope this channel would do

I love your videos and the way you posit your own counterarguments, brilliant!

Free will is my absolute favorite topic! I'm gonna love this video 💜 I was right! I absolutely adored your ability to both defend and steelman Sapolsky, while also picking apart the flaws rightfully. In particular, I was really happy to see the way that you pulled the bigger issues out of the philosophical discussion at hand here. Such as discussing, regardless of whether or not people are morally responsible, in what way can we use what we understand and use this philosophical discussion to better the justice system. I did 5 years in prison and it is not good. The retribution only makes people worse, and it only damages them and destroys any ability to trust the world or be better.

Life would have been easier this way!! Thank you for todays video ❤

Good job enlightening us, keep up the good work 🙌

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this book and subject matter! I deeply feel for all those whose defense mechanisms currently prevent them from genuinely engaging with this subject and those who immediately search for faults in the arguments in order to dismiss their potential validity, especially given the weight they hold. I think that you very astutely point out the need for further argumentation and I absolutely agree. I tend to feel that Sapolsky did what he does best in presenting much scientific research that calls into question many common intuitions about the mind/decision-making and character/morality which will ideally lead people towards a more curious and open stance on these topics.

I've thought about determinism extensively and it's implications, and I've come to the conclusion that knowing that the universe is deterministic is ultimately useless in terms of guiding action. Determinism does not mean that you will always be the person you are now, or you are always going to be another person. Determinism accounts for everything, from the stagnant to the ever-changing, taking into account the perception that you will always be the same, and the perception that you are capable of changing and evolving. Reality, life; it's a playground, and determinism is the fence surrounding that playground. You can choose to hop on the swings, or to go down the slide, and while it's the perceivable truth that everything you are is simply a product of your environment and the body you are born into, it doesn't (or shouldn't) detract from the fact that you are perceivably you. You have your own interests, there are things you like doing, there are opinions you hold. Determinism doesn't necessarily have any tangible effects on these things, beyond your own perception that it does. The ability to choose and determinism are not mutually exclusive concepts. How we conventionally define "ability to choose" is the root of this unintuitive-ness and confusion, and once you reframe your perspective on the subject, tensions and worries about the topic pretty much evaporate. Furthermore, from the neurological research collected, there are conditions of birth and environment that do have life-changing consequences which are unlikely to be alleviated (mental handicaps, genetic defects, trauma at a young age). On the other hand, the potential and ability to change is likewise prominent, such as learning new skills or becoming more athletic. All in all, we are better off focusing on the things we can change, rather than the things that we cannot. There is nothing to be gained from groveling at the feet of that which is unalterable and unmoving.

There are so many interesting thoughts in this video that I need to watch it again🙂

Hey, my name is Alejandro, I am an undergrad Psychology student in Madrid. I love your videos, thanks a lot for uploading all this content!! I am always impressed by how clearly you are able to think through problems. What would you recommend I read or do to learn to work through diffucult material like you do? Analysing the premises assumed by the authors, breaking it down... Thanks a lot!! Keep it up

Mannn you explain everything so well that it's so easy to understand! Thank you

I love your content! Takes me back to my college days

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

I honestly love your videos

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you! That is very kind!

Five minutes in and I know I am going to have to listen to this one at least two more times to follow. My brain is already bouncing the ideas off Epictetus' Discourses, namely Book 1, Capter 18 on why we should not be angry with those who do wrong. If someone does not choose to do the right thing, they either need to be taught what the right thing is, or why they should choose right things over wrong things.

I made the only and best decision I could have made. I'm am at peace.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

That's really cool!

@colonelradec5956

Ай бұрын

That to me is what I pull from it. Technically determinism is probably true except for human reaction. Which I believe is too random to be able to fall into determinism. You can give 2 people the same circumstances and they can react literally opposite of each other. Id also like to see somebody explain this to David goggins 😂 a guy who runs 100 miles on broken feet just to be tougher. He's not even after the health. I think humans are too complex to be determined. Everything else I believe can be calculated. Explain that to me when I'm drunk and pissing in a closet 🤣 could you have determined that was gonna be on the table as possible actions lol? I agree 1000% though. You did the best you could with the knowledge you had. And if you had a time machine you'd probably do the same thing without new information. I believe some people are too hard on themselves. Were human. We can't see the future nor control anything but our own choices and actions.

@deussivenatura5805

Ай бұрын

@@colonelradec5956 Randomness ≠ Freewill

@JeffEmmersonSocialWork

Ай бұрын

​@colonelradec5956 *AMAZING response. As a 47 year old future therapist, I couldn't agree more with your statements.*

@colonelradec5956

Ай бұрын

@@deussivenatura5805 it certainly can't be determined if it's random so I disagree 😂 you can predict what a meteor will do. 100% of the time. Good luck with humans. That's called different views of free will. For you to be free will means choosing without influence. To me it doesn't. We are all influenced. But if you can't predict exactly where a human will end up then it's not determined. And no amount of understanding humans will ever give you 100% accuracy. Humans are more random than any quantum calculation. Even on probabilities and and wave functions. Imma go with my free will and smoke a dooby and drink some coffee 😂 or will I clean my house? Maybe some yardwork. Who knows lol.

Brilliant, enjoyable wording as usual but in this case the atheist Sapolsky has opened for metaphysics. God's will, Insh'a Allah and my favorite: TAO. I doubt that the basics for "Free Will" which Sapolsky's argumentation shattered can be glued together with any more words. Of course, a practical philosophy would be good to have to learn to handle the situation if we do not want to believe in ghosts. The assumption of us being figures in a computer game is also lurking there behind. In tight situations I personally find comfort in Tao and Alan Watt's lectures. The best thing Sapolsky has given me is the possibility to get rid of dwelling in regret/remorse. I can learn of things I've done which have caused pain for me or others but I do not have to crawl on my knees to Rome to "wash away" my sins. About this I had a hunch already decades ago when sensing the absurdity of a psychiatrist's theory at a mental institution for criminals. He declared (in a TV-documentary) that the first sign for a healthy mind is that the patient/prisoner shows remorse for the committed crime(s). My intuition showed to be very correct. A famous highly intelligent Swedish criminal acted regretful, was released but, surprise surprise!, continued immediatelly with his criminal career. If the sometimes very serious crimes were committed during mental disorders why should remorse be felt? It logically just presses the criminal back into his delusional state of mind. Is it not same with a healthy mind which WAS but is different now? ...Although there is no real reason to be upset about the moron for psychiatrist now. It could not have been otherwise. What does Voltaire's Candide mean with by the "best of all possible worlds"? Google says it is question about parodi. Is it? That hostage example you gave was a kinky one, though. OM MANI PADME HUM on that. Sapolsky feels himself unhappy with his conclusions. I, already some years older than him just try to glide in the state of mind where I observe the phenomenal world without too much participating. I hope nobody takes me hostage.

you're a gentleman and a scholar. very solid topic and video

Your channel is fantastic. Very helpful. So clear and concise, especially your Nietzsche videos! Is there any subject matter you absolutely, unequivocally steer clear from in your search for Truth? Over the last few years, two historical books that have changed my view of the world have been Chaos by Tom o Neill, and Hitlers War by David Irving (I had no choice in the matter according to Sapolsky), but as a consequence, my reframing of the world has changed drastically. Not least of which, because of the reaction I get when I mention the latter.

