What an interesting and respectful exchange. Love it.

The laws of physics allows us to go to the moon but they don’t compel us to do so. Free will is the best explanation on why and how we got there.

@Benbjamin-

6 ай бұрын

Nonsense

@johnnkurunziza5012

4 ай бұрын

@@Benbjamin-what a rebuttal well done but you were pre destined to reply he way you did from the beginning not your fault you couldn’t decide otherwise.

@Benbjamin-

4 ай бұрын

@@johnnkurunziza5012 indeed

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

If you want to be specific. We went to the moon when we did because of enormous fear and political pressure to get there before the Soviet Union.

@nisioisinnerman

2 ай бұрын

Even if you had gone on to define the term with unparalled precision, that still wouldn't sound remotely like an "explanation" for totally suspending the principle of causality in (only) our favour... to grant such a thing on the incredulity from intuition alone is to pretend to the same silliness as the "theologians" and oracles of millennia ago.

Couldn't decide to watch or not

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

And you will only become aware if you want to watch or not. It will happen TO you.

The problem with denying free will is that if we are seriously saying that all our thoughts are determined ultimately by the mindless, purposeless forces and particles of the material universe, such that our thoughts could not have been other than they are, how can we know any of our thoughts to be true or false, since we could not possibly have thought differently? This means that we cannot know our denial of free will to be true or false either. It is therefore an inconsistent, logically self-contradictory position. When we deny free will we are really making a tacit exception for the thought that says "we do not have free will". There is, it is true, an important implication to this, namely, that the prior reductive materialism which leads to the denial of free will must itself be called seriously into question.

Thank you

I got from this dicussion same as all discussions of this type We know nothing about anything were just good at making things up and guessing

@oliverjamito9902

7 ай бұрын

Beloved obviously given Mouths? What is a Mouths? Without an Ears to HEAR? Now what is Mouths? Why given? Students, Hosts, and our Beautiful will say AIMS WILL BE DETERMINED! Students will say given ABLE to keep aims can be kept nor not necessary! Without taste! Now students will say who among able to bring back FLAVOR? 1 will visit might be hungry? Comes to a Tree nor trees to pick fruits! Comes with wiping thy tears from your eyes without shame but with boldness! Even to washed thy FEET. Just to let ye all know? Remembering ye all once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now thy feet resting upon the NEW very tip of time. May I and all the HEIRS RECOGNIZE the mileage from thy feet! Why desired feet? Without a Permanent Foundation no one can uproot nor shaken but here to stay for good. What Foundation without leading astray my Heirs little ones to a place of no return? Heirs FEET resting upon Preservation not Extinction! Love ya!

@thomascromwell6840

7 ай бұрын

We know our guesses are very good and we know our decisions are made before we know they have been made.

@maclanty5324

3 ай бұрын

​@@oliverjamito9902SUCH PERFECT PHYLASAPHICAL

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

That's true but with some effort we eliminate more things that don't make any sense and get closer to the truth.

@nisioisinnerman

2 ай бұрын

​@@thomascromwell6840sometimes, at least, on both counts

We need to hear more from Kevin Mitchell. He really sounds convincing.

I never fail to be baffled by these atheist naturalists that end up turning to Buddhism and getting bamboozled by this no-self nonsense. I wake up in the middle of the night and make a mental "note" about something I was dreaming about. 2 hours later I wake up and am able to remember it. I have goals, beliefs, interests, and projects that extend through time, and I am able to track my progress. My friends and family tell me there are somewhat stable aspects of my personality, and they could provide a "description" of my traits and quirks if pressed. This isn't an immortal self made of God "stuff", but it ain't nothing either. Of course it's biologically based, and hence impermanent and suffers the ravages of wear and tear, but I feel like there is enough there to dignify the term "self".

@sahilingale3280

6 ай бұрын

You beliefs, interests, etc etc would need to stay constant through time for eternity in order for us to conclude that self actually exists. Most people's personality changes atleast once during their lifetime, that is enough evidence that it would change multiple times if the human body could persist for eternity

@hrothgr52

5 ай бұрын

@@sahilingale3280no it doesn’t. The idea that since the self isn’t constant means it doesn’t exist at all is ridiculous.

@user-zh1th8sz2l

5 ай бұрын

No free will is nothing more than religion/magical thinking for the intellectual class. It's too absurd to ever gain any real traction amongst the public at large, who already have regular religion to turn to, or simply don't have the time or inclination for such gibberish. But if believing in God or heaven or whatever, is too declasse for the academic elite, and their pseudo-intellectual minions that you see in the comments sections of videos like this.... this grotesque and utterly counter-intuitive nonsense that there's no free will is the next best thing. It accomplishes the same thing that religion does, to relieve the individual of the burden of one's own destiny. That's it. Other than that it's pure argumentative claptrap. It's impressive that this blue-haired lady is so unself-conscious about it. She happily and complacently spews this nonsense, even evangelizing about it, and imploring society to fully embrace it like a literal religious zealot. This complete and utter nonsense. Sign of the times, I suppose....

@transcendentphilosophy

Ай бұрын

What is the ontology of this "self"? It's just neurons. Lots of micropersonalities. Lots of algorithms. It's reductive. There is no strongly emergent self. The self is just a pattern of which micropersonalities are winning from moment to moment. Change your environment, different micropersonalities will be needed and they will win the neurological battle. Now you are a new self with new micropersonalities in charge. But you didnt even realize that you transformed because you have no selfawareness. Cut your brain in half. Now you have two selves.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

@@transcendentphilosophy I guess that you want to believe that it's all neurons, thus state that as factually true.

Agency which Kevin Mitchell describes which takes inputs, has memory and improves it's behaviour can (and has already been done) with computer game AI's multiple times. What seems to be free-will with those systems (viewed outside) is just pretermined, just like with human brain.

@hrothgr52

5 ай бұрын

The problem is we don’t have good evidence of this. You can argue we don’t have the strongest case for free will, but determinism fares no better.

@brianh5844

5 ай бұрын

I think those are all necessary but not sufficient conditions for the sort of free will Kevin is describing. One you're missing is indeterminacy, which stems from the idea that in sufficiently complex systems, at the most fundamental level of reality, one cannot determine the outcome simply by understanding the component parts. There's all sorts of potential scientific backing for that claim from complexity science, mathematics of chaos, and of course quantum physics. Reasonable people can disagree on that of course. You understand physical systems to be necessarily deterministic, but not all scientists do. Interestingly enough, it's possible that you could be correct, that some of these AI's do have what he would qualify as free will, but that would not necessarily mean that it is illusory. It could mean that we just got good enough at transferring our cognitive capacities for metacognition and self-reflection in an "underdetermined" system to computers that we birthed new beings with complex enough decision making architecture that they become causal agents unto themselves. Certainly, the fact that some of these AI's are displaying behaviors that even the engineers who helped develop them did not expect is evidence or can explain points to that as a possibility. The programs being run on the machine interacting with the hardware running them might have become sufficiently complex to be "indeterminate." Not just in the sense that *we* can't predict what's going on, but that no one theoretically could, not even an infinitely intelligent computer with all conceivable data inputs. Again, this is complex enough stuff that very smart people disagree on whether such indeterminacy exists, but it's very important to Kevin's vision of free will. It's also worth pointing out that Mitchell usually speaks of degrees of freedom and that it's not there at all times in all people. So it's perfectly consistent in his view that someone could have inputs, memory, and change their behavior without that person or entity exercising free agency. It may have agency, but if I understand his position correctly, something can have agency without enough metacognitive capacity, self-awareness, and cognitive development for it to be considered free agency. My personal view is that our decisions are largely determined by influences we had no control over, but that we can cultivate a capacity for having more options and making better decisions through continued learning, development, awareness, and even spiritual growth (in the sense of feeling a part of the world, seeing the persistence of consciousness across time and your inseparability from it, and thus caring about the world future generations will inherit).

Here is a fascinating NOVA Episode about the brain that I find very illuminating. "KZread. Your Brain: Who's in Control? | Full Documentary | NOVA | PBS" Also of note: - KZread, Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry. - KZread, Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist.

Could she have chosen not to choose to weigh the pros and cons to make a choice to accept the debate? Highly unlikely but impossible? If she chose not to choose to weigh pros and cons, due to her desire (from where?) to test the theory of free will, she would still be just a body reacting to an environmental stimulus. Basically we do not know where our desires come from.

