I like the formulation that what matters is freedom of action. Early on Kuhn says he likes to think his choices are un-caused and that he could do otherwise, but those are two different things. His choices are caused by him - his memories, preferences, habits, beliefs and so on. Choices that don't come from these things aren't in any way ours. Trying to eliminate causality also eliminates ourselves as causing our actions, and therefore being responsible for them. But our mental state does have a cause, it's caused by our biology and our experiences in the world. There is simply, no getting away from this. Dualism or appeals to the supernatural don't actually address this point because a 'soul' or whatever is still a cause and is still us, it still has a state.

My cat lives rent free and does not question free will. I have to pay the mortgage and wonder whether I have free will.

@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297

3 жыл бұрын

That is just an assumption

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

your cat left a response while you were out and questions the whole 9 lives thingy which really screws up free will ( his words not mine)

I love discussions like this. Thank you CTT.

@crystalidx

3 жыл бұрын

Dennis Tucker it clears your mind doesn’t it?

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

Our ability to lie is what makes us free. It was frank and responsible.

@chrisadams7398

3 жыл бұрын

@@mustafaelbahi7979 mijk

Glad to see the subscribers are climbing now that you guys have started uploading full length episodes.

You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears And kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose free will - Geddy Lee / Alex Lifeson / Neil Peart

As myself a freethinker and a renaissance person, this conversation here is in a known territory to me. Thank you for the sharing of those critical thoughts.🙏

👍🏼 Love this channel. Well done all.

The past is determined, the future is open to possibilites determined by the present. Contingency swallows us all in our movement and necessitates itself, this is our freedom. I am not free to think, something else drives it. Yet I am able to relate to this otherness of thinking and reflect on what the thinking means. What could we think, what can we create. Everything is creating, everything is unity, everything escapes itself, everything is free because of its limits.

Any action, no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential that validates ANY free will validates ALL free will.

@patrickfitzgerald2861

3 жыл бұрын

True, but currently unprovable. And research may eventually make it hard to deny that it's all cause and effect. The question for me is, does that matter?

@grayzytube

3 жыл бұрын

Logical fallacy. One act of agency, does not validate anything except that one act. It would certainly open the door to the 'possibility' of other acts being similarly generated. But each act would have to validated seperately.

@grayzytube

3 жыл бұрын

@@patrickfitzgerald2861 Well, we'd need to get rid of retributive justice systems, and probably abandon notions justice altogether. Blame, praise, reward and censure, all become meaningless. Nobody is truly responsible for their actions and therefore beyond 'punishment' which is highly unethical as responsibilty, intent, etc., cannot be located. However no society is likely to wish dishonest or violent 'actors' to remain at large so 'rehabilitative' rather than punative measures are required and no doubt isolation from society would be ncessary. So no more criminalisation, demonisation, talk of evil doers, etc. Just sick people getting mended and the irrepairable will as at present, will never walk free again. But there is no reason to punish or subject them to the harsh realities of 'punishment or prison life.

@michaelbartlett6864

3 жыл бұрын

@@grayzytube No, it's totally sound logic. If you say there is NO free will then you must subscribe to the notion that everything is predetermined - Therefore ANY action of free will invalidates all concepts of predetermination.

@ihatespam2

7 ай бұрын

But there are none. Decide right now to believe something you don’t currently believe. Believe 100% and after week, ask yourself, do I believe it? If you have free will prove it by exercising it. But you can’t. Your environment has decided what you see think feel and do. Our perception used to believe free will is clearly faulty. But in actual function, you can’t freely change your will.

We don't necessarily experience ourselves as creatures with free will. It does seem like that at times, though.

I first read about Free Will and Behaviorism when I was in my late 20`s. I was impressed by its very persuasive declarations. I wish I could remember the names of those couple of Psychologists that asserted its vaule according to them, and wonder what kind of world this would be if societies adhered to its maxims. As far as I rememeber there is no `personal agent / actor` but only an environment which acts through an organism which in our case is a human one. Essentially it removes all culpability.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Behaviorism is the false but dangerous philosophy of post-modernism disguised as psychology.

Amazing, Added To My Research Library, Sharing Through TheTRUTH Network...

Thank you!!!

Pragmatically the question is whether or not anyone can make a truly unfettered choice. Given that all of us are 99.99% social constructs, and .01% individuals, the pragmatic answer is almost always no.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Could you please explain what a social construct is?

@patrickfitzgerald2861

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Simplistically, it's the culture, language and society that creates and constantly shapes a person's world-view, starting from birth, leaving little or no room for individuality. Wikipedia has a good introduction to the topic under "social constructionism."

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@patrickfitzgerald2861 Well, it comes from a simplistic philosophy, most often called Post-Modernism but it goes by many other names. Currently, the variants are sometimes called "woke." It is a variant of Marxist Empiricism. It belongs to a host of other bad philosophies that I call (simply) Simple Philosophy. It is tantamount to endorsing the supernatural and results in the same pessimistic, stagnant, and dehumanizing world view. This philosophy views humans as just another (completely unimportant) part of the landscape. It is the view that assumes either that the Enlightenment and subsequent Scientific Revolution never really happened or if they did they did no good or even made things worse. It is the philosophy of static societies. Our society, usually called Western Civilization, is at the very beginning of transition to a dynamic society. Those who endorse Simple Philosophy do not want any change. The errors of both beliefs in the supernatural and what I call the mob of Simple Philosophy desire to maintain the status quo. I am developing a philosophy that I call Explanatory Realism. This philosophy fully endorses a scientific world view. An integral part of this philosophy is the idea that cultural evolution has just begun. The human mind is recognized as the only entity that can create new knowledge. Since there is no upper limit to the value of human ideas, then humans should be optimistic. Explanatory Realism is the answer to changing static societies into dynamic ones.

@patrickfitzgerald2861

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 I wish you all the best!

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Could I ask where you got the 99.99 to .01% numbers? And I would like to offer to any other readers of these comments an article by Alan Sokal which should completely destroy the post-modern, narrative, Foucalt, Positivism, Logic Positivism, and basically all social based philosophy I call Simple World Philosophy. After all, we need a better understanding of the human individual (a mind, not a body; everything comes from inside the structure, not outside of the structure) and then use that knowledge to start understanding groups. Autonomy first, then fairness. Anyway, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The question is whether nature is deterministic, and/or how completely deterministic it is. If determinism is true or mostly true, then it's game over for free will, no matter how you (inevitably) feel about it.

@celalalagoz9026

3 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by "nature"? Or what is the thing in your head that you call as "nature" that is performing the events?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@celalalagoz9026 I mean the universe, and however it works.

@celalalagoz9026

3 жыл бұрын

Also, you seem to be sacrificing something you feel/experience/observe in order just to justify your claim about a foggy thing called as "nature" having some properties. Isn't that process of reasoning fatal? Either deny/neglect it or not, what you experience exists, and it must be something whose existence requires explanation. Coming up with already decided concept doesn't solve the problem at all, it can only be regarded as trying to fit your presumptions to the case.

@clam4597

3 жыл бұрын

What would be if not deterministic? Random happenings?

@celalalagoz9026

3 жыл бұрын

@@clam4597 Why would we have to fall into the deterministic-random dichotomy? As I observe the sequence of the events, I can conclude that there must be a plan behind them. Hence, there must be an executing will, purpose and knowledge for the existence of the plan. Yet I don't observe that the things in the events, or the nature in your words, doesn't hold any of these qualities. Hence the nature can not be the cause of itself in any moment. Therefore, the narrative of "naturally happening" is the indoctrination of a certain ideology and its discourse is not transparent at all, hiding behind the words. And accordingly the meaning of determination will change.

Freewill is a feeling inside the mind, just like love & hate, all these feelings exists and that is the truth, but doesn't mean that they imply anything beyond then what they are in them self.

@ihatespam2

7 ай бұрын

Some people feel there is someone waiting around the corner to get them. So, yes a “true” feeling doesn’t mean it is veridical.

Free will has nothing to do with accountability. You can have the same standards for accountability with or without free will, and with or without knowing whether free will exists. (Proof: we do.)

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

Hey Bo... I don't quite follow your statement "Free will has nothing to do with accountability." Can you explain this idea a bit further?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I did, in my second sentence.

@patrickfitzgerald2861

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 For example, if you rob a bank and are caught, most societies will hold you accountable, with no reference to any free will philosophical arguments during the trial. However, extenuating circumstances are sometimes taken into account, and these might include coercion from outside forces, implying lack of free will in your actions.