Great listen. Ty

How could anyone skip the sponsorship, this man is lovely to listen to. Fabulous hair

First off, I really enjoy your content and have been sharing it with my friends. I'll be honest, when I saw this video coming out with the title it has, I was rather reluctant to watch it as I find the idea of determinism to be rather off-putting in some ways and I was worried you were going to take a stance that I was going to struggle with. I was alleviated to see that you did with this topic what you do best and stay rather objective, and discuss the pros and cons. How does determinism not mean you are forced to suffer meaninglessly and that there is nothing you can do about it. I don't believe we suffer pointlessly unless we choose to let the suffering be the end of the story instead of the start of another. If we can trans morph that suffering into something positive through experience and learning, does that not imply free will if we have the ability to choose it over despair? The death of a family member isn't good, but it can be a time that brings those you love closer together by creating a stronger bond over the connection to the one you lost, through this you can create a better future out of the inevitable. I don't believe science is equipped to answer questions of ethics or what you ought to do. To believe otherwise seems rather dystopian and likely to promote giving more power to the government to "fix" these inequalities or moral injustices that are systematic, invisible, and out of our individual "delusional" free will believing hands. You can vote if you want but we have already determined the action you will take and decided not to include your vote because it goes against the present science, we don't care if you think its unethical or immoral because we have determined through "scientific consensus" what is ethical and moral. In conclusion I don't think free will or lack thereof is something you can prove empirically as it seems to me to be a question of philosophy not a question of science. Science answers how things happen not why. Why you should do something or why it happened has a moral implication, whereas how you do something or how it happened is devoid of that implication. Knowing how to think is important but gives you no motive. Without a motive or a why everything becomes arbitrary and meaningless and choosing a right direction becomes improbable if not impossible. The why is at least as important as the how if not more important. I don't want to live in a society that believes in determinism. I want to live in a society that believes in free will and promotes reflective measured justice, one that treats me with respect and as if I am responsible for my actions so that I may reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. If I imagine I have free will, am I not creating it within me or at least fertilizing its potential?

You’re the only KZreadr that I don’t skip when they advertise the sponsor.

Unknown combined circumstances brought me to this channel yesterday. I did not decide to binge your stuff since. I must not be making the right decisions.

Sapolsky has been one of my science heroes for over ten years. "Stress: Portrait of a Killer"... damn good documentary 🥰👍

Again, very helpful discussion. Also congratulations on the Skillshare sponsorship. FYI, the link only provides the opportunity to join Skillshare. I hoped to look at their offerings but this was not simple. Also, do you have any control over when KZread adds their breaks? They were poorly timed in this video, stopping at a critical train of thought. Thanks for getting my mind working on something -- enjoy following your train of thought. Wishing you all the best.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you! And I often let YT auto-set the ads but I’ll have a look to see where I can move them

This and your 1984 were your best videos yet. Can't wait for you to do Sun and Steel (it's a beautifully written book) or Murakami.

I'm hooked on these videos. They really force me to sit down and actually ponder. I wasn't aware how much I was missing out. Thanks for these as always and love the new twist to the thumbnail designs! 🎉

Best I’ve seen yet 👏

Wow, never expected a Robert sapolsky video. Love his lectures

The idea of deterministic causes being willed because they "pass through" the evaluative(?) functions in the brain is new to me. I've been thinking for some time about the relationship between deterministic matter/processes and "free will" and that gives me a whole new, broad avenue to investigate. Fascinating.

Great video. “ free will “ is the epitome of the intentional stance.

This seems depressingly familiar...every few years a physical scientist gains some celebrity by pointing out that the deterministic universe means that there isn't any place for the popular concept of 'free will' (i.e. that there's some kind of counciousness in your head making choices as it drives your body around), while ignoring that philosophy mostly accepted the materialistic view of the universe centuries ago and now considers the repercussions of this.

@waterfallfaerie

Ай бұрын

I understand your frustration-but I think the reason scientists write about these topics for a general audience is because philosophers aren't doing it and because science as a medium and in its facts and findings is simply more accessible than philosophy. 😬 If all of philosophy was written in simple language that middle-high schoolers can understand and then made widely available and taught mandatorily in school, I'm at least a little confident that the author wouldn't have felt the need to write this book. Either way, I don't think the author claims to have invented the consequences of accepting determinism, so if anything in my opinion we should just be thankful to him for working to popularize a set of ideas that might make the world a better place.

@donjindra

Ай бұрын

@@waterfallfaerie This is not science, though. It has more in common with Calvinism.

@waterfallfaerie

Ай бұрын

@@donjindra No, it's not like Calvinism because it is based on findings in physics and neuroscience and not on mystical and supernatural beliefs. You cannot prove anything, you can only disprove things. Determinism has not been thoroughly disproven, is not nonsensical, and is a logical conclusion to make based on what we know (unlike Calvinism/religion), so for now it only makes sense to treat it as the truth and find what follows from it. If you read the book, you'd learn about various findings, like that researchers can determine what choice you'll make based on brain activity *before you are consciously aware of having made the decision*. Other research showed that you can stimulate a person's nervous system to move a part of their body and they'll claim that they consciously chose to make that movement. It's widely accepted and not disproven that physics is deterministic, and there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics that result in determinism, too. If that's not science or at least genuine attempts to get to the truth of reality, then please enlighten us by proving all of this to be false or by presenting better evidence that results in a different conclusion because only then will your argument will be valid.

@donjindra

Ай бұрын

@@waterfallfaerie It is not based on findings in physics. Quantum mechanics rejects radical determinism. It is not based on neuroscience either. There is no way to experimentally test the brain in a manner that would scientifically prove it responds to snapshots of the state of the universe. It cannot be tested because we cannot rewind the stare of the universe to perform those repeated tests. "You cannot prove anything, you can only disprove things." This radical determinism is a non-falsifiable theory -- pure faith. "If you read the book, you'd learn about various findings," I'm not coming at this issue from an ignorant state. I've seen people like Sam Harris make these "scientific" claims for years. When you look at the supposed evidence it's weak, to say the least.