Since you are free to believe what you will there is no argument, there are only self-fulfilling prophecies. [ 0.1 / 0.1 = 1.0 ]

If we don't have free will how do people sucide

i wonder if the ideas themselfs are correct -"cognition" "free will"; "memory" "desision making", "freedom", "emotion" "conciousness" etc... all these are human constructs; words which explain things we dont fully understand. And people may understand even these constracted categories in slightly different ways. Can we really be that sure that humans are the only animal able to have a type of "meta-cognition"- Busaki might call that "Internalizing" (see The brain from inside out) Grossberg may call it ("resonance"?) Take a doco like "my octopus teacher"- we can explain all interaction with the principle of minimizing uncertainty (minimize free energy & active inference) But can we really understand whether the octupus engages because he does so because of "free will" or because its just movements to self evidence its body with the outside? Is self-evidencing not done "freely & willingly"? Can we really determine there is no type of "meta-cognition" or "internalisation" in that octopus? And why can may we only imagine the "I" or "we" as concious? Most of what our brain does is done unconsciously; is that separate from the conscious "I" just because there is a lack of awareness? Maybe if we could imagine the "I" as that of what we are aware of AND that of which we are not aware of; a social construct like "responsibility" may gain a different meaning? I mean my body, and its brain are still alive when i sleep- so "I" am still here but not concious of it. Things are still moving; acting on the environments in the body and the environment- I can say i chose to run out the door in an earhquake eventhough, im not thinking of what im doing- its an automated interaction with a violent and sudden change in the outside environment. "I" am concious but there ain't much "meta cognition" while its shaking. One moves to survive. And you dont need to have experienced earthquakes before to move successfully; there is affordance in each action which the brain and body can make useful to survive. Of course once the shaking recedes, thinking occures -construction of categorization; "that was scary"; ""I" thought this is it"; ""I" was sure "I" was dying" etc. But all of the experience; the automated interaction with a violantly changing environment, and the conscious meaning making are "willingly" done by each organism. Does "Will" have to be a misterious "thing", a "mini-me", inside the brain; cant it just be chemical-electrical dynamic actions?

@boohoo5419

18 күн бұрын

all these are just words.. not concepts we find in the real universe.. we didnt measure consciousness! we came up with clumsy words to describe something we obeserve. consciousness is as old as the bible and all this stuff. people where really bad with words and logik back then. its more likely that consciousness isnt real then that there is some magic we cant explain and thats free will! maybe we jsut cant explain consciousness bcs there is nothign to explain there! its a concept like AETHER before people discovered dark matter. its just a wage phenomenon that happens when enough brain cells cummunicate.

Kevin also to update his knowledge on how the brain works which is the predictive model on what the brain does it never reacts

@TijsHam

5 ай бұрын

I was hoping for that as well. It really makes a difference with the football example. Instead of having to make a split-second reactionary choice, you find yourself in a situation that was already incorporated into the possibility space of future developments that you continually update. This really makes a big difference in terms of choice. We don't experience what's real but rather what we think/project is most likely to be real and we have to rethink things when these predictions are off.

It is merely a misconception or idea that does not correspond to/with what cannot be different, but first define will

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

I think any debate like this should begin with the parties agreeing on what the working definition of free will and determinism is. The definitions are not universally accepted.

Their is no way free will does not exist.................only free will would account for someone wearing a bright blue suede stretch bodysuit.

@JackAndTheBeanstalkr

7 ай бұрын

brilliant! your sarcasm has ended the debate forever.

@keep-ukraine-free

7 ай бұрын

You say that only because you are unable to see the many situations that would cause someone to wear a "bright blue suede stretch bodysuit". (Hint: in my previous sentence, notice the phrase "situations that would cause" - this phrase tells us that we all know "situations" can cause a result/an outcome - i.e. what happens/what we do is not always due to our "making a choice"). Therefore someone may wear a "bright blue suede stretch bodysuit" because the world gave them only that choice - i.e. the outcome (they wore blue) may have nothing to do with their "choosing to". Many outcomes/results are not from the exercise of "free will" but from situations that force or predispose that one outcome. Here's one example of how someone could wear blue without "choosing" to. Can there be a situation where that person's clothes closet had ONLY blue clothes in it (or only "bright blue suede stretch bodysuits" in it - their closet had 30 of them, and nothing else). In this case would they have a choice? Obviously not. Given this, we then ask "Why would someone's closet be full of only blue clothes?" The answer could be "the world only allows blue clothes" (e.g., the stores in her city/vicinity only sell blue clothes) or "she chose to buy only blue clothes" (she has a preference for it). This boils down to "why/how do people have preferences?" (it also raises the question "what are preferences?"). So first, "preferences" are tendencies, leanings, internal psychological drives, predispositions to one choice among other similar choices (a predisposition of kiwi or strawberry as their "favored" ice-cream flavor - which is driven by the prevalence of "kiwi ice-cream" vs "strawberry ice-cream" in their city & environment). How/why do people have predisposed behaviors (which we call "choices")? It comes down to our past. This includes genetics, our childhood environment (family, home, school, friends), "significant" events (those that "shaped" us - i.e. those that created/added predispositions in our repertoire of behaviors), and the world actually around us (which limits our options, it limits our "choices"). It could be she likes blue because of her genetics (which made her eyes contain a greater number of blue "cones" - thus blue colors take on a stronger signal to her brain). Or maybe childhood events made her love blue (a truly favorite toy was bright blue). She may love suede because her grandfather wore blue eyeglasses, and she loved how caring he was to her, and his blue eyeglasses shimmered to her. It's clear she has predispositions to blue (hence her hair), and other things.

@keep-ukraine-free

7 ай бұрын

It's likely you won't understand the points I made, so I'll approach it in another way. Can you explain why you "choose" to walk in public on two feet, instead of crawling on your hands & feet? You have the choice, though I'm pretty sure you never use it. Why do you wear clothes? Why don't you kill animals? Why don't you drink sour milk? The reasons are multitudinous. One is because every "choice" comes with consequences. Those consequences (which others & the world have set) really compel (shape, control) your "choices" - therefore you aren't really choosing many things. The world is shaping or controlling your choices, based on how your emotions control you (i.e. you don't want to look "odd" by crawling on all fours - so you do the "normal" boring two-legged walk - your emotions drive you to not be embarrassed). To test out your belief in free will, make a "free will decision" to walk on all fours for 3 days, including in public. See how long it takes for your mind to rebel, and forces you to change your "free" will.

Great debate. Mr Mitchell's take on it was new and interesting to me but not compelling. I tend to agree with Ms Blackmore that what Mr Mitchell is defining is agency... the ability to make choices and act on them as opposed to free will which is WHY we make those SPECIFIC choices. A few reasons I don't buy Mr Mitchell's arguments. -Mr Mitchell begins by conflating determinism with pre-determinism which sets up a bit of a straw man. They are different. -He makes an unsupported claim that dismissing free will “is dismissing the entire fundamental phenomenology of our existence” which is a circular argument using his conclusion as a premise. -He then claims ruling out free will is ruling out agency which is not at all the same. It's an unsupported claim and doesn’t follow logically. -Classical physics IS deterministic so what he said is false. Quantum physics has randomness but-at least since the big bang-it’s too small to affect us at the macro level to be relevant. -Randomness by definition is uncontrolled so it has nothing to do with will. He then follows with conclusions based on that false premise. -He hasn’t made the case that complexity produces freedom… just awareness and agency which is not the same but what produces the illusion of freedom. -“Our reasons, not just the reasons of our parts” He says he’s happy to call that free will... which sounds to me like the kind of vague definition that compatibilists must make to sound coherent.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

You have no clue what free will means.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms : So provide a concise definition for us. If you want to say the ability to make choices... that's agency. That's what you do not why you pick that particular thing. If you say because you want to... you don't choose what you want. You become aware of it. I really can't say it better than the links I sent to you.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

You still don't understand what it means. Study up.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms like you’re an expert.

@CarnevalOne

2 ай бұрын

It's a basic concept we all intuitively understand.

If it’s constrained that’s not opposite of free. The self is not understood per se but we know it’s not another agent. If it’s not another agents will, it is self-will plus context. Quantum effects at the molecular level in synapses or just uncertainty due to massive complexity puts deterministic physics on warning. Don’t declare physics is deterministic if you don’t know your physics! All we get from all this is defining our terms and then accepting perhaps that all you know is that context is already taken into account but not coercive effects to it. So *NOT* another agent = self. So in this sense if it’s not anyone else it IS you. Therefore “you” are responsible. Therefore “you” is the agent carrying the effective, emergent thing that is “will”. So in the legal sense this doesn’t need free will being denied. Free will therefore exists for the real world purposes quite sufficiently, if “you” can be the only active/direct agent involved in an action done by your body. Looks like anarchy is off the table and we can accept allocating responsibilities for actions without any logical crisis. Then we are left with the effects of fundamental physics inside a physical brain. A physics debate that psychologists can’t join.