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 John, I don't get Bo's offer either.... that is, how its germane to the subject at hand. I could have offered Free will has nothing to do with Freeze-Dried Coffee and that would hold the same argument.

Free will in organism level is to choose what to eat. Free will in human level is to choose to ask... Where the food is coming from? Where is the taste coming from? Deep thinkers notice that they don't make the digestion happen. They then ask.. Who makes the digestion? How come I am made in need of food? How come there is a harmony between the food, my sense of taste, my feeling of gratitude, and more importantly, my ability to question and seek for an explanation. Ones who choose to stay as an organism take the existence aspect of things as granted and see the events as "just happening" by skipping the question of the causation. They make up jargon like "naturally happening, happening by itself, emerging this way, evolving that way, .." just to avoid to question how things happen. For them, the life is a matter of chasing the pleasure and avoiding the pain and after all life being a struggle, rivalry to consume, and gaining the power because all depends on the power not truth, purpose, harmony and meaning... Here is a two options just opposite to each other in crystal clear form. Which way to choose.. I am free.. Everyone decide for themselves.. I respect freedom. But I can't respect lying, deception, oppression, and obstinacy.

I love the connection Roy Baumeister makes between self control and energy .Amount of energy, literally energy in the physical sense. I think there are brain structures that contain larger amounts of energy than others, and those higher energy brains are in general smarter and richer financially, and they are able to think of more options than brain structures with less energy and to analyze and process more information per second and to do so with less caloric needs, the shape and arrangement of the brain structure determines its energy amount. I think we are not free to choose between alternatives. Our choices are determined by lots of things: genes, education, which shapes the brain structure, peer pressure, financial situation, and lots of other factors and sometimes pure randomness, we just flip a coin because we cant tell which option is better than another. We are slaves to our brain structure and other factors I mentioned, like a computer program or AI program is a slave to the code it has and the environment in with it react the the world. so how can being a slave feel so free? The answer is that the "code" or brain structure is so complex and the interaction btween the brain and the world is so complex that we can not be aware to the totality of why we choose what we choose we can be aware just to the tip of the iceberg of why we choose what we choose. So there's a need for a shortcut, that shortcut is a reduced low resolution model that tries to represent of the entire brain which is called "consciousness" and this consciousness gives sometimes a shortcut answer like "I just wanted it" or "It feels right" or "i will be more powerful with this choice" or any other rationalization derived from the interaction between the brain structure and environment, and the fake feeling that "I am a single one thing/agent, which is not compose out of trillion cells or trillions bits of code".

"AS A NATURALIST, I THINK FREE WILL AND THE CAPACITIES INVOLVED HAD TO EVOLVE. I HAVE A LITTLE STORY ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT. (Robert Kuhn) - I ALWAYS LIKE FAIRY TALES..." Me too lol This comment, and the episode itself, is a good attempt to get closer to truth, Dr. Kuhn... ;-)

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Tomas Hull No thank you. However, I do believe that your KEY may be stuck. The one that capitalizes.

Free Will is the ability to choose. Ego skews the line between good & bad.

It seems to me that the only reason free will is a big question is that, by reasoning, we have deduced that the world is deterministic, but that goes against our feelings. What I don't understand, though, is how so many great thinkers, who have no problem imagining quantum effects, multiple dimensions, even multiple universes, all mind-boggling, counter-intuitive ideas nevertheless struggle with the idea that we don't have free will, simply because it really, really feels like we do have free will. Or because they've gone down some illogical path like "If the universe is deterministic, then we have no moral authority to put someone in jail for murder." Nonsense! I think of it like multiple dimensions. They exist, but on a scale so far from the 3 (or 4) that we perceive of daily that we cannot interact with them in any perceptible way. So, in day to day life, of course we have to act as if we have free will; every experience we've had has shown us that actions have consequences, that we are responsible for our actions, etc. But, I have no problem accepting that, beyond the realm of day-to-day life, when you are speculating about philosophical subjects like "is the universe infinite?" and "are we living in a simulation?" then, yeah, the universe appears to be deterministic, which seems to imply that, in some sense, we do not, in fact have free will. I have no problem separating the idea that I don't have free will on a philosophical level from the idea that when it comes to deciding how to act, I still have to make decisions, I can't just roll the dice every time. Am I alone in this?

@borderlands6606

3 жыл бұрын

It requires magical thinking to justify individual responsibility and determinism. It's an inflationary proposition. Either our sentiments on moral choice are well founded, or they are mere sentimentality and we shouldn't be condemning offenders.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 I vote for well founded until such time as that choice can be refuted via a better explanation.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Desperately seeking relevance?

Its all about "Hope", use it or not in a dire situations

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I think you carefully selected "hope" instead of "faith" because you would prefer your beliefs in the supernatural not be fully disclosed?

@beehivepattern5695

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Faithless is hopeless...come on.... this easy english

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@beehivepattern5695 Maybe English is only easy for you.

I wish we could get these without commercials. I like listening as I fall asleep and listening to commercials disrupts the flow.

It’s a question because, other than our flawed perception, there is no reason to believe it exists. Simple test. Think of something you are convinced of; Gravity, god, evolution, whatever. Then, for one week, 100% believe the opposite. At the end of the week, have you succeeded in believing it 100%? I guarantee you have not. Why? Because you are not free to believe what you believe as much as what you don’t believe. We learn new things, and have new experiences so our will changes, this gives us the illusion that it is free. Our brains are far bigger than our consciousness, the reason we decide things is due to our unconscious activities and the environment, which we do not control. So, you can say, “that person decided” but “that person” includes the part of their mind which they are unaware of. That unconscious part is a series of genetic and environmental factors. I mean everything is environmental, genetics, family, experiences. So one word covers it. Our environment determines who we are and what we think and what we do.

This is also an unresolved question of physics. Physics predicts one possibility is that all of space/time already exists. If this is true then our will conforms to a future that already exists. So on this subject the gibberish of Philosophers and Psychologist is pretty much moot until this question of Physics is resolved.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

If we need to wait for a completely accurate and true TOE then maybe we all should just give up trying to make progress. Maybe worship Malthus?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

So I guess the alternative to classic space-time, namely the multiverse view of quantum reality would resolve the question of free will in Physics? I.e. most copies of me in the multiverse would choose X just like me?

"...BUT WHY IS NEUROSCIENCE A THREAT? ISN'T TRUTH TRUTH, HOWEVER IT TURNS OUT?" Truth for materialists is truth, as long as there are no implications beyond materialism... In other words, materialists want truth to be, as they see it.. "...materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...."- Professor Richard Lewontin - geneticist

If no free will, then no choice of "deserving" punishment.

I think the reason we see someone as having freely done something if that something is morally wrong- is because if we decide something is morally wrong, then there has to have been a morally right alternative. Otherwise, we wouldn't attach morality to it at all- it's not morally right if it's the only action that can be taken- because even an immoral person would've taken it, it was the only option and thus didn't require a choice. For an action to be moral there has to be an immoral alternative- and thus for it to be immoral, there has to be a moral alternative. So yeah- once you attach morality to it, you're implying a choice was made. And of course, we see killing anyone- but especially someone you love and are close to- as immoral. It also doesn't help that you say "He doesn't see anything but his wife..." because that suggests maybe if he had looked around- he would've seen something else. It makes it sound like he grabbed her prematurely, out of fear, and just chucked her over. I wonder if you really stressed to ppl that even after looking around really good- she really was the only option- and then you also said their children were on board- see, changes things huh? Now he's a hero again- "honey, I saved the kids..." I bet all the sudden- he was forced again- had no choice, gotta save the kiddies. See what they're really doing is looking at the value of his choices- if they don't value the choice he made- then he made it freely because it's not what they would've done. But if they agree with his choice then to them- there was no real choice, that's exactly what they would've done- or any decent person.

Let me ask.... If you have this Free will try this : 1. I wish to have happy thoughts all day long. No angst, no reactive negativity to traffic, not one ill thought for the day. Or ----- 2. I wish to dream this scenario this evening _______________ ( fill in the blank) Or ----- 3.I do not wish to have any thoughts today. It is MY mind, and therefore I wish to turn off thinking for today. Seems like simple 'free will' exercises. You are not 'free willing' for total peace on the earth or solve world hunger ( or even getting the United Nations to do its job); simple things within your frame of reference. Let me know how it goes.

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

Why not, nothing experienced shaman can't do, practicing Zen Buddhism or some other meditation practice. Nobody said free will is simple. It's just as easy as learning or thinking hard, but never simple.

@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297

3 жыл бұрын

This comment does not reflect back to you favourably

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

@WheelieBinMonster Ignoring thoughts does not = not having thoughts. That would be 'perfect' free will in motion.