@waterfallfaerie

Ай бұрын

@@donjindra In quantum mechanics, as far as I know, there are various interpretations of how the quantum may actually operate at the macroscopic level of atoms, with some that are consistent with determinism and others that aren't-it's true that few if any interpretations suggest there is a singular future, which is what I assume you mean by _radical_ determinism. Regardless of what is found in quantum mechanics, it will only ever be evidence against free will since it's based on probabilities and not something that would result in any kind of consistent pattern or meaningful action in human behavior. I understand your position here but I don't actually think radical determinism is required for Sapolsky's argument. Even if it's true that there can be many branching futures because of quanta or some other fundamental features of the universe, that doesn't mean that humans have the ability to control which branching futures will occur by invoking their will-the branching futures would be based on probability distributions. If you don't conclude the same things as Sapolsky, what is your conclusion given what is known and not known? I don't really think there's any need to rewind the universe to prove that brains are following the physical laws that we are aware of, since you can just look to see if brains behave as expected when considering those laws and thus conclude that they behave like all other observable matter. I don't see why the human nervous system is somehow an exception that would break the convention of determinism as we use it daily life to know that our glass of water will reliably be where we placed it or that the sun won't bounce around or that your working computer will turn on when you press the power button.

Brilliant video, I will definitely have to check out his book at some point I am also currently going through another book, "Ethics" by Baruch/Benedictus de Spinoza, that also talks about what determinism means for morality, and also coming with a new idea of what it means to be a "free person" despite the lack of free will

Nice to see you sponsored. Your work is very impressive. The time and effort put into detail is much appreciated. I never really bothered with Sapolsky's or Sam Harris' ideas about free will because I sort of see it as a byproduct of Cartesian dualism, or rather the notion of 'will' is. It's flawed, in much the same way the cogito ergo sum is valid only in a certain state.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you! I totally agree about the Cartesian thing! I struggled to put it into words in the video but in my notes I have written that I think Sapolsky is “stuck with a religious idea of the will and a non-religious idea of the world”

@Dimitar997

Ай бұрын

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Very aptly put. I also think that moral responsibility is a more complex topic and I wouldn't put money that historically people didn't have a sense of externally determined aspects of our character and cognition. It's definitely a core aspect of Karma, for example. Sapolsky as always provides a huge wealth of information and that brings its own challenges for constructing a model for moral responsibility, since we're aware of complex causal interactions we weren't aware of historically.

In my view, when people say that you're free and you made a chioce, their primary thought is not how you came to conclusion to make that decision, it's about having the ability to do it. To even be able to ask why you made a decision you first need the ability to choose. Having options and being able to exploit those options is what it means to be free. Even while your brain is influenced by the circumstances, it's still you making a choice. It's not that circumstances are controling you, but it's you who are making the decision accordingly and this is exacly what it means to be free. If circumstances change you have the ability to change the decision, but you also have the ability not to change it, this means you are free to adapt to the situation. Having the ability (or options) is synomymous with having freedom. This is free will in my opinion, if we couldn't adapt that would mean we are not free. it's not about control, it's the ability to adapt in the sea of chaos and unpredictability.

@theofficialness578

Ай бұрын

I have a sense I’ve always found it’s interesting that we truly think any individual chooses to be “evil” or “good” or even as simple as a “asshole” or “nice” (Important to mention I’m not implying this is suggested in your argument, I’m Implying it seems to be common belief). People just are, To me it seems literally everyone I’ve ever met just is. Anyone I’ve seen change it seems to just happen. I include my self in this notion. I’ve noticed any changes about my personality have just happened. Riding on the wave of self awareness, but that’s about it. Where does “will” come from what shapes “will” There is the story my brain tells me about the any personal change “good” or “evil”. The what I did “wrong” and the what I did “right” and how hard or not hard I was trying, the what I could “control” and the what I couldn’t. I can’t help but ask myself can an organ that seems to be designed by nature for survival, selfishness and self preservation ever be a trustworthy source of reality. The fundamental problem is capabilities person A should act and behave a certain way, simply because of the fact that person B acts a behaves a certain way. (In regard to your seemingly assumed notion that everyone has the capability to adapt.) It strongly suggests the exact same physical mental capacities. Physical wiring of the brain (the white matter that connects the brain regions). The physical size of each brain’s various parts. It doesn’t make much sense to me, when there is so much evidence that seems to proves, every brain’s anatomy functions either slightly (even a slight difference seems to mean a-lot) or drastically different (which obviously seems to mean a-lot). There is no such thing as the ideal brain, just the most commonly similar (

Bro love you. And I would like you to take a look at Sankhya and Vaisheshik philosophies from India. May be worth it. And again, my favourite channel on KZread and such a delight seeing your video on KZread.

You make much better arguments than I do reading this book. The main issue I have is the assumption Robert makes that retributive punishment is possible to avoid. In a world with no free will, why would we have the ability to avoid committing acts of retribution? Certainly, our context and history may make us choose otherwise, but by his own rulings they may also make us choose retribution.

Our free will is expressed in the choise to come to the Earth and learn, in a specific milieu with strict set of rules. If you freely decide to play chest, from your first move your "free will" is limited by the rules of the game. Still, you are "responsible" for your moves, in that they make you win or lose the game. And it is the same in our lives - your will is "determined" by the rules, but you are fully responsible for your choices. Responsibility is falsly understood only as responsibility towards the society, but the most important part of it is the responsibility towards your self. It is primarily you who earn what you sow.

Watching you is making my language and expressions like yours....

I saw an argument once which I thought was convincing: In nature, everything is either determined or random Neither determined nor random actions are free will We are entirely constructed of natural processes Therefore, we have no free will Every "thing" we deal with is not a free agent, in that it seems to follow predetermined rules (as described by the laws of physics). If we are entirely constructed of things, then we ourselves are also things. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to me that we could have free will as the Christians conceive of it without also having a supernatural soul (one which does not follow any kind of law). Of course, as discussed in the video, even if our will wasn't "free", we obviously still have a decision making process and thus some kind of "will", and this process is so complicated that it is impossible in many cases to predict in advance what decisions it will make.

"The Devil made me do it". There is a reason this concept went by the wayside. It is dangerous for one to believe they can escape the guilt of their actions. Look at the modern crime wave stemming from the concept that certain people commit crimes due to being disenfranchised, relieving them of the responsibility to account for their actions.

@jamespierce5355

Ай бұрын

True. It's very telling that determinists have to bite the bullet that moral culpability is an illusion, but they admit that we pretty much have to just pretend that freewill does exist. I.e. we have to pretend the deterministic position is false 🤣

@DJWESG1

Ай бұрын

There isn't a modern crime wave with such a description. You are making stuff up.

@deussivenatura5805

Ай бұрын

@@jamespierce5355 The one's that pretend are compatibalists, not determinists.