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

If you're interested : - KZread, Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry. - KZread, Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Correct, except it' s much easier to debunk determinism logically. Everything is constrained by the laws of logic, laws of nature. The universe could not exist otherwise. It needs regularity. But that only limits our free choices, it doesn't prove we don't have one.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms : You've just made the case for determinism and why free is in doubt. If you're interested - KZread, Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist. - KZread, Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman - KZread, Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

All.of those people have been debunked as absolutely incoherent.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms oh really. Debunked by who? You?

Stop smoking needs free will

Aren't agency and free will the same thing?

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

I believe agency is the ability to make a choice. Determinism is why we make the specific choices we do. You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want.

What this debate basically comes down to is that what we used to call free will (like choosing words or deciding to meditate or marry someone) we can't call free will anymore because the free will deniers (who likely live in the world as if they have free will) have associated it magic or the supernatural. Susan brags about what neuroscience has been able to demonstrate, even though its methods have not only failed to account for consciousness but has barely scratched the surface of how complex the brain truly is. it's good at gathering data but don't know how to make much sense of it. that said susan shouldn't be so smug. If our language use, for example, is ultimately mechanical, then, in principle, we should be able to create a device that can predict with precision our word choices, the direction of our digressions, or the conclusion/rationalization of our thoughts. Cogito, ergo FW.

@boohoo5419

18 күн бұрын

the amount of data to prove the clockwork universe would be as big as the universe itself. so in my opinion we can only view this topic through a logical lense. since everything we know is deterministic exept for quantum stuff its very likely that we live in a clockwork universe. if you factor in the probabilitys of quantum effects its still deterministic. there is only a fixed number of possible ways a quantum probability can resolve itself. even if you have the waveform of light there arent endless possbilitys or ways this waveform could take. consciousness is just an illusion.. a word.. not something we can measure! we only dont know what consciousness is because we have it defined so poorly. intermangled with religion and all this crap. so whats consciousness in your opinion, other then MAGIC we cant measure? or whatever you wanna call it. the clockwork universe is at least an explanation somewhat rooted in science.

@jedser

18 күн бұрын

@@boohoo5419 Unless you’re what chalmers calls a p-zombie, you should have a sense of what consciousness is. Even if you think it’s an illusion you’re still granting the term some level of observed reality. A short definition is the phenomena of experience. If you think your pain is real when, say, you stub your toe, then you believe in “MAGIC.” Consciousness is the thing that goes away when you fall into deep sleep or put under anesthesia. These are types of measures. We also know that someone that is dead has zero consciousness. More, the ITT theory of consciousness has a serious proposal on how to measure consciousness, which centers on the phenomena of phi, a mathematical measure of integrated information used to quantify the level of consciousness in a system. Donald hofmann and his lab are also working on a mathematically precise theory of consciousness. Penrose and hammeroff measure it as quantum processes in microtubules inside neurons. The ITT people, hofmann, and penrose are no imbeciles. If you really care, look at what they’re doing and see if any of their academic papers “intermagles” consciousness with “religion and all this crap.” finally, if you think everything is clockwork and deterministic, why bother making an argument? Surely it cant be because you’re trying to change my mind, which according to you is determined and thereby what you say can’t have any casual powers to change my supposedly determined mind. If you really think you can change my mind, then you also believe in magic.

Susan says there's such things as a self but has no problem being introduced as susan blackmore with a body of work (respectable, mind you) that can only be ascribed to said susan blackmore. if there's no self, who wrote them? magic?

-Dad, shall I ask to dance the brunette or that blonde? -Do as the laws of physics mandate. -Not helpful, I shall always do that anyways.

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

You will do what you want but you can't choose what you want. You only become aware of what you want.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

@@lrvogt1257 Not choosing means that you don't get to dance at all.

@lrvogt1257

29 күн бұрын

@@ronaldmorgan7632 : You always have a choice. That is agency. Determinism is why you make the specific choice you do.

Define will. Whose will is it? Or perhaps there is no will at all?

@HM-rz8nv

7 ай бұрын

To desire something to happen. I would say that sure people have a 'will', it's just we have no way to control what we desire; people don't have 'free' will even in the slightest bit. I would define 'free will' as - the ability to decide what are own desires are, or alternatively the ability to determine our own decisions. Obviously, this notion is completely contradicted by the laws of physics and neuroscience - Decisions are a product of neurochemistry, genetics, experiences and how your particular brain perceives information obtained through the senses. there is simply no "free will" in that process.

The determinist position boils down to: causation = determinism. Or: it's either a clockwork universe or a haunted house. A false dichotomy through and through.

humanity must realize the question itself is nonsense.

@random147555

6 ай бұрын

It has ramifications within things like the penal system. If there is no free will, we can use the penal system as an attempt to correct anti-social behaviors rather than viewing it as a punishment for the criminally wicked. Far from nonsense, if you ask me.

If we had freewill all animals wouod have it, it's evidenced everywhere. If I wasn't a determinist I'd say look at penguins who "choose" to go to the top of a hill and slide down for fun over and over.

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

They don't choose to enjoy it. They learn they enjoy it so they do it. You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want.

@joelschama1735

3 ай бұрын

@@lrvogt1257 Which is why I'm a determinist. I'm claiming they don't choose but only appear to choose.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

I choose what I want every day. Speak for yourself.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms : Selecting between two options is agency, the reason for wanting one option over the other is determined. If you're interested. - KZread, Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist. - KZread, Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry. - KZread, Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman

12:43 blue lady just failed Logic 101. She should say "science" more.

From the time we are young kids we are programmed deeply by family education, culture, beliefs from our surroundings, school, expectations, society et etc and all those imprints marjs each one of us & our particular genes + on/off switch manual for our genes as Sapolsky has explained. So we do have free will to choose to brush our upper teeth & our lower teeth.. For the rest of stuff we are mainly spilling narratives we've been imprinted with thru deep educational conditioning & each of us believes the narratives that have conditioned & imprinted us. We know today 97% of our feelings, wants, desires etc are subcinscious, 3% conscious. Subconscious processes thousands of bits of info in daily life while, conscious processes 40 to 50 bits only.

@Assassin546

19 күн бұрын

You don't get it. The thought of brushing either the upper part or the lower part of your teeth, why does it matter. Where does that thought come from. You are free as a person to do different things, but your desicions are already been determind. It just feels like you habe a choice, but don't realize you are drawn to one side.

Definitional incompetance makes this attempt at philosophical acuity, a nugatorious waste of effort.

@JackAndTheBeanstalkr

7 ай бұрын

word of the week - nugatorious

Without watching I can safely say that of course we have free will.

@Assassin546

19 күн бұрын

I know we don't have free will. Some people are too stupid to understand it.

@boohoo5419

18 күн бұрын

free will only seems likea pretty usefull illusion for the evolutionary process.. its like a productivity hack from nature to give us the illusion we can decide.

@nathanmaranda6504

15 күн бұрын

@@Assassin546 This has been debated for thousands of years, with contenders on both sides of the debate. To call anyone who believes in free will "stupid", is just a shameless ad hominem fallacy. Determinism is not proven in any conclusive sense, and our understanding of consciousness is insufficient to know if indeterminacy boils down to randomness in the context of our minds.

@Assassin546

14 күн бұрын

@@nathanmaranda6504 You are right, to call someone stupid because they don't understand a point is not only arrogant, but totally unessesary. I just get frustrated sometimes when someone state something without backing it up.

@nathanmaranda6504

13 күн бұрын

@@Assassin546 that’s fair enough, and it’s good to admit that. I also mean that someone may entirely comprehend understand your point, and still believe there is free will. It’s not merely that if one can understand the arguments from hard determinism that then one concludes there is not free will. One may resist, opt for a counter argument, not accept one of the premises, etc. even if you take the pessimist stance, and think free will is impossible regardless of the way the universe is, this does not make your view obvious or one that everyone would accept even if everyone understood it completely.