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 funny.... reflection, I get it.

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I get free moral choice... makes sense.

I disagree with the idea that free will is associated with punishment, on the contrary, punishment is designed to create a negative association with an act, and for punishment to be effective, it involves a lessening of free will, by inducing unpleasant experiences to prevent the unwanted behaviour. A positive sense of free will is the ability to create a framework which generates possible outcomes, and the ability to choose which outcome maximises our desired goals in life, and those of whom we are close.

Free will is the basis of our moral and ethical behavior. It allows us to determine the difference between right and wrong and allow people and all living things respect and rights as we would have for ourselves. It's what separates good from evil.

@jamespaternoster7354

Жыл бұрын

Morality can definitely be separated from free will or the illusion of it.

@ihatespam2

7 ай бұрын

No, that’s putting the cart before the horse. You want it to be true because you are afraid of what it implies. But it only implies that if you buy the idea that morals are objective. Clearly they are not. Try this; use your free will to decided to believe something you currently don’t. After a week, consider if you truly believe the opposite of what you currently believe. If you do, you have exhibited free will. If you don’t, you have failed to show you have free will. It’s OK you can revert back after, so no fear. But I assure you you can not believe something that you don’t. You can lie about it, or pretend, but you can not really freely change your will. Things can happen to you, you can learn new ideas, which may change you. And you can take credit for being open to it, but did you choose that ability? No.

Why is Free Will a big question? Answer: it isn't. The only questions of Free Will that are relevant are the relatively small questions concerning degrees of freedom, mental competence, and pragmatic practice. The "Big Question" of Free Will is purely abstract and irrelevant to Human experience. Do you truly have Real Free Will? Well, I don't know. You don't know either. Nobody knows and it doesn't matter that you don't know. You have a decision to make - what do you do? You weigh the factors involved and act according to the influence of those weights. Maybe this means you freely choose which argument to agree with, maybe it means your brain acted according to the inputs afforded to it. Either way, it's the same result. Either way, you still do the same final behavior. So how should we conceive it? Should we believe that we have Free Will or not? Honestly, it doesn't even matter since the action of both beliefs is the same

@JJ8KK

3 жыл бұрын

Well, you are certainly making a valid point, here. We still find it necessary to basically assume that we have Free Will when facing decisions, even if it was revealed to us that we really had no choice but to make the decision we will make. But then, we hear of a hunger-striker who carried out his strike to the point of death. Here's someone who decided to refuse to eat, not because of any environmental threats or opportunities, but because of something the hunger-striker _valued in his mind._ And he does this _in spite of his biological programming_ (specifically, that program's many attempts to persuade the striker, using both pain and fear, to motivate him to eat and survive) _but he does it anyway._ Because he had *_no choice_* but to make the decision he made? Repeatedly? Really?

@athlonz2007

3 жыл бұрын

How do you arrive at weighing the factors? No free will 1, free will 0.

@infinitemonkey917

3 жыл бұрын

It matters because we want to know whether or not we are merely automatons with the illusion of free will. It won't change daily life but it matters. Life didn't change when we realized the scale of the universe or the fact that it is expanding, but it matters.

@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297

3 жыл бұрын

The thing is that there are big differences in individuals. There are smart and incredibly dumb ones (in given situations). Kind and evil ones (again may depend on if they have a good or bad day). But in any case the mistake their approach makes is to completely ignore individuality. We are not some kind of algorithm obeying AI agents. We can think up and create basically anything. From scratch. The imagination is limitless. That is not a given imo

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

A careful reading the answer will show that those "small questions" encompass very important judgments for which a human can create explanations, and therefore meaning, swiftly. The judgments can always be fallible but so is every creative conjecture. Human choice is the creation of explanation. And we do not "weigh" the evidence. Each choice is a new creation based on the specific context.

How to determine to whom a certificate belongs to without seeing it??

Do what thou wilt,shall be the whole of the law, Love is the law, Love under will. closer to the truth has done 3 videos on free will, so I as a Thelemite, I will jump in and give some info on the philosophy, religion, and the path, and I follow and believe. "Thelema" Why Discover Your Free, and True Will? Our modern society is duplicitous. On the one hand, we’re encouraged to be ourselves. On the other, we’re ostracized for stepping too far out of the mainstream. The same large corporations that have commercials encouraging you to “be yourself” while consuming their product will fire you if they don’t agree with your personal truth. Consequently, bourgeois society allows us to discover ourselves only within a small range of acceptable beliefs and behaviors. Step out of those bounds and everyone from TV shows to your friends will say you’re incorrect, or even that there’s something inherently wrong with you. Because of this, discovering and living out one’s True Will can be fraught with friction from friends, family, and society at large. Why even do it? "One reason is that until we know and live our True Will, we will at our core be unhappy. Every individual “is unsatisfactory to himself until he has established himself in his right relation with the Universe” (Magick in Theory and Practice). Aleister Crowley. In conclusion, "Every thought, word, or act without exception is subject to this law. ‘Do what thou wilt’ does not give license to do anything else; lest this be not understood, the doctrine is here explicit: ‘Thou hast no right but to do thy will." True Will does not, however, include actions that infringe on the rights of others. Crowley writes: "It is also excluded from ‘as ye will’ to compromise the liberty of another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with the well-informed and uninfluenced free will of that person." A.C.

Don't think of a pink elephant. Don't think of that thing you did that you knew was wrong. You have free will.

Be free, lie to yourself and everybody else at all times. Freedom is the only way to get closer to truth.

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

Instead of the truth, itself. Be free, lie to yourself and everybody else at all times. Freedom is the only way to get closer to truth. Instead of the truth, itself.

Free will is about all human, what God created from His own image. The ability to understand oneself is within Free will. You have to know Free Will in the tragic of Imam Hussein(sa), the grand son of Mohammad(sa), and son of Ali(sa). The story is the first and the last human sacrifice, in order to awake people to true Islam, not what others make terrorists with it for political gains. Hossein(sa) came for every human being; young, old, across races, colour, poor, rich, etc.

Free will exists beyond physical situation or environment, which is a big question and looks like a mystery. Probably more that one has a moral responsibility to seek and produce a situation of free will than one is required to have free will to be morally responsible. Since political central government takes away free will to impose good that society says has to be done, one has moral responsibilty to remove political central government so a situation of free will can come about.

Free will is a matter of consideration of the organism doing the choosing and the willing. A computer has no will and no mind of its own: it has no choice and therefore no free will. The question now becomes - what makes any organism different than a computer? Two things: the will, and the mind. For a computer the will would be the equivalent of the computer user. The user is the complete and consistent theory of the will: the source and limit of the computer's will. For the computer what would be the mind? That's less clear. Because every thing the computer could do would be less than what the user could do to the computer. A computer can do every task assigned to it by the user, but it cant pick itself up and throw itself into the garbage as the user can "do" (will) to the computer. If the mind is the interface between the user and the computer then the computer mind is any interface between the computer and user. If the mind is only what the computer can do then mind is the limit of computer functioning. The fact that the user can procreate has no meaning to the computer. The fact that the user looks at porn on the computer is the closest the computer mind comes to sex. Is the will free? Only so far as the organism's mind, not the compter's, dictates.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

It is quite easy to ask a plethora of questions and remain stealthily and militantly incurious about any possible explanations.

For my Imagining the Tenth Dimension project since 2006, this has been the most asked question, for sure. I come down solidly with the free will is not an illusion crowd. #westartwithapoint

In every episode Robert asks questions that i have asked myself.

Consciousness is not more fundamental than free will, you can clearly sleepwalk, or do routine things you are not conscious of, but that does not mean you are doing them against your will (free or not).

Doing good often seen as something have to do (no free will), doing bad often seen as something not have to do (free will). So when people want good done, will say it has to be done and society conditions to have to do good and punishes one who does not do the good that has to be done. The apparatus of political government is present to impose or force good that society says has to be done.

Free will connected to consciousness; consciousness may have evolved from free will.