@jamespierce5355

Ай бұрын

@deussivenatura5805 If , for example, you were merely determined to propose that determinism is true and I was merely determined to propose that freewill exists, on what basis can we say either of us are right or wrong? Both positions would have equal valence under the determinist view (both equally as determined to happen).

@aemambacus

Ай бұрын

@@DJWESG1agreed, the way the statement was made implies there’s an understanding among working class/poor people that commit crime/criminals that because they are poor they will be absolved of their crimes which in turn allows them to go on and commit crime. Completely ignores the fact that the primary cause of crime is poverty, be it actual or relative poverty. Also paradoxical because if poor people are committing crimes and were being absolved of breaking the law for whatever reason there wouldn’t be a crime spree as crimes won’t be charged, arrests would be down, for the suggested scenario to be true there would have to be a large scale conspiracy amongst police forces around the world to downplay crime and work towards getting them defunded Thank you for attending my TedTalk

Oh my, determinism and nothing being no one's fault is something I always think about, I'm really interested in what the video will be about

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Ah I hope you like it!

@silopante

Ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 really eye opening video, these are concepts I've been toying with for quite some time, the conclusion I came to are apparently really close to quantum indeterminism; I've also found Aristotle's view to be quite interesting, where one could see a person's qualities and faults as one does with plants' and rocks', coming from nature and worthy both of praise or blame even though "inanimate".

The more I listen to Robert and chew on this the more I see it everywhere

Nothing is ever your fault...but you are still responsible for your actions. That thought always give me comfort because no matter what there will be always redemption. Determinism is actually the only thing that keeps my hope alive these days

Woot the hot topic of the month

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Haha! I notice it has resurfaced in the public consciousness

The more willpower you have, the more free your will is. Willpower allows us to cut through and navigate the emotions that inhibits us, so that we may do what we believe must be done. We all have different levels of willpower, but neuroscience tells us that it is like a muscle that can be trained and developed over time.

But I want credit for choosing this excellent video !!!

Finally something i agree with you on. That said i still think its importanr to try.. because thats also part of determinism. It takes you as a person into account. For example my dads impatient. I know him well enough to know what would happen if i stayed in a store too long and he was my ride 😂 hed leave 🤣 So its not that we have no control. Its that its already factored in. Most people agree on this they just have different views of what free will means. For me its choosing what i do day to day. Where an ultra elitist determinalist would say i didnt choose that cause it was all influenced or caused by my previous days actions or lifes actions. Which were all determined by my ancestors 🤣 Which i agree but... Like come on lol. I guess im saying dont use it as an excuse to do nothing. Part of determinations is your watching this video and reading this comment. Let it influence you in a good way. I am not convinced that humans are that simple. 2 different people can be handed the same circumstance and react entirely different. If you want to be affected by this philosphy just realize most of the bad things in your life arent your fault. But you can still do something about them. Let this info be a good thing and not something that makes you just stop caring.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Oh definitely! I touch upon a lot of this in the video

@colonelradec5956

Ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 sorry had a lot of coffee lol I sometimes type an watch xD

Great video ! Robert saplosky is such an interesting author.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

Thank you! I really enjoyed his book!

I just want to make 2 observations, you described Sapolsky’s reasons for our choices being predetermined as genetics, hormones, trauma and substance abuse in the environment we were raised etc. I haven’t read the book but these seem like influences on our decisions not predetermined causes, which brings me to consciousness, how can a scientist come to conclusions about our conscious decisions without even knowing the mechanisms of consciousness? It seems to me there’s a lack of data, AFAIK it’s still a field under study with nothing but speculative theories so far, you touched on it when you discussed “will”

It is commonly acknowledged that the abolition of the antique concept of responsaibilty (in German: Erfolgsstrafrecht) in favour of the mre modern concept of moral guilt (in German: Schuldstrafrecht, which implies some sort of freedom) was a good thing.

Determinism is true for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent perspective. That perspective is not our perspective, and therefore for us, the illusion of free will exists whereas determinism is the absolute reality. It is important when discussing these things to keep in mind that there is multiple perspectives, none which look the same as another. I liken this reality to a highly interactive movie. It seems very much like I live my life as I want to, making choices. But there is only one choice, the one we make. We could not ever have chosen differently (barring the existence of time travel) so choice is an illusion. We are excempt from experiencing the deterministic perspective, but we can deduce its existence using logic and many have done so, therefore the existence of terms such as "divine plan", "fate", etc. From the absolute perspective, we are all innocent. From ours, consequences of our actions have to exist. If there was to be a "Judgement Day", we would all have to be found not guilty. Even the worst of us, merely playing a role in this divine comedy. Perhaps this understanding is at the heart of why Jesus asked us to forgive our "sinners" over and over again.

youre brilliant and a great speaker. but i wish you would speak a pit slower, and introduce more pauses and emphasis on certain statements. nots because we cant hear you but because some of the concepts you introduce require moments to digest and absorb, when you race through them it is hard to keep up.

19:53 The Hatfield-McCoy feud comes to mind.

Hey mate, just wanted to ask about your interpretation of Nietzsche's quote of looking into the abyss in "Beyond Good and Evil". I think it could make for a great video if you're interested, or maybe just a segment of a video of anothor topic.

It’s almost infinitely reductive. If you choose toothpaste A, why did you prefer that one; if even you “randomly” made a choice, why did you in fact land on the one you did? What long chain of events were salient to you that you prefer toothpaste A in either situation? Then, why were those types of events or information salient to you (like why are you the type of person/mind you are)? And so on back to why certain atoms bonded in the way they did. Even feeling we have free will or not feeling it wouldn’t be a choice, to get super abstract.

Well, we haven't been lied to, we just have to define the standard by which we say we've been lied to. Depends on how you characterize free will, if you're willing to say, "Just as easy as picking another," then you also have to explain in what ways is it easy. It is not obvious. I can definitely say that picking a toothpaste may require the necessity of struggle, but not as easily. However, if we are going to impose a standard by which we cannot abide to; such is the standard of assuming it was equally as easy. We cannot. We could conventionally say "we are the masters of our own fate" in regards to being able to choose the relativity of comfort in which we are in. If we are to make the hypothetical scenario of a society without free will, we will have to acknowledge a collapse in world belief driven by one's choices, therefore free will is out of the reach of determinism to make that sudden decision. Free will does not have to be purely causal. I deem Compatibilism an untenable stance if it says that a person had no other choice but forced to choose one, and not even two. I bet that person had a lot of will in staying inside the shop than getting killed.

I would honestly admit this is a video essay beyond me

@darthtyranous4514

Ай бұрын

Real, but trying to understand is better than just staying beyond it. Just try your best also, Sapolsky has some videos on this as well…

Nothing is determined. Change will change it.