-Particles ARE deterministic and our brains are made of particles. -Some say that free will must include the idea that we could have chosen otherwise… but those are just words because we didn’t. -You can do what you want but you can’t choose what you want. (Paraphrasing Schopenhauer) -To do other than what you want is to want something else more. -Agency is the ability to choose and act but it doesn’t explain why we make any specific choice. -90% of our actions are driven by unconscious motivations and that is not controlled and therefore not free. -We are unaware of the great majority of the information we absorb and we aren't making conscious choices about that. -Neurologists have learned that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them. If it isn’t a conscious choice it can’t be free. -Any choice made that is not based on external factors and based on who we have become to make such a choice would be irrational. -What will convince you to make a specific decision? You won’t know until it happens and then you become aware of it. It does the convincing TO you.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

You just begged the question by assuming materialism a priori. You must prove materialism, first.

@lrvogt1257

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms: It's just physics.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Not an argument

@nisioisinnerman

2 ай бұрын

​@FightFilms doesn't the alternative seem a wee bit unfalsifiable? Also seems complexity becomes a massive problem with consciousness being the hypothetical "primitive." It is my thinking currently that no matter the iterative ontological distance from ourselves to that primitive, whatever it is would necessarily have to come into existence randomly... but either case being, we cannot hope to address the larger question of the nothing which proceeded it giving that thing emergence.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

Overthinking. When you consider doing one thing or another, that is free will.

Susan Blackmore, have you considered anything recently stated by physicists re: superdeterminism? Jerry Coyne? Sabine Hossenfelder? Gerard t’Hooft? Their views on the matter may be incorrect but you sound like woo-woo.

Also, the determinist is contradicting herself. An implication of agency is free will (in humans and, probably, the higher animals.) I can treat heat and microscopic motion of particles as two separate notions, but these are in fact the same thing. One has to trace what the implications are of having agency to see that free will is implied. One can not treat concepts so superficially.

@alancollins8294

3 ай бұрын

Here's a simple illustrative example of why free will doesn't exist: Imagine a bubble and in it is everything you're currently aware of. Since thinking a thought is synonymous with becoming aware of that thought it means that this thought also appears in this bubble and starts existing there. However, before a thought can exist within the bubble it must be created. But since the creation of a thought also precedes it's existence it's impossible to consciously take part in the creation process of any thought. It doesn't exist in your awareness during its creation. You cannot consciously direct your thinking because this applies to all conscious mental content.

@alancollins8294

3 ай бұрын

You experience a model of an agent. It's useful and accurate to a point but underneath it all it's just a narrative your brain tells itself about the things that it does. Everything you see is a construct of your brain. It's like a simulation that represents evolutionarily relevant parts of an objective reality. For example: We experience specific wavelengths of electromagnetic waves as colors and pressure waves as sound. But the experience of redness or music are a constructed representation of reality made by your brain. A light wave with 700 nm isn't "red". It has certain properties, yes, but it doesn't "look" like anything because any experience that results from vision is a representative reconstruction of the actual thing. Much like redness your agency is a model of the organism that your brain is part of. You experience yourself as a representation of the organism and constitute the illusion of oneness of body (You're a huge collective of cells, bacteria and other organisms that live in and around your body vital for your survival and health) And separation from the environment (You're constantly in exchange with the environment made of fundamentally the same as the things around you, you switch out all of your atoms during the course of your life etc.)

@ryam4632

3 ай бұрын

@alancollins8294 You have too many arbitrary premises for me to answer this.

@alancollins8294

3 ай бұрын

@@ryam4632 Can you name them?

@alancollins8294

3 ай бұрын

@@ryam4632 as far as I can tell, the premise that you can't be aware of a thought until you think it is true. And it means that "conscious thought creation" isn't possible. What am I missing?

Free will is the ability to do things (including producing thoughts) other than we do, in the circumstances that we do them. Free will is not a loaded term as Mitchell claims. Indeterminate does not mean undetermined, and Mitchell’s claim that the universe is not determined, is just a claim. Michell’s distinction between humans and other animals is unlikely. The difference is far more likely to be a matter of degree because we are made of the same stuff to varying degrees. We do things, and we are aware that we do so. We do not have a prima facie reason to question whether we have free will. However, when we question it, we find objective evidence that what we do is determined. The more we question as we learn, the smaller Mitchell’s “underdetermined” space for free will to exist. Mitchell does not have any objective evidence and is relying on intuition.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

"Free will is the ability to do things (including producing thoughts) other than we do, in the circumstances that we do them." Yesterday morning was like today, except I did and thought different things. "Indeterminate does not mean undetermined, and Mitchell’s claim that the universe is not determined, is just a claim." In this conversation, they mean the same thing and everything you posted here is just a claim. "The difference is far more likely to be a matter of degree because we are made of the same stuff to varying degrees." This baseless assertion assumes a physicalist/materialist universe that has no possibility of free will, while claiming to prove no FW. This is a logical fallacy. "We do not have a prima facie reason to question whether we have free will. " You just admitted your position is unreasonable. "However, when we question it, we find objective evidence that what we do is determined." "baseless claim" You can call it objective evidence, while providing none, but you cannot escape the fact that you believe mindless (dumb, unintelligent) processes somehow interpret this for you and make you say and believe "this is true", when you have no ability to know anything. It's an absolutely incoherent worldview you hold. It's not your fault, though. You are deluded by mindless, purposeless processes. You are controlled by mechanisms, which makes you a robot. No one should listen to anything you say. You have no choice but to say it. You can't know truth.

@sjoerd1239

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms The circumstances today are not the same as yesterday, including time. The wind changes direction. Does the wind have free will? I was wrong to say that Mitchell's claim that the univerve is not determined is just a claim. Indeterminate does not mean the same as not determined. Indeterminate means lacking the capacity to know beforehand. There is plenty of objective evidence for determinism. Science is based on determinism (if this, then that). Neurobiology has plenty of objective evidence to show that we are determined. There is plenty of objective evidence in neurobiology, and our environment and experience to show that we are determined. That we are not determined only has intuition, which is subjective. I gave a reason why the difference between us and other animals is far more likely to be a matter of degree. It was not a baseless claim. I did not claim no possibility of free will. I do claim that all the objective evidence supports no free will and free will only has intuition. Please do not tell me that I made a logical fallacy. Please let you case stand on it's merits. You end by telling me that I have no free will.

@sjoerd1239

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms Like is not same. The circumstances today are not the same as yesterday. The time is not the same and the circumstances have been influenced by what happened between yesterday and today. The wind changes direction. Does the wind have free will? I was wrong to say that Mitchell's claim was just a claim. Indeterminate does not mean not determined. It means not having the capacity to know beforehand. If Mitchell does not address the difference, then that is problem for his argument. I do claim that all the objective evidence supports having no free will and free will only has subjective intuition. Science is based on determinism (If this, then that). Neurobiology and interaction with the environment has lots of objective evidence to support determinism. I gave a reason for saying the difference between us and other animals was more likely to be a matter of degree. It was not just a baseless assertion. You included the reason in your quote. Speculating on a non physical universe explains nothing. Please do not say something that I have written is a logical fallacy. Let your case stand on its merits. You end by saying that I have no free will.

@CarnevalOne

2 ай бұрын

"Like is not same. The circumstances today are not the same as yesterday. " There are plenty of examples of situations where the circumstances are close enough, yet the subject does something different, to be evidence of free will. The kind of standard of evidence you posit requires a time machine. That means you have to live up to this same standard to prove determinism. But, you don't even provide evidence, you just assert stuff, while setting an impossible standard on the FW proponent. I tried to tell you you are incoherent. "The time is not the same and the circumstances have been influenced by what happened between yesterday and today." Baseless assertions. "The wind changes direction. Does the wind have free will?" This is a category error. Wind is a mechanistic process. People are not, or at the very least you have failed to prove this. This was my point about you assuming a purely materialistic universe BASELESSLY, then using this assumption to treat people as if they were wind. This is, AGAIN, your fallacy. You are begging the question. You assume there is no free will a priori, when your job is to prove it. And, according to You, you need a time machine. "Indeterminate does not mean not determined. It means not having the capacity to know beforehand." Not exactly. It means unknown. "I do claim that all the objective evidence supports having no free will and free will only has subjective intuition." Baseless assertion. "Science is based on determinism (If this, then that)." That's not determinism. That's causality. Now, in the case of natural phenomena that are mindless, they are one and the same. In the case of the human mind, they are not. Again, you need to demonstrate that materialism is correct. You keep begging the question. "Neurobiology and interaction with the environment has lots of objective evidence to support determinism." Baseless assertion. "Speculating on a non physical universe explains nothing." Speculating!?!?!? Is logic physical? How about math? Truth? Love? All physical, huh? How about the mind? Once again, you assume materialism a priori despite the OBVIOUS FACT that the universe is not "all physical". " Please do not say something that I have written is a logical fallacy. Let your case stand on its merits." The merit of my case is the demonstration of your fallacies, baseless assumptions and incoherence.