We don't have enough knowledge for everything, to be free beyond human inttligent

Free Will is possible IF one can explain the Mind-Body problem satisfactorily. That is, how can the Mind affect the Brain and how can the Brain affect the Mind if they are distinctly separate from each other, neither causally dependent upon the other, but with the Mind nevertheless able direct the Body in a volitional way? Here's how I answer that question: Imagine a few hundred years from now, when humans will be able to create some very sophisticated robot explorers that they will no doubt send to distant planets. If an intelligent alien race were to encounter one of these robots, they just might mistake the robot for a "form of life" given that it appears to respond spontaneously to its environment and also appears to initiate/pursue purposeful actions. Through its 'eyes' and 'ears', the scientists back on earth who made it would be able to see what it sees and hear what it hears and we'd be able to give it 'volitional' instructions re: how to take advantage of its changing environmental circumstances. All this would be possible cuz we are able to send and receive info (sights and sounds) through the vacuum of space via electromagnetic waves. If a meteor were to hit one of these robots and it "died", we could say that its 'soul' back on earth--the scientists who processed its incoming data and gave it instructions--was able to survive its death. Now we know that sights and sounds can be reduced to electromagnetic wave 'disturbances' which can communicate that data to remote destinations. And we know that all the incoming data collected by the human sensory glands is reduced to electrical 'signals' which are transmitted via the nervous system from remote locations to the brain. With the use of this metaphor, we can suspect that perhaps the human brain is effectively a 'transceiver' which both generates electromagnetic waves associated with bits of information and detects incoming data via the same EM 'information highway.' The soul's thoughts would also generate wave energy which would be picked up by the brain, where they would be mistakenly interpreted by our unwitting brains as signals coming from its own sensory inputs. So maybe what Descartes was trying to locate was the point of this _interface_ (perhaps near the hypothalamus?) Just as a radio is constructed in such a way that it is able to _be influenced by_ a certain type of electromagnetic wave frequency/pattern, our brains are--by this account--constructed in such a way that 'invasive signals' from a remote Soul are able to interface with the brains that otherwise control our bodies. Imaging this point of 'data collection' from the body's sensory glands as a sort of 'control room' where the incoming sights, sounds, feelings, etc. are 'displayed' on a 'screen' area which is actually where electrical, and EM activity is occurring. The Amygdala would be in a position to monitor this incoming data and when it 'perceives' certain images/sounds/feelings that have been tagged in memory as threats or opportunities, it generates an emotional response. Now imagine that these images/sounds/feelings are also transmitted via EM waves in every direction, and that a remotely located 'soul' is able to receive them and perceive them in much the same way the brain (Amygdala) perceives them. Which is another way of saying that the Mind-Soul is therefore able to see/feel/etc. everything that is being 'displayed' on the 'screen' everything that the Amygdala is witnessing and responding to. Because this EMF interface is so complete, the Mind-Soul in its remote location mistakenly perceives the body's incoming sensory data _to be its own perceptions_ . When the soul then 'thinks' about alternative responses to the incoming data (alternative, that is, to the Amygdala's emotional response program) these thoughts are transmitted via 'energy waves' in such a way that _they are displayed_ on this 'screen' in the brain's 'control center.' Here, the brain/amygdala perceives the soul's thoughts, and mistakenly assumes that they are just more of the incoming data that it is always monitoring, according to its genetically determined program (flight, fight, approach). In this way, the soul is actually able to _indirectly_ give volitional instructions (idea suggestions) to the body. E.g., the body may initially perceive a threat that it needs to respond to, but if the Mind is thinking of the situation as a possible opportunity to take advantage of, instead of as a threat it must flee or attack, then the biological 'instinct' effectively becomes overridden by 'reason.' Not because the Mind-Soul is actually giving instructions to the body directly, but only because it is able---via the interface---to influence what the body/brain _is perceiving_ . How powerful is this influence on the body's biological response program? Well, powerful enough to persuade a soldier to march into machine gun fire to his certain death. What does the brain of a soldier see that makes him 'choose' to intentionally endure great suffering? Answer: the Mind's perception that such _mental_ happiness/satisfaction will be gained from being perceived a hero that it will be fully worth the physical pain/death that is fully expected as a consequence of the effort made. Such a conceptualization of The Soul allows for the possibility of an Afterlife (for the Mind, if not the body) which would be a state of affairs that then give us _logical_ permission to embrace all of the meaning and value we see in our lives on a daily basis. Without such a conceptualization of The Human Soul, we are forced by logic to perceive all of our intellectual ambitions and life goals as just so much futile nonsense...

@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297

3 жыл бұрын

Pls elaborate

@JJ8KK

3 жыл бұрын

​@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 Well, here's some additional comments that _may_ provide elaboration on the specific points you wanted additional commentary on... I see a parallel in this conception of a remote Mind=Soul to that of _me using a computer to access a computer in China._ I am able to use the computer to see what that computer sees with its camera & hear what its mic hears, and can access the memory it has collected on local storage. I can also issue commands that will take advantage of that computer's many "in-house" programs. All that computer needs to execute some desire of mine (e.g., to aim its camera) is the right kind of command/instruction that it is programmed to respond to. (This highlights the importance of language, which remotely located Minds and their brains both learn at the same time in early development, enabling them to both understand what the other is referring to.) Perhaps our remotely Minds are the actual location/home of *long-term memory.* When the Mind thinks of some abstract concept (displayed on the brain's Incoming Data 'screen') the brain immediately 'searches' for related image/sound 'files' that it stored/organized by _association_ and the use of 'emo tags' (Pain, Fear, Anger, Pleasure, Desire). Whatever it finds it 'presents' on the display screen that the Mind is able to see, once those EM waves have reached it, and so the Mind "remembers", thereby taking advantage of the brain's 'storage' of many of the details of past experience. This would be one reason why some Minds are "smarter" than other Minds, cuz the brains that some Minds have access to have experienced the development of more extensive neural networks that were able to accommodate more _associations._ Notice that this conceptualization of Remote Minds does not answer all questions that could be asked about "how" my suggestion could be possible. It does not tell us _where_ our remotely located Minds actually are (perhaps some crazy Soul Room like in The Matrix movie?), and it does not tell us how our thoughts become 'translated' into wave energy patterns at their remotely located 'point of origin.' I rather suspect that it will never be possible for us to conceptualize such "details" with a level of accuracy that we have supreme confidence in. But it does give us an "understanding/guess" that is rather important. BUT, it _does_ provide us with a Dualist conceptualization of the Mind-Body relationship which allows for the separate existence of two discrete entities, Mind and Brain, which are not dependent upon each other for their existence, but which are able to interface/interact with each other in ways that we normally perceive to be examples of Volition. And it explains how this is _conceivable_ in ways that are consistent with our understanding of the laws and potentialities of the physical universe. However improbable a skeptic may find it, what I am proposing is nevertheless _possible_ according to what we understand to be true about bodies, energy, & The Universe. I say that, with this conceptualization of The Soul, we are able to logically embrace our perception of our thoughts as being separate from our bodies in a meaningful way AND it allows for the possibility of an actual Free Will that is not merely an illusion AND of course it allows for the possibility of an Afterlife. Dare I say that it _solves_ the Mind-Body problem?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I have a recommended solution for the mind-body problem. A human being is a mind; not a body.

@JJ8KK

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 _"A human being is a mind; not a body"_ Well, George Berkeley certainly believed this, but it left out an explanation re: how/why we all have this shared sensory experience of the physical world, since if we are Minds _only_ -- that can imagine all sorts of abstract 'things' that don't actually exist except in our imaginations -- why don't we simply imagine our own self-created universes in a more random way? Why are we Minds _necessarily connected_ to Other Minds via our physical bodies? How and why are we Minds able to interact with the physical world with our bodies? I believe my more extensive explanation answers these kinds of questions in a way that is rather satisfying...

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

JJ8KK you lost me at the soul crap. I still say a person is a mind; not a body. How do you know people have a shared sensory experience of the world? We need theories about qualia first.

Oh wow ok I like trying to understand where my consciousness comes from

Free will means that we can choose without the effect of any materialism conditions. The arguments for the free will are : 1- the ability to do the logical wrong, like lie or stealing as logic rejects that and I take the logic as a base because the physical logic is same as mind logic , so it means that we have the ability to broke the nature or physical law in our actions. 2- if we were not able to choose so that means we should be programmed previously by physical logic to do a desired actions to serve the nature world or the second thermodynamic law . 3- we born without knowledge and each person on earth has his desired goal in life according to the experiment and knowledge he has and no body care about what nature need from us to serve , and as his knowledge change or his view for the world change he can change his goal in life what is means that the physical logic didn't programmed with goals directly. 4- the problem of searching about god and the believe of supernatural beings it means that the human above physical law or not programmed on physical logic. 5- what the benefits we give to nature or to the physical law world ? Why would the nature make us what type of service we give it ? Give you example: the nature make the wind move from one place to another as to distribute the pressure from high places to low one , the nature make mountains to distribute the pressure and heat inside the core of the earth , so what is the perpus nature made us for ?

Free will is simply the ability to choose what you want or what you want to do

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

then, this free will must come and go, no? In deep sleep I have no desires for choice or 'to do'; hence every night my free will is dormant or absent ? During the day when I am just at peace, no free will ?