When are you gonna do one on Philip mainlander and the philosophy of redemption?

As a topic it's hobbled by terminology from the start. "Choice" is probably a preferable word than "will", as there are a couple of types of "will". You cannot "will" what you "will" ... as that's the cause and effect aspect of the whole thing. But learning how to react to the situations with better responses seems to be a life's work. We should keep our minds open and not think we know it either way yet.

I think we experience determinism with acquisition and ownership as the fundamental means of access to and control over the resources around us. It’s not determinism as a phenomenon as much as maybe conditioned within us through our upbringing. I find it extraordinarily valid in the sense that while we do have choices in life, most choices are obviously more beneficial to us than other choices. A starving man who can’t afford a meal who steals one isn’t stuck between equivalent choices and weighing these in the balance. One choice will appeal to the conditioning of his upbringing while the other choice will appeal to a biological urge (hunger), and this will unravel the conditioning in place. This social conditioning is deterministic by design, I would think. The question is what would the conditioning of a society without acquisition and ownership (some far-distant future society, fully automated, sustained abundance, etc) be like? Could such a society without this kind of conditioning ever exist, or is it a permanently “utopian” idea? Any reading suggestions for me, dear sir? I’m enjoying your content very much!

Here is my thinking. Care to read it. A person, who is or isn't smart, can only be judged if he talks for half an hour without stopping (or appears that he is talking continuosly) and the listener brain hurts a little bit, since it takes time to reason with the propositions and language induced in the persons speech. Now certainly you are welcome to think we listeners are slow processors but no one is born with extraordinary processing and analysing skills. You too took your leisure time to make the content in a flow. Explained well, and actually was too detailed where every sentence ought to be thought and explored (except sponsor). It's new to me maybe that's why. I anyways think once I am used to it, I can selfishly manage to flaunt my language and skill to think (predetermined; I saw the explanation too many times and made my conclusion that many time) deeply. Although it's evil but .....let's just say I am evil,

just because things could not have been otherwise does not mean people are not better or worse to be around/in society depending on the path of action they take when two are accessible. also, people should want to be pro-social or pleasant to be around, so there is a "mechanical" feedback loop: you want to be pro-social; you feel shame or egodystonic or guilt when you do an anti-social or hurtful action; you take notice of what happened; and you take corrective behavior. A thermostat has no choice, but it aims for a set-point reliably. in the same way objectively better people can adjust their behavior to pro-social behavior without any need for "free will". if the system (people) act intelligently and seek good outcomes, what does it matter if some abstract concept of choice is fulfilled or not? most people do not attribute free will to dogs, but they will agree that a dog that bites their child to death is bad, and a dog that plays fetch is good. the person who lost a family member will have no moral objection to ending the dog for the protection of other children, despite no belief the dog has a soul and free will.

i liked the examples

The problem with determinism is that all ethics, ethical values, and judgments become meaningless. In a deterministic universe, things can only be one way- so it doesn’t make any sense to say that one option is better than another option. It makes no sense to call something or someone or some action “good”. It couldn’t be any other way. Any ethical system contains within itself axioms that one ought to do one thing rather than another. In a deterministic universe ought has no meeting because that concept presupposes that there is an option to do something different. That’s not possible it is deterministic universe. As an added bonus, consciousness would be an illusion. In what sense can there be a “self” when you are basically just a very small part of an environment unfolding by the laws of physics. You would simply be a (complex) epiphenomenon. If there is no self, then in what sense would there be in having something like “individual rights“? In what sense and “individual“ have any worth or dignity? Just molecules in motion.

@kcronix8672

Ай бұрын

I don't believe this is an accurate view of reality. Determinism is essentially about mechanistic processes. That is, the intuition is that everything operates like a machine determined like clockwork. Then a person can be thought of as a machine who could potentially internalise a set of ethical "axioms" and factor them into a deterministic decision making process. In this case, said purely deterministic process would choose how to respond (deterministically) from the input situation data while simultaneously factoring those "ethical axioms" into its decision making process. So I don't see the two (determinism and ethics) as mutually exclusive as you seem to suggest.

@mbmurphy777

Ай бұрын

@@kcronix8672 I don’t think it’s an accurate view of reality either. That’s why I’m not at determinist. If things are determined, that means they can only happen in one way. Therefore, it makes no sense to apply any ethical values to whatever happens. Something can’t be “good” or “bad“ it’s it could only have happened one way. The whole point of ethics is that it presupposes that you could’ve done something else instead. All behavior in every decision anyone has ever made would have been determined by the initial conditions after the big bang and causality linked laws of physics. For example, if you had a two headed coin, you would know that flipping it would give you heads 100% of the time. So if you flip the coin and get heads, can you say that? That is an “good” outcome? Or a bad outcome? Those terms no longer makes sense in that type of environment.

@kcronix8672

Ай бұрын

@mbmurphy777 I think it can make sense to apply those terms still in a deterministic context. If we think of ethics as providing an objective function of sorts and literally defining what actions are good and bad, up to other meta-ethical issues (that are probably out of scope of this discussion), then you can observe a deterministic action and judge it as a good or bad action. E.g., someone steals or murders - might be (highly) deterministic, but arguably still a bad thing to happen. In fact, it would be essential to brand such (moral) errors as good or bad to provide a kind of deterministic reinforcement learning for members of society. This would ideally lead to more positive development of the entire society as each agent/person would acknowledge their responsibility rather than just retreating from it in a rather ad hoc manner. So it still serves a function even in a (largely) deterministic universe. On the determinism front, I think it is a good approximation for a large number of things. However, as physics has taught us, it appears to not be completely deterministic and has elements of nondeterminism in the case of non-unitary evolution in quantum mechanics (wavefunction collapse and observation). Noting that I don't suggest this necessarily gives us any more freedom as presumably their is no conscious control over things at that level (my mind is open to new possibilities that may be discovered in the future). In summary, the universe is largely deterministic on the macroscopic level and I still think it makes sense to have ethical judgements which still serve a function (similar to the function it currently serves to those who don't reduce the universe to determinism). Essentially, we are still part of the causal chain, and it runs through our conscious (highly likely deterministic) decision processes, so everything we previously did before society's melodramatic reductionism to determinism should still serve a function (similar to the conceptual engineering discussion in the video).