@sjoerd1239

2 ай бұрын

@@CarnevalOne If this cause, then that effect. That's causality. Determinism is causality without free will. Science, including medicine and neurobiology, is based on determinism. Therein lies a mountain of objective evidence for determinism. With determinism there is no free will. Do you never question that which you think is obvious? I trust that you do not think you can control everything. So, given that, how much free will do you think you have? If the merit of your case is the demonstration of my fallacies, baseless assumptions and incoherence, then there should be no need to tell me.

Here's a simple illustrative example of why free will doesn't exist: Imagine a bubble and in it is everything you're currently aware of. Since thinking a thought is synonymous with becoming aware of that thought it means that this thought also appears in this bubble and starts existing there. However, before a thought can exist within the bubble it must be created. But since the creation of a thought also precedes it's existence it's impossible to consciously take part in the creation process of any thought. It doesn't exist in your awareness during its creation. You cannot consciously direct your thinking because this applies to all conscious mental content. You experience a narrative your brain tells itself about the things that it does.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

If I cannot "consciously direct my thinking" why did you ask me to "imagine a bubble" that has my thoughts in it? You make no sense.

@nisioisinnerman

2 ай бұрын

There admittedly could be a small issue with the initial statement in their premise above, but your rebuttal fails more quickly and obviously. You a priori have granted that the precise ways in which brain reorganises in response to reading the words on the screen and subsequently projects the emergent imagery onto its "thinking canvas/end receivers" is not at all reflexive or commutative, but somehow the only thing in the complex space surrounding it which seems to be immune to causality... also notice that by conventionally implied constraints, true indeterminacy does not resolve the question in the least. It implies, I should think, either that one need only expand the boundary constraining the universe to realms that are completely beyond observation/measurability, or that indeed the terminal point of any strand of information is the loathsome "nothing," as Dr. Mitchell seems to fear above all else, which may lend support to an Einsteinian-esque block universe theory,, or even something that propagates with circularity ... nobody is going to have this answer, unfortunately.

@alancollins8294

2 ай бұрын

@@nisioisinnerman Tell me about this small issue, please

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

You are overthinking to the Nth degree. When we make choices, we consider them first. That is free will.

@alancollins8294

29 күн бұрын

@@ronaldmorgan7632 I agree that that is a useful way to frame FW. But looking closer at "considering smth" yields that it is just a string of thoughts obeying the same law I outlined. Your description, while practical, is too vague to capture reality.

There's no reason or desire to continue to say that free Will does exist , and only human being's possess free will . When ever the thought of leaving or staying , walking or driving etc , the thought of what kind of decision the self will choose depends on the feelings of the thought of leaving or staying , and the decision to leave is completed with the actions of free Will , the will , the Willing , the willingness , the Free Will of Leaveing and not staying . Individual Self has free will and that is the reason why a person , male or female can and are capable of Behaving , Saying , Doing whatever thoughts that have cleared the mind and is already in the realm of free will . Free Will is the reasons why human beings , people are Able Ready and Willing to Make , Travel , Kill , and Destroy Themselves and All of the Life that Exist on and Within a Planet called Earth . FREE WILL is a Trait that Separates Mankind from Nature , and the Instinct that governs Nature does Not Exist in the Realm of Mankind .

@michaelshannon9169

4 ай бұрын

This is why its called the illusion of free will, because its so convincing that it exists, but it doesnt. The illusion is that it feels so real, that theres a me, an I, an entity unconditioned by chemical and physical laws. A person who never saw a car before would really believe that me pushing down on the accelerator is whats causing the car to move but a mechanic knows whats actually going on and wouldnt fall for that illusion. A mechanic would show this person whats actually going on and the illusion is over.

Why does everyone believe "free will" is the ability to do or have things? The freedom of the will is the freedom to want. To will is to want and to want anything is to want something other than reality - something other than truth. To want is a desire for the unreal and untrue. Religiously-speaking, one is free to desire to overrule God, destroy creation and recreate it to suit oneself. Atheistically-speaking, it's a desire to break and/or rewrite the laws of physics to suit the self. That's how smart man thinks he is. Man - beings who have only even been walking upright for about 5 minutes, in the overall scheme of things, yet believe themselves qualified to dictate to God and rewrite the laws of physics? Pffft. Everybody - and possibly everyTHING - has free will - i.e. the freedom to spit in God's face and/or declare the laws of physics "defective".

more like Intelligence Halved

Free will is the gift humankind has been given that allows each being to freely choose their ideas and what they wish to believe or not believe. Our ability through the choices we make, to create new circumstances and environment, relationships, achievement or failure, prosperity or poverty. There is no way that man may escape what he thinks, says or does [i.e., the fruits of his free will]-for he is born of the Divine Creative Consciousness power and is likewise creative in his imagining.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

Too obvious. They'll try to tell you that you don't have free will because you can't fly (or some other nonsense).

Free will is impossible because of two well established principles of physics: 1) entropy (the impossibility of changing or altering past events); and uncertainty )the impossibility of predicting future events). Everything that happens, happens in the past; while nothing that happens, happens in the future. Think about that for a minute.

@george5464

5 ай бұрын

entropy does not preclude free will, particularly with non-equilibrium systems which must resist entropy. If anything this suggest degree of freedom given the system must choose amongst a dynamic environment in order to minimise its free energy Regarding your other point, there really is only now. If we think of time according to thermodynamics then really time is just the points at which we take separate measurements of a system. The increase in entropy amounting to an increase in time.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Wait...do you actually think you said something even remotely intelligent?

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

Let me boil this down for you: I read your post, thought about it, then DECIDED to reply. I did not consider the past or future ramifications or whatever.

So this what Mitchell and others that think like him think. If we able to switch 2 people's brains, that the 2 people's that switch brains aren't going to immediately start thinking and behaving differently. Let's assume that this is possible and that we adjust the switch perfectly for changes in the body. Changes in hormones produced by the body, height, weight, muscle, ect. Lets give an example. Lets say we have Bob and we Frank and we know some charteristics about them. Starting with Bob. Bob has a large amount knowledge hockey and can skate and play hockey. He also has a lot of knowledge in chemistry gained by going to university and studying chemistry. Bob also is passionate about politics but has has had a history of becoming aggressive when getting in arguments about politics with his peers. He feels guilt about his aggressive outbursts and therefore thinks about self harm occasionally. Then you got Frank. Frank has a lot knowledge on basketball and plays basketball. He has a lot of knowledge about physics because has studied it in university. Frank enjoys debating various topics with peers but is known for always staying calm and collective when being challenged with opposing views. We go ahead and do the switch in brains. All of sudden Bob knows very little about hockey or how to skate and play instead he knows a lot about basketball and how to play basketball. He all of sudden knows very little about chemistry and alot about physics. When being challenged by someone in a debate he stays calm and collective and no longer acts aggressively. He also no longer thinks about self harm. As for Frank he now knows everything Bob knew about chemistry and hockey but no longer about basketball. He now acts aggressively when debating topics such as politics. He now thinks about self harm. I believe people who don't believe in free will believe this what will happen if we were able to do this experiment. They might believe this based on what happens when we physically change the brain do to damage. But we know that the brain doesn't just change when it is damaged, neural plasticity happens as well. The change can effect people in a positive way but also in a negative way. Either way way we are not in control of the changes. Then we have normal brain growth, and the way our brain grows and is shaped is out of our control. The brain also learns from past environments and makes changes to itself in order to prepare for future events or environments. None of the processes of the brain growing differently, or in the brain changing its structure, or changing its wiring is in our control. We believe that all learning and memory is the result of the past. We know that environments such as stress can cause atrophy in areas such as the prefrontal cortex an area responsible for descion making and reaprasial. I believe other areaes can become more active and maturate more when stressed such as the amygdala that is responsible for fear, anxiety, agression ect. All of these changes we have no control over. Then we ask ourselves where do our thoughts, our emotions ect come from and we answer our brain. If we have no control over how the brain produces our thoughts, or our congnition then i say we don't have free will. Just because we have alot of congnition doesn't mean we have control over that cognition. Just because we are able to plan into the future doesn't mean we have control over where those plans came from. Just because we can descide doesn't mean we have control over that decision. People can ask whats controlling the decision and i can say reasons. I can then say reasons are thoughts and thoughts are controlled by the brain and we have no control over the brain. The people that don't believe that our neurons firing and the internal workings inside our brains don't control our thoughts and our cognition, do not have an explanation of where our thoughts and cognition come from.