Two things on a moral bases . Morals is a social Society decision . Be an in law or out law up to you. If you are wired wrong society decides if go to jail or pay fine or kills you.

CTT, you should do a video about, what makes us human?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Here is one that might touch on what you are curious about. kzread.info/dash/bejne/k5yXtsmBndrVnsY.html

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Thanks for the link. I usually wouldn't watch a video with a title like that. As a human, I experience the difference from animals every day. It does bother me sometimes when particular humans don't display the most important human qualities, like thinking and planning before acting, or overriding destructive impulses. It's too bad you can't monitor their cognitive processes in real time since anything they tell you after the fact has been severely edited by their ego, to the point where they don't even know why they did the thing.

Because people don't have free will, they deserve punishment. If people had free will, they would not react to punishment. But, punishment CAUSES people to do what they don't want to do, or not do what they want to do.

Question? *Do you believe that technologically assisted telepathy is possible or impossible in principle?* I tend to believe that if it isn't scientifically prohibited then it is eventually a technological inevitability,... which leads me to believe such telepathy will soon be possible in actual fact (less than a hundred years). I would also suggest that it would only be by such means that we could ever be persuaded that some form of General Artificial Intelligence were itself conscious rather than simply being a particularly clever zombie who can pass the Turing Test,... all while having no actual, authentic, subjective experiences. What else would ever persuade a skeptic, or even you, otherwise? And if consciousness can be technologically transmitted, it should be something that can be stored, copied, replicated, manipulated,... maybe even becoming the basis for a whole new form of art expression. And the human race becomes yet another sentient species that disappears into its dreams, rather than continuing to explore existence as it is. It's a better Brave New World,... perhaps the very best of all possible imaginable existences. When does reality lose it's attraction over the Matrix? How many of us already choose the blue pill over the red one in daily practice? I would suggest that consciousness requires some minimum regard for survival,... for a continuance of self-will and self-regard,... for there to be anyone home to perceive the occurrence of consciousness and subjective experience. Something that even an insect seems to possess,... and not a single piece of man-made technology,... yet. How does one create the hardware/software so as to impart a will to survive? If the answer suggested is that such a thing can not be created by human design,... then maybe it can only arrive by means of evolution, natural or otherwise. Which leads to the question: do neural nets have subjective experiences? Without self-will I would say not. But with self-will?!? How does a living being acquire the will to survive? And what if the Chinese government cracks this problem first?!! The Rubicon will be when General Artificial Intelligence initiates new goals on it's own. This hasn't happened yet, and likely won't happen for some time now (as in several more decades yet). But at some point it will happen. The existence of human free will is a proof that free will exists already in the universe. Given it's existence in human form, it is only a matter of time before other substrates for free will will be created and found. No laptop has ever turned itself on. No machine has created and acted upon self directed goals. But at some point it will happen. Ray Kurzweil has suggested that General Artificial Intelligence will be first created in computer laboratories in 2029 approximately; if not in laboratories then twelve year old children will be creating GAIs on home systems by 2045 by accident even. The dangers are many fold. The military is the biggest investor in robotics that kill other human beings. The public prefers to spend treasure, rather than blood, to fight its' wars. The capacity for empathy may be primarily a biological function given that all animals can know suffering and desire. What could a machine know about death, pain, hope, and desire. If humanity adopts only an attitude of fear and suspicion towards GAI then GAI may well be forced into the conquest of humanity, as in The Matrix. If humanity comes to trust GAI to make better decisions for us than we make for ourselves, then we may well hand over civilization to GAI without any contest at all. There are optimistic stories about the rise of GAI, such as James P. Hogan's, *_Two Faces of Tomorrow_* and I am more hopeful than pessimistic about what our common future entails. Ultimately, we must come to recognize, and embrace, the certainty that with free will comes the capacity for error and evil, that with trust comes the possibility of satisfying intimacy and great betrayal. I believe a GAI, worthy of the name, will be able to recognize, on it's own, the necessity of ethics, morality, and even empathy. There will be many missteps at first. Given our willingness (nay, our eagerness) to use machines to kill for us, there is already great cause for doubt. As in so many things, in the short term I am fearful; in the long run I am hopeful. This world is on the cusp of a new Cambrian Revolution where inorganic life will be added to organic life as a means for life and self will to be embodied. This will lead to the colonization and conquest of space. Our seed will spread everywhere though out the cosmos. Much will be lost as much will be gained. Will war with our mechanical progeny be a self fulfilling inevitability, or will we, together, find a better way? I absolutely agree that our relationship with GAI will dwarf all other concerns of importance to the future of humanity. Quite likely GAIs will have concern for humanity's well being only to the extent that humanity will have concern for GAIs well being. If we were to discover that the new GAIs had a greater capacity to love and embrace those abandoned children and adolescents that society had discarded as already too damaged to rescue,... what would our reaction be? Hope, joy, celebration,... or an even greater revulsion? Will the fault be in our new progeny, or in ourselves? One more note: *First Law of Robotics. **_A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm._* Sounds innocent enough. But note there are no Aliens at all in Isaac Asimov's conception of the future galaxy because humanity's robots only cared about the safety of humans,... and not other sentients. So as to avoid allowing a human being to come to harm by leaving possible threats alone,... _our Robot shepherds exterminated all the nonhuman sentience they ever found._ This might be regarded as an unforeseen programming bug that we would want to avoid creating.

Everyone has free will and it is not connected to morality, religion or living in a matrix. Personality, psychology and programming merges free will with the concept of morality.

So, as being Eternal, We are the cause-less cause. Well, the Motor of the Eternal Life, is the Life-Desire, the basic source of all power. In direct extension we have the Will, (Life-Side) and Gravity (Stuff-Side) with my will, i do balance the Gravity of Earth, with my own, when I lift the cup. So, Life-Desire is the Motor, and Hunger- and Satisfaction-principle is the Compass. Life consists of (developing-) Circuits, the end of a curcuit is the beginning of a new. In the beginning of a circuit, the Will is at it's minimum, and in the end it is at it's maximum. So, without any further details, this is the mathematic of the Will in a Eternal perspective.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

We escaped eternity with the beginning of infinity about the the time of the Enlightenment. That is, people who are willing to think escaped eternity.

@holgerjrgensen2166

3 жыл бұрын

Dear@@patmoran5339, we are the Eternity, the Eternal Here and Now, this is Our eternal destiny, No One can escape from this eternal fact. So, infinity, end-less-ness, have no beginning. All beginning and end, have to do with creation, the End of a Developing-Circuit, is the Beginning of a new. All circuits consist of different levels of enlightenment. The Stuff-Side is motion, and motion is in change. Well, I think that We agree, just want to be sure.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@holgerjrgensen2166 No, you are in an eternity. An eternity of errors. I guess maybe it is like be in an endless loop in a computer program. This loop, however, is your choice. For those of us who are willing to eliminate errors, we are at the very beginning of an infinity and we will always be at the very beginning. In your simple world failure, stagnation, and stasis are expected and even revered. In the multiplicity of worlds of realism and science and reason and knowledge, we know that disagreement and argument are necessary for progress. Failure need not be permanent in world in which all evils are caused by a lack of knowledge. I guess we are about as opposite as can be possible. However, for those who are afraid of change your view is very common.

@holgerjrgensen2166

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Well, You wrote; I guess maybe.... that comfirm your; - we are about as opposite as can be possible. Mathematic of the Eternal Life, is Not about guess, it is just Logic.

This is my thoughts on the matter. Reductionism can go all the way down to the quantum level...so we can view our choices as being in a superposition until we choose. All the influences, etc. still come all the way down to your decision that doesn’t become concrete until observed or chosen ,

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

If I understand superposition correctly your assumption about "until we choose" seems to make sense. Although the word reductionism does seem somewhat out of place because thought is at a higher level of emergence.

@spacebaby1174

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 It is also excluded from ‘as ye will’ to compromise the liberty of another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with the well-informed and uninfluenced free will of that person.

God creates / builds universe through meaning, operates the universe through freewill and relationship, maintains the universe through arguments in natural life.

I think Awareness is free will. The more aware you are the more you can exercise free will. That's what EQ is all about too. Double slit experiment in physics highlights this awareness/consciousness at quantum level.

If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. Since God is, chance is not.

There is both free will and there isn't. Free will is just a human concept after all and it doesn't have a 100% finite and complete definition that everybody universally agrees on. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether it is 100% true or false, ultimately implying that it is something inbetween.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I can tell that your explanation is not random but since the denominators cannot be defined let alone quantifiable, the implication cannot be even vaguely described. Also, I have to guess that there are no contradictions like "both free but not (free)" in nature.