@mbmurphy777

Ай бұрын

@@kcronix8672 well, the way I look at it is things are either materialist or they are not. We either live in a deterministic or probabilistic universe or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways. As you point out, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics makes no difference in the argument. What’s the point of claiming that deter termination is correct if you just keep everything in society just as it is now? Sapolsky‘s whole point is that determinism means everything should change. On the negative side, any ethical judgment or code becomes at Best completely arbitrary in that kind of environment. On what basis is murder “wrong“? In that kind of environment, what you mean by “wrong “, is just that you don’t like it. But your preferences are just determined. There’s no objective reason for them. There’s no objective reason for individual rights, because there really is no such thing as an individual in a deterministic universe. Consciousness, feelings, thoughts, etc., are simply illusory epiphenomenon. The point I’m trying to make is that the intellectual cost of materialism is a lot higher than people at first appreciate. Sure that may be true, but determinism directly implies a lot of conclusions that are simply incompatible with the way we live and experience the world. And I find no reason to reject the phenomenology of being an agent that makes decisions and experiences real things, and that individuals matter and have rights. The only reason to reject these things is if you are convinced that materialism *must* be true. There is no actual evidence that we don’t have agency or make decisions. and I suspect that it’s not possible to obtain that evidence because we don’t have access to other peoples subjective experiences and cannot have access to other peoples subjective experiences.

@kcronix8672

Ай бұрын

@mbmurphy777 I agree that ultimately the universe (appears to be) probabilistic fundamentally (unsure if we can be certain there aren't hidden variables at play). I still don't think this conflicts with the sense of agency people feel as conscious observers that are literally embedded into the causal process. That is why I find it reasonable to make the claim that things are (largely) deterministic for most practical purposes while still acknowledging the internal conscious perspective of having limited information, and things appearing non-deterministic for conscious agents. Additionally, it appears non-deterministic for us to an extent as we can just act freely within our ability to act and ability to imagine actions to take. What do you favour over materialism? I am not suggesting people endorse materialism, and I am rather agnostic on the topic (I asserted to be an idealist for a long time). All I am suggesting is that people can simultaneously acknowledge the fact that where they are now is the product of previous causes that they had no absolute control over. This is a beneficial perspective to understand as it allows for more positive forms of improvement as opposed to assuming a person is of sole responsibility instead of acknowledging all of the causes that all hold partial responsibility. I suppose that all kinds of moral judgements are arbitrary in a sense, and they are products of our evolution. However, it would be unwise to try and fight against them as they reflect parts of our deep intrinsic nature. So it is somewhat adhoc how they arose, but it is not adhoc that we stick to them now as those moral intuitions will literally compel us to act in other ways or face the consequences of our super ego(s). On that note, is it really necessary to reject a potential truth because it implies that the origin of moral code is arbitrary to an extent (up to initial conditions and non-unitary collapses). I don't see why we should do that. Instead of insisting it be "objective", it may be sufficient to accept that moral code arises from and is maintained by our physiology and psychology for an overwhelmingly dominant proportion.

I have a sense I’ve always found it’s interesting that we truly think any individual chooses to be “evil” or “good” or even as simple as a “asshole” or “nice” (Important to mention I’m not implying this is suggested in your argument, I’m Implying it seems to be common belief). People just are, To me it seems literally everyone I’ve ever met just is. Anyone I’ve seen change it seems to just happen. I include my self in this notion. I’ve noticed any changes about my personality have just happened. Riding on the wave of self awareness, but that’s about it. Where does “will” come from what shapes “will” There is the story my brain tells me about the any personal change “good” or “evil”. The what I did “wrong” and the what I did “right” and how hard or not hard I was trying, the what I could “control” and the what I couldn’t. I can’t help but ask myself can an organ that seems to be designed by nature for survival, selfishness and self preservation ever be a trustworthy source of reality. The fundamental problem is capabilities person A should act and behave a certain way, simply because of the fact that person B acts a behaves a certain way. (Important to mention I’m not implying this is suggested in your argument, I’m Implying it’s a common belief.) It strongly suggests the exact same physical mental capacities. Physical wiring of the brain (the white matter that connects the brain regions). The physical size of each brain’s various parts. It doesn’t make much sense to me, when there is so much evidence that seems to proves, every brain’s anatomy functions either slightly (even a slight difference seems to mean a-lot) or drastically different (which obviously seems to mean a-lot). There is no such thing as the ideal brain, just the most commonly similar (

@gaspachoo5046

28 күн бұрын

ever wonder why civilizations collapse? or that there have been no long standing secular societies in history? Me-thinks this “revelation” of yours is entirely not new, and ironically darwin’s itself out if allowed to be the dominating ethic/belief in a culture.

@theofficialness578

27 күн бұрын

@@gaspachoo5046 What notion(s) is original any more?

@gaspachoo5046

27 күн бұрын

@@theofficialness578 absolutely nothing.

@theofficialness578

26 күн бұрын

@@gaspachoo5046 Also yes I do agree and it makes sense, it definitely, Darwin’s itself out. Also yep absolutely nothing, I was speaking with a coworker the other day and he said something interesting to me. “Nobody has ever invented anything, and no thought has ever been original, it’s only been discovered.”

18:44 A potential flaw in the argument: If no one freely chose to commit a crime, then the same can be said about their punishment. meaning if he says, the criminal had no choice but to commit the crime, then it can be said that the law had no choice but to punish criminal... So, no one can be blamed here... that's probably one of the reasons why this doesn't work.

Okay, so i have to study for exams so i will watch the video later. But still Determinism being true, doesnt change humans much. Like i see why he views that humans arent responsible for their actions and also equates humans to just their consciousness. That youre just experiencing stuff. But that is by his definition of 'YOU'. I could define myself as my body, mind and consciousness. Then that makes me this whole mechanism which is the one doing everything, Then everything i do is my fault. But then these are perspectives which are incomplete without the other. Next big point is, The biggest issue one may have thinking ' I have no free will' could be ' I cant change anything, nor me nor my ife'. Which is also false, cause its based on an imaginary future path, and future doesnt exist yet. So a person can change themselves or their lives. Now A person would want to change based on thier will ( which is not up to them, but it is a huge part of them), so it becomes important to see how change is possible. So we in psychology, use the biopsychosocial model. Which can aslo be used to see what is limiting a person from being better, or doing what they want to. Thats more important to talk about than just saying you have no free will. I have many thoughts on this. Maybe i will return in the future, after exams or whatever to comment. Hope you see this message and respond. ❤

I am freely in control of my actions. I know because I can’t choose otherwise

IMPORTANT! (at least it seems to me atm) Responsibility is an illusiory concept. But if criminal behavior can be lift off from it, so does every other area of our behaviors like for example being late at work, receiving praise for good deeds, etc. every single thing. I think this is a crucial distinction. Why focus on only very specific sort of behavior?

Nice 👍

I feel like these arguments conflate lack of power with lack of will. Just because I believe that there are powerful currents that will forces ships in certain directions, doesn't mean I don't believe the captain is real. On the contrary, the reason one tries to understand complex ways that an environment might affect an individual is so that we can try to maximize the deciding power of his will or 'soul'.