@jedser

25 күн бұрын

You can control fear, anxiety, aggression, ect with the right drugs. the people who claim that the brain controls thoughts do not have an explanation for when the mind controls the brain to override reflexive thoughts, the distinction between systems 1 and 2, and using language in a way that's appropriate to situations rather than being caused by them

@therealjimbosliceman

22 күн бұрын

@jedser So that thought that you supposly chose. Can you explain what the other thoughts were available when choosing that thought or any thought. What were the options in the thoughts you chose. The mind has to come from somewhere. I think what you mean by a regressive thought is a change in how you were previously thinking about something. This change in the way you are thinking is not coming from nowhere. Right, our brains change all the time due to new learning. Synaptic connections form. Nueroplasticity changes the brain and hormones, and everything else that I am missing changes the brain. As a result, we can change how we think about stuff. The mind doesn't control the brain. The changes in your mind come from changes in your brain. Nuerons continuously fire, but not all them fire every time, and nuerons also change how they fire from different mechanisms.

@jedser

18 күн бұрын

@@therealjimbosliceman What a strange question to ask. What were the options in the thoughts i chose? There’s no way to list them because the total would run to infinity since language use can produce infinite thought despite the finite means. If you want to get a better sense, find your biggest dictionary, count the words and their syntactical permutations. You’re right: the change in the mind doesn’t come from nowhere. Learning, for example, starts with my decision to direct my attention towards, say, euclidean geometry out of the near infinite things i could have chosen to pay attention to. When i say the mind controls the brain what i also mean is the part that consciously decides not just what to pay attention to but also what not to. The distinction is important. Often my brain prefers to just binge watch shows, but my mind can override this preference, in service of a long term goal, and force myself to grade boring essays. I’m not my brain. And neither are you.

@therealjimbosliceman

17 күн бұрын

@jedser What a strange question to ask. Can you explain to me what were the other choices or options you were considering when choosing that thought. Were those not thoughts as well that you chose . If they weren't different thoughts, but instead options to choose a thought. What were the options you were choosing from when choosing your thought. You are telling me that when you choose. What a strange question to ask . That you chose this thought from all possible options of thoughts. That a list of all possible options of that thought showed up somewhere, and you chose that thought to put into your mind. Where did all those possible options come from. What were the options when choosing all those options for your possible options in the thoughts you chose. Are you saying that you chose "What" from all possible words, then you chose "a" from all possible words, then you chose "strange" from all possible words, then you chose "question" from all possible words, then you chose "to" from all possible words then you chose 'ask' from all possible words. Then, you chose to combine these words together. What other options were you considering when choosing to combine these words together for your thought that you chose. When choosing any one of those words for your thought, did a list of every possible option appear to you. When choosing to combine those words together did a list of combination options appear to you when deciding on this thought. Did the thought as a whole come from a list of options for this thought, and did the options come from a list of options when choosing this option. I personally don't remember choosing my thoughts from options. My thoughts just appeared to me. I think you were talking about your brain wanting to watch movies, but then your mind chooses to mark papers instead. Where is this mind coming from that is over ruling the brain. It has to come from somewhere.

@jedser

13 күн бұрын

@@therealjimbosliceman It's not my fault you don't remember choosing your thoughts, that your thoughts appear to you. Of course this can't be true, unless you're a p-zombie. When the mind wanders or when meditating, thoughts just pop up. sure. But in conversation non-p-zombie humans don’t just respond with whatever pops up; rather, they respond to thoughts appropriate to the context (pragmatics). This takes on a new level of intentionality if you’re communicating in writing, which, if done well, is a product of revision whose options are infinite, from the level of diction, semantics, punctuation, style, metaphor, adaptation for a particular audience, and so on. Take my sentence, ‘what a strange question to ask.’ I could have chosen to say ‘what a weird question’ or ‘alien your questions is’ or ‘where on Mars did that question come from’ or ‘it strikes me as novel to be asked an idiotic question whose answer is kind of obvious’ or so on and on and on and on... .Where did the options come from? The sum of everything I’ve read, heard, learned about, and so on and on and on and on… . I didn’t say that there was something overruling the brain. Maybe you have the wrong impression that I think that the mind doesn’t originate from the brain. I don’t. The brain is made of modules or neural networks. The neural network that overrides instinctual preferences for, say, watching movies over marking papers, is called the prefrontal cortex (the PFC). In particular, the dorsolateral PFC. The dlPFC (system 2, as Kahneman termed it) can inhibit or delay gratification and assert control over the brain’s automatic processes (system 1). I can’t really tell what your position is. Are you saying that there’s no such thing as a mind? No such thing as choosing thoughts? The mind is something like the soul and does not originate from the brain? Just because you claim not to choose your thoughts, it does not follow that I myself do not.

Why would things be better if we accept that FW is an illusion. We’d still do exactly as we do.

@GNARGNARHEAD

7 ай бұрын

well no, we'd be more able to find effective solutions to problems by approaching them more appropriately

@JavierBonillaC

7 ай бұрын

@@GNARGNARHEAD That doesn't throw much light on it. I say "Why would a car with with a sofa on the roof work better"?" And you say "because that way the car would work more appropriately". It'd really help if you sad "why?".

@GNARGNARHEAD

7 ай бұрын

@@JavierBonillaC why a more accurate mental model is advantageous?

@JavierBonillaC

7 ай бұрын

@@GNARGNARHEAD Ok, I will, take your word for it and just start enjoying the benefits of this new knowledge.

@GNARGNARHEAD

7 ай бұрын

@@JavierBonillaC anything cognitive behavioral therapy could be applied to would be an example, they all have their nuanced complexity that any treatment would greatly benefit from a professionals tailored understanding, but the perspective that the self is a construct of underlying structures of long chains of causality hopefully provides an insight to how illness' can arise...

If you are going to make a claim that free will exists please point out at least where it is, how it looks, show us how it functions, give us something.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

You assume a hard physicalist universe, which assumes free will doesn't exist, without a shred of evidence. This is a fallacy. And stupid. Show me your thoughts.

@michaelshannon9169

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms You are assuming of me - I never mentioned anything about hard physics. I simply asked how does free will work? Even without predeterminism relating to physics, we're still at square one - what is free will? Where is it, how does it look on paper?

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

I decided to click on the link that brought me here. Next question.

Me: So what experiment can be run to test the hypothesis that the hundreds of unique decisions I make on any given day are not a product of my own free-will? Determinist: There is no such experiment. But I have a PhD. And I've given this question a lot of thought. Trust me on this one, bro.

@alejandrarodriguezsanchez6667

5 ай бұрын

read Determined by Robert Sapolsky

Not enough views and likes

Blackmore and Dennett on consciousness is the gold standard of charlatanism. Instead of consciousness why not just use the plain and much better word, "I"? They themselves like every one of us know that it is the one reality we can absolutely be sure of, because we "experience" it. Saying that it's an illusion is not saying anything. Why not use the correct word, "experience" instead of "illusion"? Yes, sure it's an illusion, that is, experience, a real experience; an illogical impossible reality, this experience (illusion) should not exist, yet it does. The I should not be, but it is, abnormally. If you do not accept their absurdity you're certainly guilty of believing in magic or little someone inside or, god forbid, in god. I'm guilty of neither of them by the way -at least for the time being. She's happy with her non-free will and the world should benefit from this understanding. Why bother? Mitchell asked the right question, but I've lost interest from then on. Yes, when can we call an action the product of free will? When it's not the result of cause and effect? Then it's chance, not free will. When it's based on cause and effect, it's the product of cause and effect, not free will. So everything must be determined by the big bang, the first domino, if any. Kevin negates this, probably rightly, but poorly to my ears. Yet my feeling or understanding is that one can here say that free will is an experience, but not real, we just go through it, we do not seem to be free agents, we just live it. Perhaps at some junctures we are. This might only be solved when the question of I is solved, that is, most probably never. "There is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream--a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought--a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!" Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

@MD97531

6 ай бұрын

The way I see it both can be true: the I is an experience (or a user experience) and free will is an illusion that the I experiences. And that has a very simple neurological explanation that has been tested: the subconscious takes an action before the conscious part of the brain (or the I) becomes aware that it supposedly made the choice to take said action.

how is indeterminism or randomness proofs of free will?