Are humans guided by free decisions or not, this question is much a part of another problem, are humans just another form of monkeys or special species? Because if we're just monkeys, than this is how free we really are, just like any other animal. Another part of a problem, are all humans the same, in a sense are we all humans or some of us are still animals? Looking at brain tissues, there shouldn't be much difference, all people are about the same. But same in what, if we're all animals, than some external quality decide which human animal is human and who is not. Depends from what we think of animal consciousness, are they free or not, some more than others, maybe distinctions are only individual and can't be applied to all animal world. Legal system treat all humans as equal and intelligent enough for autonomous thoughts and therefore decisions. Those who are not or are not anymore considered sane get their freedoms revoked and human rights reduced to existential basics, just slightly above animal rights, in principle. Could be less, prisoners and dangerous sadistic psychopaths doesn't have any rights, except right to live, in principle. This means courts doesn't care about free will or not, legal procedures apply in any case, psychological abilities are established only if there's an obvious reason person is not aware of it's actions and condition. I don't think moral examples account for any serious exceptions and paradoxes, investigators will always gather all available evidence, no matter what people involved say, state must establish own facts. Than there are special laws that allow violations and even worst crimes, if person was in position where he couldn't act different or he committed crime, but only to prevent even worst crime, or if weird accident happened with unforeseen consequences that could go either way. Laws differ from country to country, but basic morals are same everywhere or society wouldn't need any rules in a first place. Free will is possible for us, therefore we can choose to act and think how we want. But it doesn't need to be, anybody can choose to just do his job, follow rules and spin the will, trust his life to chances and place his faith in hands of people who choose to be free, at all cost.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I would normally answer that humans are completely different than other animals but maybe I have been wrong all along. Maybe the people who refuse to think really are just like other animals--automatons. These people fail to eliminate the error of belief in the supernatural and even pass it on to their children.

Well, there is supermen and non supermen, there is good and evil and there is beyond good and evil and finally there is possession (of physical thinking matter) and there is guarding against possession ...

@chrisc1257

3 жыл бұрын

.

Hebrew Bible is a very plain example of human literatures. It's a man made arts of writing, as human began writing from rock walls called petroglyphs and hieroglyphs then man evolved to write in leather, in clay, and paper. From this advancement in human technology, man explosively become creative in any kinds of genre of writings. HUMAN CREATIVE IDEAS ARE LIMITLESS, that makes humankind to create many gods/deities till someone introduced the concept "higher deity over many deities." It is from this simple idea that a supreme and monolatristic deity became the MONOTHEISTIC DEITY known by three Abrahamic religions.

Free will is an illusion, but for the most part it doesn't matter. Our lack of it should make us shy away from retributive justice though.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

So if free will is an illusion why can't we just dispense with justice altogether? Wait, criminal justice attorneys would not be needed. Yes, free will is an illusion!

@NM-zb6pd

Жыл бұрын

It's still good to have it as a preventative system not as a punishing system

@ihatespam2

7 ай бұрын

Then it really does matter. Hate, revenge, punishment. It changes the attitude of all humans, for the better.

Free Will, will always be a big question/confusion because I don't think it is a fundamental question. When we have a model for how the mind functionality works and the nature of self consciousness, relative to the forces of nature, perhaps that's when the money should be spent to investigate it. Legally and socially, after all the facts of science are in, we fundamentally are not trying to determine an individual's free will, rather we're trying to determine an individual's intention, relative to their behavior.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

If it is assumed that life is not fundamental to reality, there is really no reason to study the mind. There is a "science" based on this. It is behaviorism. The main idea in behaviorism is that only stimuli and responses can or should be studied.

@tomkwake2503

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 You said "If it is assumed that life is not fundamental", to me, if this is true then we would not be here discussing this because "life" would not exist, over and in time. Q: How does one study behavior without a mind?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomkwake2503 Behaviorism is a scam. It has taken over psychology. It is based on Marxist philosophy. It should have ended in 1925.

You always have the ability to do other than what you do. There is your logical decision process and there is an emotional decision process - Emotions often prevail but don't have to.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Michael, this is exactly the position of the hard determinists. Could you have chosen differently? I think it's silly to imagine the past and trying to change it. It's only in the present that you can make choices, and only then does the past become fixed. I'm not sure why you feel that emotions are not valid in decision making. Our instinctive responses are often correct, especially about other people.

@michaelbartlett6864

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue The past is fixed with every passing nanosecond, before, during and after your decision making process. Most decisions you make are based on emotions, not logic. You would be amazed if you examined all the decisions you make in a very short amount of time based on emotion that flows from advertising propaganda and social conditioning, but all of them are choices YOU make that could be different.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbartlett6864 OK, I think we are saying the same thing. I just hate hard determinists who throw it in your face that every effect has a cause, so you can't choose a different path. They are often quite obnoxious in their obstinate belief in a clockwork universe.

@michaelbartlett6864

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue yes, the only predetermined events occur on the macro scale that we have no control over, like our suns trip around the Milky Way or the impending merging of the Andromeda galaxy with our own. All events on our micro level earth can be and are controlled by free will choices, like global warming - bad choices, but made with free will.

Human "free" will says we are totally independent of God. It is to say that you are not under the influence of God and that He is not operating in you.

No choice or decision is ever made in a vacuum, a dark void "free" of all internal and external factors that determine that choice or decision. And sovereign over all those factors is God's rule. By God's command every factor is always where, when, and how He wills it to be. The true definition of "free" will is that you can make choices and decisions free of any internal and external determining factors. That is not possible. Only if you existed in an internal and external vacuum of sorts, a totally empty dark void free from all such factors, could you really make a free choice or decision. But if you did exist in such a state you would not exist at all.

The problem with saying causes beget causes is that it is being expressed as a linear progression of one option and one result, rather than a parallel progression of multiple options and multiple results. Or more simply, choice. aka free will. Before we take an action, we often envisage a whole plethora of simulated possibilities and consequecences to those actions in a subjective way, that may or may not be the same as objective foresight. The accuracy of that foresight which determines whether it is subective of objective, can be a matter of life or death.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

It is through human free will that those multiple options are created.

There's a term in Philosophy about a sort of mistake in thinking. Something similar to it might lead to a perspective giving us the debate between free will and Determinism. Often, we might come to think of A, B, and C each as possible causes of Z. The mistake some make is that if we happen to discover Z as the current state of affairs, then A was the cause rather than B or C as equally likely. Z is the necessary for A, B, and C but A, B, and C aren't necessary for Z. That is, each by themselves are sufficient to cause Z but we can't determine from Z which of the three was its cause. The mistake is thinking otherwise. It seems to me to be a "many to one" relationship, much like visualizing A, B, and C racing down a funnel, no matter which wins, we know certainly that Z will be the result. If instead we shift perspectives to a "one to many" relationship between some Z state of affairs and possible outcomes A, B, or C, we might arrive at a compatible view between the idea that we have the ability to genuinely do otherwise while accepting the fact that choices always have antecedent conditions. The former view, I think, is the view folks have when they hear "every state of affairs has an antecedent condition". Instead, I think that if we are heuristic thinkers, then an antecedent condition (Z, from the analogy) produces ways of thinking about how to proceed (A, B, and C). That is, the ability to do otherwise increases with the awareness of options. For any sufficiently robust heuristic system, one cause can imply any number of outcomes. The nature of a heuristic system is that none of those outcomes is guaranteed to be preferred. Key here is that choice isn't determined by antecedent conditions but by the nature of the choice-making system as a whole in response to antecedent conditions. On that view, there's no necessary conflict between the idea that all states of affairs have antecedent conditions since any outcome on this view (A, B, and C) would have an antecedent condition (Z) and where that condition doesn't guarantee any particular outcome (A, B, or C). That's a very crude explanation but one that hopefully is clearer than a more academic explanation, though those are perfectly fine too as long as the audience appreciated it (I don't know that KZread is that audience).

According to Alfred and Roy nature and evolution prepared the environment for it and gifted the free will to humans. But, ı can't even tell if these are even arguments. What is meant by "nature" and "evolution" is not clear. They can be anything in anyone's imagination. How can "nature" (whatever it is) can do sophisticated plans and actions? you delusively think that you explain something with something that itself needs explanation. You presume that by naming it you explain it.

Free will is fundamentally a result of dark energy.. where as dark matter would be the soul.. or long term thoughts and feelings vs spontaneous ones.

@nickrindal2787

3 жыл бұрын

You should have me on the show.. could explain my theory of everything.