“What if you’ve been lied to your entire life.” Gee, I’d love to live in a world where that’s actually a question 😂

In my experience, deep philosophical inquiry always runs against the limits of our brain capacity and then stalls. Seems inevitable to me that no matter how smart one is, there will always be a limit to comprehension. Free will is a typical example of this. My chosen stance is a practical one, get comfortable with the existence of certain unknowables and move on.

I have been determined not to believe in determinism.

"Determinism does not rule out moral responsibility. In determinism all physical events are caused and determined by the sum total of all previous events. If people are determined to act as they do, then what about personal responsibility? How can we hold people responsible and punish them for their behaviors if they have no choice in how they behave? We hold people responsible for their actions because we know from historical experience that this is an effective means to make people behave in a socially acceptable way. Holding people responsible only works when people respond to the state of affairs by controlling their behavior so as to avoid punishment. People who break the rules set by society and get punished may be behaving in deterministic ways, but if people don't respond to the threat of punishment, people would behave even worse. This is a totally utilitarian approach to the issue of moral responsibility. Is it moral to punish people behaving in deterministic ways? Yes, people have the right to create rules and enforcing them. We would be worse off if we did not do so, an argument for utility. Moral sentiments may be viewed as a reward mechanism, to make someone more sensitive to distant rewards and punishments. If people do not have real behavioral choices, why not collapse into fatalism? People who lose the feeling that they can plan and execute alternative behaviors tend to stop struggling for survival and become fatalistic. Evolution has designed us to feel that our effort of planning pays off, that we control what we do. Free will is merely the ability to choose among available options. The ability to have all options available is not free will but omnipotence. Humans are not able to kill everyone by simply wishing it; does the lack of this ability mean that humans do not have free will?"

I have watched his entire series of lectures on human behavior and it is really fascinating.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

He is a brilliant guy! I hope my admiration came across in the video despite my criticisms

@curtissjamesd

Ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Absolutely, those two things aren't and shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

I made a thought experiment before. It went something like this: A debate between two people is ongoing about free-will vs determinism, where one had to concede to the other that one of them is true, else they could not end the debate. The concept of free-will could not be proven, every argument was put down to determinism by the determinist, and the concept of determinism reigned supreme. However, eventually every time the determinist began to speak, the proponent of free-will would slap the determinist across the face. This continued on and on. With the determinist trying to argue that the slapping was all determined and not a result of free-will. But the proponent of free-will did not agree, so the debate could not end. This continued on and on for hours. Countless slaps later the determinist, wrestling with his psyche had to consider the possibility that he would be stuck there forever getting slapped, until one or both of them died. Could this all be predetermined to take place? Were they destined to find eachother and live the rest of their lives stuck, was he destined to receive slaps every time he spoke until his death? After much contemplation the determinist conceded and accepted that free-will was indeed true. Had he just come across an agent of free-will? Was he just defeated by free-will itself? Was his decision to concede an act of his own free-will to exit the predicament? Or was it predetermined that he would make the concession? In any case the argument is likely pointless and unfalsifiable and a waste of time and energy. Similar to the God doesn’t exist/God does exist debate.

@linuxramblingproductions8554

19 күн бұрын

I mean some gods can be proven not to exist if they contradict reality but beyond that your scenario is similar to holding a gun to someones face and asking them a question with an answer you are coercing them into except instead of a gun its getting infinitely slapped

@alextomlinson

18 күн бұрын

@@linuxramblingproductions8554 I said God singular for a reason. Not necessarily coercion. But an attempt at demonstrating to the determinist that he is exercising his free-will by slapping him repeatedly. However, it’s not proof. The slap loop *could* all be predetermined. So there’s no guarantee that the determinist actually changed his mind or believed that he exercised his own free-will. Essentially, it’s down to individual belief, just like God/no God. And coercion is not force. He could have stayed there firm in his assertions until the end. Many of people were threatened with punishment & death for their religious beliefs and many have chosen to stay firm in their belief no matter what happens. If I’m honest, I think my original thought experiment ended with the determinist being convinced of free-will. But as it’s unfalsifiable it doesn’t seem right to pick a side. So I expanded on it to display the absurdity of the debate

Free will is a feeling, non-Free will is a truth.

@monke6669

Ай бұрын

Don't say it out loud, truth hurts 😵

@alextomlinson

Ай бұрын

This is what I was thinking. We were given the gift of (illusory) free will.

@divipromstojakovo3859

Ай бұрын

​@@alextomlinsonCan you prove it's an illusion? If so, how did you manage to break free? If my thought is not mine, then whose are they?

@alextomlinson

Ай бұрын

@@divipromstojakovo3859 I can’t prove it, but it’s what I believe. It just follows logically that everything is a chain reaction going all the way back to the Big Bang or the origin event. I believe thoughts are happening due to the environment interacting with the “personality” or structure of the psyche. Essentially they’re triggered externally. They are “yours” because you experience them, but I don’t believe you are choosing them. Also I don’t believe there is a real “you” either. Just a personality structure created by environmental experiences and genetic predisposition. Which is then perceived by the experiencer as “I” or “me”. What do you mean by how did I manage to break free?

So in my mind, you are either a materialist or not. If you are materialist, then compatible ism is one of those “lies we tell children”. From logical standpoint, it doesn’t seem like it matters whether a decision comes from a person will, if there will is determined. I know determinists want to sit on the fence on this issue because civilization and society can’t really exist if you’re hard determinist and no ethical systems make any sense , if you’re a determinist

@linuxramblingproductions8554

19 күн бұрын

Thats a bold af statement lmao things like ethics exist with determinism it would just be for more pragmatic reasons like rehabilitation and saying it would just fail is completely unprompted

@mbmurphy777

19 күн бұрын

@@linuxramblingproductions8554 determinism is determinism. If you are materialist and you believe that materials follow deterministic law of physics, then compatibliesm is just a language game. Everything people think feel do etc. is determined or it’s not determined. This is not a bold statement at all. It’s all hard determinists believe and secretly all compatible lists believe. The compatiblists understand that you can’t have a system of coherent ethics without some kind of “free Will”., so they try to have it both ways. But they can’t have it both ways. Everything is either determined (or probalbilistic, which is effectively no different for the purposes of this argument) or not.