@HM-rz8nv

7 ай бұрын

it's not, even a universe governed purely by uncontrolled indeterminacy is just as bereft of 'free will' as a universe of pure determinism. And in fact, it's not even truly proven that Quantum Mechanics is truly 'random', the process behind that could be as deterministic as everything else for all we know.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Indeterminism is the opposite of determinism. Where do they find you loons?

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Open a dictionary

freewill that no one can't take away from you is.........freewill to think

If free will is an illusion, what would free will look like if it wasn’t?

@nonononononono8532

3 ай бұрын

I have no clue. That’s why free will is utter nonsense

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

What do you mean by "I have"? Nevermind. You are deluded.

No free will in a block universe, past, present and future are all equally real.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

How are they "equally real" when only the present exists?

@vernongrant3596

2 ай бұрын

@@FightFilms study up on your physics.

K.M. is talking nonsense. None of what he says refutes determinism.

They asked a wise man if he lives as if he has free will, he said "Do i have any other chance?"

@exweized3595

5 ай бұрын

Sounds clever, but doesn't really get to it. I live my life knowing I don't have free will. My brain tells me what to do. It's very freeing once you understand it. Most people freak out and are too afraid of the idea..as shown in these comments

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Dumb.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

@@exweized3595 Ridiculous. "Hey, don't blame me that I just killed a hundred people. My brain told me to, and hey, who can say what's right or wrong?" We make decisions all the time. That is free will. If we did not have it then we would essentially be glorified computer programs with everyone making the same decisions.

This verbal diarrhoea explains nothing. Free will is a myth because a human being cannot decide on most of the things that make up that person. I can't choose to be tall, fair, intelligent, extroverted, math freak etc etc. If my inherent traits and characteristics were not chosen by me, if my parentage, lineage and family, my birth location, race, era of existence etc etc were not chosen by myself, how can I be capable of free will. I am merely reacting to the situation based on my mental and physical condition at that point. My mind decides most actions... and that mind wasn't chosen by me. Each child has his / her own mind that was NOT consciously developed but came about on its own. Our strengths, weaknesses, fears and courage as children were a result of our destiny, not free will. Therefore, we live our lives using the same abilities that we never had any control over in the first place.

@exweized3595

5 ай бұрын

Very well said. It's obvious once you take 10 minutes to think about it. Most people are genuinely too fearful to look the idea in the face. They think the world will melt or something if they do. Flat earthers still rule the science in this field ☹️

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

You have no clue what free will means. And you seem mad you ain't God.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

Sorry, but that is mostly nonsense. Free will is the ability to make decisions. You can stop right there.

Blue hair 1: Grey hair 0

Susan Blackmore says she's been trying to give up her freewill since she was a teenager arguing with her boyfriend about it. Well, she's been unsuccessful all this time and still debating the subject.

@thomascromwell6840

7 ай бұрын

You can't give up something that doesn't exist.

@toni4729

7 ай бұрын

@@thomascromwell6840 To quote Christopher Hitchens " Of course we have free have free will, we have no choice but to have it."

@gravelpit5680

7 ай бұрын

​@toni4729 I don't think you understand Hitchens' quote, he said that often as a joke about God . Yer not gonna get away with misquote Hitchens and taking him out of context here. Hitchens did NOT believe in freewill.

@toni4729

7 ай бұрын

@@gravelpit5680 Don't like it. Tough. I do. You can believe you don't have free will if you like, that's your problem, not mine.

@toni4729

7 ай бұрын

@@gravelpit5680 Feel big now? Good night.

Free will is a spectrum. The more good you do the more free will you get by way of higher consciousness. The more evil you do the less free will you have by way of lower consciousness. What determines the lack of free will is a slavery to the passions and desires. Doing harm is slavery to sin or moha (desire for worldly things) or whatever word suits you. You are free to do sin but you are also free to work in a factory for 12 hours a day as a slave to money if you please. Harming yourself others or your environment all result in less free will and lower consciousness. Align your self to the good which is God. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner. ☦️

Kevin was completely out of his league in this debate. His arguments were consistently weak, often straw man arguments, and the kicker was when he pretended to understand quantum mechanics by stating that physics essentially disproves determinism. This is flatly false. Quantum mechanics certainly throws a wrench into the equation and introduces many more questions, but to pretend he, as a non-physicist, understands that quantum mechanics is incompatible with determinism really exposed Kevin's ignorance. I was on the fence on this topic before watching, but the combination of Susan's good arguments and Kevin's bad ones won me over. Free will is likely an illusion.

@JackAndTheBeanstalkr

7 ай бұрын

quantum indeterminacy does not lead to free will... an unknowable random outcome that can't be manipulated is not free will's source

@Thundechile

7 ай бұрын

My thoughts exactly. It seems a bit odd that I've seen other debates on the same subject and Kevin seems to repeat the same things that he clearly has no very good understanding about. He actually doesn't seem to understand even the basic things what determinism means.

@george5464

6 ай бұрын

Quantum mechanics does open up the possibility of free will given that any outcome is defined by that which measures it, thus, any measurement or information isn’t some stand alone string of data but is defined by the systems it exchanges with.

@uofute

6 ай бұрын

@@george5464 Thank you for very effectively and efficiently proving your utter ignorance about quantum mechanics, George.

I didn’t know Jordan Peterson had an equally stupid twin.😱

@hrothgr52

5 ай бұрын

He’s a world leading neuroscientist. Stupid?

Some ideas are so ridiculous only academics believe them.

@christopherhamilton3621

2 ай бұрын

Well, THAT comment tells me exactly nothing except that you wish to slam academics in general instead of what or who actually upset you…😂

The negative side of the argument falls on two accounts 1. Why enter the debate if you believe that the other side is not free to change their minds? 2. If your contention is true, then you were pre-destined to say what you say so it would have no meaning Correctness and truth can matter; i.e. make a difference, ONLY if persons are free to grasp it and act on it

@thomascromwell6840

7 ай бұрын

1. Debate is not supposed to change the mind of your opposition. It changes the mind of those who haven't yet made up their minds and converts some of those who have. Physical phenomenon is interactive. You can move a lever with your hand. You can produce sound and it can be heard. Free will is not a physical concept. It is the insertion of magic into a physical system. In fact, if free will exists, it is impossible to move your opponent from their position no matter what. You can threaten them with a live nuclear bomb and they will refuse to accept that a card is blue because their mind is free of stimulus and causal chains. It can do whatever it wants as if it were completely isolated from the physical world. In fact, if free will exists you can't do anything to anyone. You cannot ask your boss for a leave, or have a taxi stop when you raise your hand. The mind becomes a black box, impossible to change. Why would anyone believe such an obviously ridiculous idea?

@thomascromwell6840

7 ай бұрын

2. The computer is pre-programmed to make my coffee. I challenge you to argue that coffee is without meaning.

@SpacePatrollerLaser

7 ай бұрын

@@thomascromwell6840To whom; you are the computer?

@oliverjamito9902

7 ай бұрын

What is meaning without 1ST. SHARED THE little child "i" sitting with the AM? Here ye all are feet resting upon the NEW very tip of time. In front! Beloved bring creation itself in front! Asked why creation exist? For whom? Who am I given time! Comes with a commands unto the Heirs to provide free space and room to grow. Heirs will say from here grows! Honor and Gratitude unto thee my Heirs! I know many have forgotten! Therefore remind and comes with comfort!

@oliverjamito9902

7 ай бұрын

Some will say who is that? Heirs will say I AM!

Determinists admit they are deluded, yet have great clarity. seems incoherent.

The 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 of free will is misunderstanding. Free will is empty verbiage, like God. Neither is necessary and both obfuscate.