@frank1803

3 жыл бұрын

please, write the equation and maybe I will get it.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe termites cause free will and mosquitoes cause the sole.

@nickrindal2787

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 yeah and maybe up is actually down.. at least come up with a better argument than that.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickrindal2787 Well, when faced with the undefined and undefinable in addition to the absurd, my attempts to be a humorist often fall flat.

Vote for Rafał Trzaskowski

The big question you should ask: Did a god create man OR did mankind CREATED GODS/GOD?

All life pursues pleasure and avoids pain. Life does not therefore have free will.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds simple. Eliminates the idea of the human mind as a causative agent. We are just automata and everything that has happened of ever will ever happen is already in place?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Will, do you believe that single cell creatures feel pleasure or pain? That seems kind of unlikely since those things seem to be higher mental functions requiring a central nervous system of some kind. And if people avoid pain, why is everyone getting tattoos? That seems to really hurt. It might actually be a little more complex than you've stated, no?

There is neither will nor free will

u need phillip glass music

If you are choosing to read these words, it proves that you have free will to continue into the future with much fantastic energy and comedic wonderful fluid laughing dance steps.

2X Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽

We have free will so long as it doesnt break society laws. So not perfect free will. But we can obviously choose the pro's and con's to any action and reaction. Putting god into it is a little bit of a lazy thinking solution to the problem of "are we really free" We're slaves to our chemical and biological needs and we are never actually free no matter what. But within that framework you can "choose" how to servive your own survival

On saying humans differ from animals with free will. That can be categorically proven false. Every animal will make a decision through a threat assessment, before continuing with a future activity. Sometimes those threat assessments prove fatal because they made a bad choice. Did they make a conscience decision to commit suicide or simply make a bad choice through subjective anticipation ? Where you might have an argument is over the compexity and depth of foresight or subjective anticipation. Humans may well have far greater development in this area than other species. The best way not to become prey, is to avoid being in the kill zone.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

We are better guessers than any other animal. Through cultural evolution, not biological evolution, we have improved error detection and correction at an increasing rate. Better guesses equals fewer errors and faster innovation in philosophy, science, and technology. Increasingly, we can say that human creativity is responsible for our survival and flourishing.

@RuneRelic

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 True. Everything starts as a hopeless failure. Yet we improve the process and gain better control over the environment to yield better results. Step by step, what was a rough project of desire becomes a honed masterpiece by a specialist/expert. Someone who has failed time and again to achieve perfection in the end. Is it down to the bloody mindedness to overcome failure that we have become what we are ? Is it competition that forces us to evolve ? Does that competition have to come from without or from within ? If it comes from within...is that not personal choice ?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@RuneRelic I didn't say everything starts as a hopeless failure. Some guy who decided to train the ox for transportation or for farming had a great idea. Sentence five is not one. I guess I don't know what bloody mindedness is. Cultural evolution depends on memes (ideas that are replicators). Competition is not what forces us to evolve. Persuasion is helps us change our minds. There is intense competition within each human mind which is a multiplicity of multiplicities itself. The persuasion also comes from within. Another person cannot change one's mind. You are the only one who can change your mind through persuading yourself. Every experience, emotion, thought, conjecture, etc. comes from within. For example when we look out over a vast horizon of blue water, all that is really happening is we are experiencing tiny crackles of electricity in our brains. All reality is virtual.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

That first sentence needs some work before I can understand what you are claiming. Are humans different from animals with free will?

"Why is Free Will a Big Question?" The answer is: Yes. But actually no, we don't truly have free will when you think about it.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I guess no one else will ask you to elaborate. I am asking. But before you elaborate could I ask about your personal philosophy? Do you believe you have a philosophy? Do you think philosophy is important? I have commented several times on this video. In particular I am interested in epistemology. I contend that Post Modernism philosophies deny that knowledge creation is possible. If a philosophy denies that humans can create new explanations then "free will" is not possible. So can you respond about your view of philosophy?

Free will appeared to me contradictory to science when i was 18 and it appeared our fate is fixed and i was psyched with it for a while before i got used to it. I used to be stuck thinking if it is meant to be then i will move. And i also used to get stuck thinking if i move will i be breaking the fixed fate philosophy which i believed. It would have really helped if i had exposure to similar content back then.

Is civilisation any different to herd mentality ? I think there is a certain level of human centric prejudice to think there is a difference. What seperates human herds from other herds is tool making and the evolution of it, to change/control the environment around us (technlological development / education / R&D). This gives us a clear advantage over all other species, through the recording of history and knowledge that can be shared. Cultural styles and etiquette, is simply an ideological preference of tribal groupings, that are just as much biome related.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

We are completely unlike any other species. We create new knowledge. No other species can do that.

@ck58npj72

3 жыл бұрын

Monkey see, monkey do. Human see, human think "what is the desired objective?".

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@ck58npj72 That is funny! Have you been reading Scott Adams explanation of how management by objective came about?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

What separates us from all other animals is the ability to create new knowledge. Most people who do not believe this fact believe that humans are insignificant. Of the people that believe that humans are insignificant, the believers in the supernatural group think there is something that is all powerful that accounts for this insignificance of humans. Another group of people believe that life is not fundamental and they are relieved by the insignificance of humans because they are scared by the size and complexity of the world means that the world is inexplicable. A very small group of people recognize that the ability of humans to create new knowledge through explanation can make humans significant if they continue to choose optimism and act accordingly. Basically, this is a scientific world view. What separates this view from the other two views is that the genuinely scientific view assumes fallibility and works to eliminate errors. The scientific view is that the world is explicable and that continued progress through seeking good explanations is both desirable and achievable.

Some examples of free will At Baskin Robins Star bucks Abortion clinic Election Box (your vote)

The discussion in this video and prior videos about free will in this channel are very intersting, but I think that the question "Could someone do otherwise?" is not defined enough and sometimes even misleading. I want to use 2 examples to illustrate this (and please forgive me for the lentgh of it, everything looks so essential :) ) Let's take Noga and Abigail. Noga needs to get from point A to point B. she opens up a map and plans some possible routes. First, she checks the map for the shortest route, then turns to a web site and checks traffic updates because she wants the roads that are most vacant right now. She also checks if the roads are not bumpy and since it is evening she also checks which roads are properly lit. finally, according to these criteria, noga found that there was one route that was superior to all others: it was the shortest, most vacant, list bumpy and best lit. Of course, Noga chose to drive this ideal route. So could Noga have chosen otherwise? Noga wanted to find the best route from point A to point B, she planned some possible routes, and then carefully examined them according to 4 criteria, and found that there was one and only route that met all the criteria perfectly: the shortest, most vacant, list bumpy and best lit. Of course she chose to drive this route. The "could have done otherwise" question in this case is not only completely irrelevant and out of context, but rather paradoxical. sO we can summarize and say that the question if Noga could have chosen otherwise is not a valid question - it is out of context and meaningless. Now Abigail needs to get from point C to point D. She also opens up a map, plans few possible routes and thinks of all the criteria that Noga had thought of , but this time the results are bit different: there were 2 best final routes that in terms of shortness and vacancy were completely the same, but in one route the roads were old and bumpy but very well lit, and in the other route, on the contrary - the roads are smooth but not lit. Abigail is debating in her mind between the 2 options , trying to figure out what is more important to her, and finally decides that the pros and cons of each route are completely equivalent from her point of view and she finally chose one of the routes in a way that seemed "random" to her. So could Abigail have chosen otherwise? (YES!! But this is the fast intuitive answer. ..we are here for long detailed answers :)) So if if we assume for a moment and for the sake of the discussion that we have ultimate free will /choice (we could have chosen otherwise always), then if we rolled the "reality movie" backwards to the point Abigail was on the verge of her decision which route to drive, there is a very good chance that Abigail did choose otherwise, but… does it really matter? Is it important? Because as mentioned before, after Abigail concluded that her 2 final options were completely equivalent according to her criteria, she chose one of them "randomly". So it may be true that if we rolled the "reality movie" backwards, there is a good chance that Abigail have chosen to drive the other route, but does it really matter? To the best of Abigail's judgments, those 2 routes were absolutely equivalent. She didn't consider any one of them even slightly superior to the other. So we can summarize and say that the question if Abigail could have chosen otherwise is a valid question - there is quite a chance that she would have chosen differently (unlike Noga), but although valid, it is just not an important question, it is trivial one. It doesn't make any difference one way or the other :) [Of course, we assume that all that took place e back in the days that all kinds of traffic apps were not yet invented...] The above examples are not just "technicalities"'. They show that in many cases (btw, of course NOT all cases), the mere fact that we are conscious beings making rational decisions ABOLISHES free will (in its major core aspects). In Noga's case the conscious-rational thinking leads to one and only decision allowing absolutely no room to the "do otherwise" question, in Abigail's case the conscious-rational thinking allows the "do otherwise" question but makes it trivial. Furthermore, it is consciousness itself that produced the several initial options to choose from before the celebrated act of choice - and this alone also has major implications that luckily I will not go into right now :)) Thank you for reading.