Imho you missed the most important part of the first section of the book: "where does intent come from?" And "willing willpower: the myth of grit". The whole point of those chapters is to show that there is really no big difference between the stuff that determines your intent / "willpower" and the stuff that determines any other physical process in our universe. Blaming someone for their intent and their "willpower" is as unjust as blaming someone for having a patellar reflex, or blaming a storm for happening

@unsolicitedadvice9198

Ай бұрын

My point here is that Sapolsky says there is no difference regarding their freedom - they are all example of perfectly ordinary examples of physical causation. In order to bridge the gap from that you have to also claim that you cannot find an idea of the “will” that can ground moral responsibility, and this is a further philosophical point. As I said in the video it’s not that Sapolsky’s conclusion is definitely wrong, it is that it doesn’t follow just from determinism as presented in the book. Sapolsky basically says there is no physical difference - that’s fine. But it doesn’t follow from this that some physical chains of causation might be morally different to others. Again I am not saying Sapolsky is definitely wrong, but rather that more would need to be demonstrated for his conclusion to follow. Edit: I’ve found an article that makes a similar-ish point in case that helps clarify the position. I admit I am not always the best at making things clear: ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/

Upbringing influnces the decisions we make. But we still make the decisions. Children who were abused often become abusers, but not always and not even mostly. Physical child abuse has become less common in developed countries over the past 50 years. This is a measurable trend, a trend which proves that people can decide not to abuse. If they couldn’t then there would be no decrease. Free will exists, and not just because we want it to.

@linuxramblingproductions8554

19 күн бұрын

That doesn’t prove free will that doesn’t even support free will. That can easily be explained by easier access to therapy improved societal conditions etc etc. This doesn’t prove free will it proves ability but fails to prove it wasn’t still outside of them and their control since you expressly ignored all the other factors.

Hypnotics, says affleck

This question plagues me. Surely will is the accumulation of life experiences and circumstances interacting with the genome and personality and then playing out as external actions. A chain reaction of processes interacting with and playing out alongside all other chain reactions in the environment and the psyche. Not quite sure where the “free” part is 🤔

IMHO, any discussion regarding the meaning of 'free will' will eventually necessarily entail a discussion of the meaning of 'I.' The standard usage of what an "I" is, is not necessarily a given, especially in determinism. (I'm a determinist, a la Sapolsky.) What does it mean to say, "I have free will?" regardless of the definition of free will posited. I like your work, by the way (pun intended).

People have always known the beneficial effects of education or socialisation and the potential dire consequences of a lack thereof.. This fact does in no way favour either strict determinism nor indeterminism. There are also good reasons for the assumption that certain people are born with qualities which make them more suceptible to antisocial behaviour.which does not exclude free will.

I am I the only person wishing he would slow down while reading his script? This is dense material. It requires more time to fully process than, say, a routine conversation. Otherwise, of course, this is a good essay. I just wish I could do the dishes at the same time I was listening to it. Minor points: 1. Isn’t “indeterminate randomness” redundant? 2. Is it possible to reject both free will AND determinism? 3. There are scientifically demonstrated intrusions of quantum phenomena into our deterministic reality, so while I agree the overwhelming weight of evidence supports Professor Sapolsky, it’s overstating the case to entirely dismiss that argument as pure fantasy. 4. Where does fully conscious, deliberated decision making play into this debate? I’m confident free will is highly unlikely. But if one is choosing toothpaste, but then stops to say “Here I am, pretending I have free will. There are seven choices, I was going choose #3, but just for fun, I’ll go with #6. No, #2. Just to lie to myself that I have free will.” We are then to believe the “decision” to choose #2 at the end could have been predicted before we entered the store? Before, perhaps, our grandparents were born? Or the Earth formed around the Sun? Despite knowing everything I do about free will, I still find that utterly incompatible with any level of reality - doubtless a limitation of my own intellect, but it at least allows me sympathy with the stalwarts who cling to choice as an absolute. 5. Perhaps Sapolsky spends no time discussing Aristotle’s ideas of virtue because they’ve been supplanted by the contemporaneous understanding of choice. 6.Nietzsche and Calvinism aren’t relevant as the former’s penchant for misdirected pre-hypermasculinity disqualifies him from serious consideration and the latter was riddled, like most Christian philosophy, with self-contradictory masterbatory acrobatics.

Okay to topple that argument down: You CHOSE to genocide a group - was it predeterministc? And thus you are not punished? or should you be punished for it anyways? I am leaving it open - let the flood gates open. P.S - a video on presentism would be needed and congrats on a sponsor.

@alextomlinson

Ай бұрын

Punishment or justice is necessary for a functional society. So regardless of whether it was a free will choice or predetermined interactions between an individual and their circumstances is irrelevant. With that being said, education and reformation is more beneficial to society than punishment. But punishment might also be necessary to prevent unrest, revenge etc if the society is not philosophically or psychologically capable of accepting lack of punishment. Also there will be individuals and groups that will take advantage of a lack of punishment if the only outcome is reformation, so ultimately it’s necessary while these people exist.

I never read his book unfortunately, only his words in interviews and debates, which never persuaded me to his side. He says that he doesn't believe you are responsible for your actions, but when Daniel Dennet asked if he would hold himself accountable for plagiarism, he said yes. How do you hold yourself account for anything when you reject that very idea of free will? His rejection of compatibilitism always seems ad hoc. It seems he believes the will has no casual influence over your being. Not only is that absurd, it seems to be a given in his justification for hard determination, which alot of your objections seems to show. I suspect it's because he thinks free will exists as some immaterial substance detached from material reality, which you seem to point out at the end. Question Begging aside, I cannot understand how he thinks this view as positive for the world. Retributive justice can he undermined even on compatibilitism. On this extreme hard determination, you don't have agency, so he essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater. Can you even claim ownership of your mind and actions? How can we even speak of justice and rights? Seems like a slippery slope.

While it is true that freewill can not be the direct subject of empirical investigation, that doesn't make it nonexistent.

@rennor3498

Ай бұрын

I would suggest some articulation to such a statement. True, reasoning through an empirical investigation has its limits in the sense that it seeks to subordinate a subject or field of debate to measures that depend on practical necessity or interest thereby conceding that it would have to inherently be constrained within laws and functions that depend on physical and finite qualities. I consider myself a 'light determinist' ( a less strict perspective when concieving that everything functions in a contingency), meaning that although I recognize that when I make choices or partake performing a specific task or action it is due to a number of prior causes, factors and influences that had all built upon me being present in that specific moment and context, and acknowledging this position is both a theoretical and practical form of gradually improving life by manifesting a more understanding and open attitude towards the life and plight of other human even if they contribute to certain mischief in my day to day schedule. A certain degree of skepticism when touching the opposition between these two forms of thought that expand into the fields of ethics, metaphysics and various schools of philosophy. Although skepticism can also be damaging to the belief in a free will or a ''will derived from itself'', it can also reduce the philosophical weight that a pure deterministic perspective can have on the relation and conjunction of things. A free will in this case is either unknowable ( something that has been discussed in the past by philosophers like Hume and Kant, the latter also taking a more skeptical/weaker determinstic position), or is out of reach for physical, finite beings like man.

@linuxramblingproductions8554

19 күн бұрын

It also doesn’t make unicorns non existent either if you say a certain thing exists we need a reason to think that