That guy said a lot of things, yet he said nothing at all. 😂

People are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life. Yes people make choices, but what types of choices that they make all depends on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be, and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves throughout their life. And how wise, how caring, and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. The only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible. And that's why nobody deserves anything good or bad to happen to them because the only way people would deserve something is if the way they are would be their fault, but that's not possible. But if someone does something that is bad enough then they should be stopped even though the way they are isn't their fault. But it would be much better if no life forms existed at all because then no life form would be a victim of existing and suffering against their will. And if no life forms existed then that would be just fine because then no life form would know or care that they didn't exist. "God has nothing to do with our failures!" If a god exists then the way that god created everything is the reason why everything is the way it is in every single way. If everything was created then the way that everything was created determines how everything will play out. If a god exists then the type of genetics that god created and forced us to have and the types of life experiences that god created and then forced us to have is what causes people to think and do the types of things that people think and do throughout their life. And if a god exists it's evil for god to force other life forms into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will because they might not like or possibly even hate existing in the type of existence where they will suffer against their will. And that's why forcing them into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will is an evil thing to do to them. But if a god exists then it's not gods fault that god exists and unfortunately happens to be that way. If a god exists and if god has always existed then god didn't get to choose the way god is. God is just forced to be whatever way that god happens to be no matter if god wants to be that way or not. And if a god exists and if god was created then god is forced to be whatever way that god was created no matter if god wants to be that way or not. If a god exists then the only way the way god is would be gods fault is if god willingly chose to come into existence and if god created itself and made itself be exactly the way that god wants to be, but that's not possible. And so if a god exists then god doesn't deserve anything good or bad to happen to god because the only way that god would deserve something is if the way god is would be gods fault, but that's not possible. But just like it's not a horrible criminals fault that they exist and unfortunately happen to be a horrible way, they should be stopped just like a horrible god should also be stopped even though the way god is isn't gods fault.

@gulaschnikov5335

6 ай бұрын

Why would it be better if there was no suffering and no existing? Doesn't make sense to me. That seems to me to be an expression of a disgust for life.

@AnonymousWon-uu5yn

6 ай бұрын

@@gulaschnikov5335 because it is evil for a god or for anyone else to force people or any other type of life form into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will or possibly even suffer horribly against their will because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why forcing them into existence is an evil thing to do to them. And since they won't exist that's just fine because they won't miss anything because they won't know or care that they didn't exist. But best of all they won't be a victim of existing and suffering against their will.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

Sorry, but that's quite possibly the worst logic proof that I've ever come across. We were designed to be imperfect. Many people don't understand the ramifications of that (obviously).

@AnonymousWon-uu5yn

29 күн бұрын

It is evil to force someone into the type of existence that they might not like or possibly even hate to exist in.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn Parents have kids when they shouldn't. Mutations happen and they don't choose based on being evil.

She is the living proof that free will doesn’t exist, because no one would voluntarily choose a matching hair color for her blue shirt

@davidhodgson4685

7 ай бұрын

@tom she looks great, so why not

@exweized3595

6 ай бұрын

You think you're being facetious, but you've stated an objective fact. She didn't choose her clothes any more than you chose your comment.

They're both wrong. We do have free will. But Kevin Mitchell's reasoning doesn't really get there. He does a bit of a redefinition.

@HM-rz8nv

7 ай бұрын

Well, i for one fail to see how there is any conception of free will that is compatible with reality, be it the "Libertarian Free Will" variety or even a highly restrictive form of Compatibilism.

@calo9889

7 ай бұрын

​@@HM-rz8nvcompatibilism is trivially compatible with any sort of universe. That's the whole point.

@exweized3595

7 ай бұрын

You have no free will. You are 100% a product of your genes, your family, friends, upbringing and society. We all are. You raise your right hand only because your brain tells you to. You tell your brain nothing. If a time machine could land you back into Charles Manson's body as a baby and you then experienced all of his life's influences, without question you would be Charles Manson. Ditto if Charlie was born with your genes, your family and all your life privileges, he wouldn't be a serial killer, he would instead be making simplistic declarations on KZread.

@stuartdoyle4373

7 ай бұрын

@@exweized3595 I know you're just lashing out because believing in a lack of free will leads to hopelessness and nihilism. It's depressing. But I have a solution for you. Here's a link to my argument for free will. philpapers.org/archive/DOYFWT-2.pdf

What is the point of this debate? Who cares? Nobody. This is equivalent to the raging debate over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. Who cares? Nobody. Who are these pointless people who sit around thinking about this trivia as an occupation? At the end of the day all they contribute is their latest book that no one reads.

@MD97531

6 ай бұрын

What in God’s name is the point of watching this debate, then taking the time to say it’s pointless and no one cares? Well maybe you didn’t choose to do all that as there is only the illusion of you and you don’t really have free will.

@lophiz1945

6 ай бұрын

@@MD97531 You only believe I watched the debate. Am I compelled to answer your reply or am I really choosing to do so? Reply to my reply if you 'will'. But wait! Will it really be >your Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Yes it is! No its not! Rinse and repeat............

@DamnFoolishKids

6 ай бұрын

We are entering an age of ultimate surveillance. Artificial homunculi of you are being generated by tech institutions in order to better predict and manipulate your future behavior. IMO if the academic world presents the universe as (pre)determined and everyone nods along, we run a serious risk of allowing freedom to be subverted by these powerful institutions as natural kinds of interference. If we instead ground life and humanity in a framework of free agents and free will than we are better equipped to call out these institutions for manipulating us. That is just one social arguement for the importance of this debate. There are many many others. On the scientific side it is a question of what the universe actually is. Is it an objective determined state? What kinds of relationships arise and don't arise in given conditions? Why have consciousness or any illusion of being in a purely determinist universe? The illusion doesn't solve anything because whatever happens in the universe is merely the sum of the parts.

Susan Blackmore is a loon. Notice she *rationalizes* the issue while Kevin provides an empirical map.

How does one argue with a man so bereft of even minimal philosophical grounding? It would have taken a week to untangle his half baked ideas. All poor Susan Blackmore could do was to be as polite as possible.

@inpugnaveritaas

7 ай бұрын

The only incoherent person in the debate had blue hair.

@pookz3067

7 ай бұрын

@@inpugnaveritaasname one sentence that was incoherent. It should be easy to prove a given sentence was incoherent. Have at it. Mitchell shows he understands the evolution and neuroscience of agency and decision making but has not done the most basic research about the free will debate. It seemed like he did not know what was going on.

@inpugnaveritaas

7 ай бұрын

@@pookz3067 her completely artificial insertion of “some little me that makes all decisions” is incoherent nonsense. The fact that this is what she attempts to use as a spearhead of her argument is farcical. It’s like asking “do plants grow when it rains and they get sun?” And responding “of course not, it’s the fairies at the bottom of the garden that tell them to grow when they receive sun and rain”.

@JackAndTheBeanstalkr

7 ай бұрын

and how did IQ^2 not vet this properly?

@inpugnaveritaas

7 ай бұрын

@@JackAndTheBeanstalkr Susan wasn’t vetted very well at all, you’re right. However, her incoherence shows that philosophy is, for the most part, pointless navel gazing.

The more i listen to the freewill.debate the more i realise we don't know enough about how the universe works to conclude about free will being illusory. It being illusory is a nice and easy solution i guess.

@HM-rz8nv

7 ай бұрын

There is plenty of evidence to support the view that free will is incompatible with the way reality works. Physical processes shape the way we gather stimuli from the world, it shapes our brains ability to even process that information, It shapes our Psychology and perception of information, it shapes every infinitesimal mood swing that determines whether we want pancakes or eggs for breakfast, and all of that in turn leads to how we form decisions. Here's another angle to consider it. All of the reality that we experience on a day to day basis is emergent properties. What does that mean? It means that every thing is made of smaller components that work together in a way that results in different properties. Here's an example, a water molecule by itself cannot create ocean waves. But A huge collection of water molecules, combined with gravitational bodies and the right climate, can result in ocean waves - it's an emergent property of several factors. Our brains are much the same way, emergent properties that form from many different mechanisms working together. We have neurons responsible for gathering data through our senses, then we have neurons responsible for analyzing that data for a certain task. What task those neurons are configured to do, depends primarily on genetic factors, and secondarily on environmental factors, such as what sort of things you experience and learn throughout your life time. The point of all this, is that all of our thoughts, perceptions and emotions are entirely driven by these emergent properties that are outside of our control. We have consciousness through these emergent properties, but we cannot control the mechanisms that result in our particular way of being conscious. So... Free Will does not exist.

@JackAndTheBeanstalkr

7 ай бұрын

I'm assuming you are using the royal "we" because we understand causality, quantum indeterminacy, the arrow of time and limits of mathematical models just fine.

@FightFilms

2 ай бұрын

Determinists admit they are deluded. Debate over.

@ronaldmorgan7632

29 күн бұрын

We know because we are the only living things that have the ability to ponder it.