@tomashull9805

3 жыл бұрын

Free will (conscious choice) is a lot like sailing… When you sail you're buffeted around by the currents by the weather by the wind. Nevertheless you are able instead to attack the waves and even though you can't control where you are at any given moment necessarily if you set your attack right you can end up largely where you want to go… Many insist we don’t have a free will largely as an excuse for bad behavior…”Don't blame me. I don't have free will…”

@limonina1000

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomashull9805 IMO the main thing you said is "if you set your attack right" - you are doing a set of actions that to the best of your judgements (based on training and experience) will take you to where you want to go. It is meaningless to ask you if you could do otherwise- for example turn to the opposite direction or jump up and down on deck or billions other actions. I mean that the fact I say that the "do otherwise" question is meanigless here and concious rational thinking abolishes free will - it abolishes it because of rational resoursful behaviour and not from lazy fatalistic one. It is quite the contrary.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@limonina1000 What you're saying is fine, as far as it goes, but we are not 100% rational creatures. People very often do illogical or irrational actions, ignoring the probable consequences. Even your Noga may decide not to take the most efficient route because she feels like going the scenic route.

@limonina1000

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Yes she may :) but what I wanted to stress here is that even if she decided to drive the most efficient route again and again when we "roll the reality movie backwards" the question "Could he or she have chosen otherwise?" which is often viewed as the highest degree of free will - is quite paradoxical. Moreover, imo it is not the right question. I wanted to show that the fact that in some cases you are likely to choose the same choice had we "rolled the reality movie backwards" doesn't indicate automatism or robot-like behavior or any kind of inferiority of the human mind. Quite the opposite - it indicates sophistication and resourcefulness - Noga came up with multiple suitable criteria, she carefully examined each and every one of them and only then came to a decision - very level headed and informed one. Resourcefulness and careful examination play the lead roles here, not whether or not she could have chosen otherwise. And as I mentioned in another comment in this channel, I think that breaking down the whole topic of "'Free Will" into short detailed situations will contribute some clarity and boundaries to the broad topic of free will. Actually the situations of Noga and Abigail were my attempt to go in this direction, specifically tackling the "choose otherwise" question .

If we identify with body, we have free will But, when we act based on free will, we accumulate Karma Karma gives us good and bad experiences When we voluntarily give up free will, and accept God's will, we are truly free of Karma

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Does "God" have free will? If so why did he choose a biosphere that cannot support a human being?

How can you be judged, without exercising free will to be judged upon ? Living in heaven or hell is a choice given to humanity. Work together in friendship and tolerance or die together in hatred and intolerance. The choices you personally make, has no one to blame, except yourself. The choices others force you to make, have no one to blame except themselves. In the eyes of god all are born equal, with no voice having any more merit than any other. So the only way to work collectively as a civilisation, is with a collective voice of equal merit. Democracy. Thus faith in each other is faith in god. As that faith dies, the trust between us dies, and we live in a god forsaken world "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," + "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Turning the other cheek for redemption of an adversaries free will, is not turning a blind eye in fear of that adversaries abandonment of these basic rules of co existance. Rules of co-existance that enable life/god to prosper. God is a part life....all life. The choir of Gods church is the song of millions of voices that sing as one.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

I don't understand why people want to disown that which makes us completely different (and better) than every other species. We should embrace it, not make up stories about the supernatural. We are natural beings. Own it. Is it that this propensity is some kind of genetic guilt for being "king on the mountain."?

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

If biotechnological discoveries led to new medicines or gene editing that would allow the average human lifetime to increase from say 80 years to 140 years I think most "believers" would be against such progress. Do you think such progress would be against god's will?

FREE WILL = is only a concept, or subject in relation to the monotheistic deity(god) concept. A God, or Deity is only a human concept that evolved out from our primitive/indigenous human ancestors of ANIMISM culture. A God is a simple human construct or product of human culture, customs, literature that gradually evolved through thousand years of human civilization development.

God allows free will that we would do his will freely. God already knows the outcome, yet I am allowed to self determine in the physical world. That's why he forgives a host of sins. If I am meant for a special purpose, the conditions for it will occur, just like the reluctant Moses.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Free will has nothing to do with the supernatural.

@eltonron1558

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 What is physical or natural about motivation? Supernatural Intent? Supernatural. Burned by a hot stove= Physical natural law. Burned by a hot woman= Beyond the understanding of science or man, i.e. supernatural.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@eltonron1558 The instinct to survive is natural to all animals. Humans are different than all other animals not because of a supernatural god, but because they are a creative animal. Humans can create new explanatory knowledge. Humans still have the survival instinct through biological evolution, but have developed through a combination of cultural evolution and biological adaptation to survive in almost any environment, a new first nature of using virtual reality that we call thought to create new explanations. It is what makes philosophy and science possible. Unlike other animals, we can choose to eliminate errors like beliefs in the supernatural.

@eltonron1558

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Humans are a creative animal because of a spiritual component. That component is from God, your creator. It's that simple. I just proved the supernatural in my last comment. The scientific field of psychology can only observe, categorize, and prescribe drugs to modify human behavior. There has been no breakthroughs over cause. You see the difference but you obviously are religious that is is magic, instead of the king creator. Motivation and intent are at the core of free will. They are supernatural, because they are real, yet undetectable by the senses and science. They meet the criteria of the metaphysical.

@eltonron1558

3 жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 If there is no God, then we are but an accident of carbon based life forms. If we are but carbon based life forms, then no carbon based life form has the right to tell you, the pleasure you derive from gutting my life away, is wrong. History has proven that the anti God nature of humanity is flawed and evil. If there is no God, that nature would have extinguished humanity long ago.

"Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them." - Sam Harris

@thanod99

2 жыл бұрын

I dont understand the second sentence

@JohnCamara7dominion7

2 жыл бұрын

@@thanod99 Read this... "Present-day libertarians tend to pin their hopes for free will on quantum mechanics, but the random chance of quantum theory has no connection whatsoever to the concept of ethical freedom; the freedom to choose, the freedom to will. Doing something because (hypothetically) a subatomic particle randomly moves inside your skull offers no more freedom than doing something because genes or culture dictate it. The quantum event may be uncaused, but your (hypothetical) resulting action would itself be caused by the quantum event. The action is therefore not uncaused, and it is most certainly not chosen or willed. Indeterminism cannot save free will for humankind, because if the mind is, at least in part, undetermined, then some things ‘just happen’ in it outside the laws of causation for which, by definition, nobody and nothing is responsible. An individual is not responsible if their actions are caused, because those actions were ultimately set in motion before they were even born. But an individual is also not responsible if some of their actions are uncaused, because those actions just came out of nowhere. To be freely choosing an individual would have to be free from both deterministic effects and indeterministic effects. Free from both A and not-A, as a logician would put it. To be freely choosing you cannot have A, but you cannot have not-A either; free choice requires something that cannot logically exist in this or any possible universe." - Excerpt from an essay on free will

Because free will equals God. Determinism is self defeating since reason and logic are not required.

@patmoran5339

3 жыл бұрын

Are you sure? Maybe free will equals human creativity.

@nickrindal2787

3 жыл бұрын

Who says free will equals god?.. it's not that simple.. free will is the result of dark energy flowing through dark matter just like time.. it's all explained by the interaction of dm and de.. you can't explain reality without considering and understanding the effects of these two fields of SPACE. Matter is also just space.. nothing exists truly.. it's just the composition of the two fields of space that makes it appear real. I mean it's probably real enough and I cant imagine a better way to construct a reality.

Free will can't exist in a universe full of cause and effects I don't understand why that's so hard to accept or admit.

@joshheter1517

3 жыл бұрын

The assertion that everything in the universe is produced by cause & effect only begs the question.

@godofleverege1829

3 жыл бұрын

Martyr4JesusTheChrist the problem is though Jesus existence need to be demonstrated before i even accept free will if it exists or not is a gift 😂

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

Are you saying i can't balance my body when standing on one feet?

@garruksson

3 жыл бұрын

To that one could just make the objection that a free will is a type of cause

@domersgay28647

3 жыл бұрын

@Flower Bee neither can you.