Відео

I have indeed realised that it's an illusion first hand. I have had plenty of enlightened moments of first person subjective experience of realization of having no free will. Sometimes when I meditated (I haven't been meditating recently for long now) and sometimes under the influence of substances. What about you?

@@CuriosityGuy some from lsd etc yet most from training in meditation self enquiry and nice :) more and more people seem to be waking up nowadays

Lol why? 🙄

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 In your own words, define “OBJECTIVE”. ☝️🤔☝️

@@TheWorldTeacher objective means not based upon opinion. A moral is a social agreement over how good or bad some behavior is. This is clearly, by its very nature, subjective and relative.

​@TheWorldTeacher Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"

@@trumpbellend6717 that is a good example. I would add that this we need to understand the following two things too. (1) "We OUGHT not hit people" is relative and subjective. If we feel we need to hit someone because they are trying to hit us, disable us, and maybe do something worse, then maybe relative to the circumstances, we ought to hit them. If we are practicing combat at partial strength, which can hurt, then relative for the circumstances we ought to hit them, but not with full force. If we are a boxer competing in a boxing match, then relative to the circumstances, we ought to hit them with full force, while abiding by the rules of the boxing match. (2) While we hope that we can make a rational good argument for an ethical moral value like "We OUGHT not hit people" and include in that argument as objective of facts as we can, whether people agree with that argument is a matter of opinion, thus subjective. Some people would say that in their opinion the world is naturally brutal and the those who are stronger will be more like the wolf while those who are weaker will be more like the sheep. Thus, because they do not want to be sheep, they believe that for various reasons and times to show dominance the dominant person needs to prove it through hitting and hurting other people that question their dominance. This can become so strongly held it rises to not just hitting to cause pain, but hitting to cause death. In many cases this dominance is being used to take the possessions away from those being dominated and among those being hit to death includes large numbers of not just fighting men, but non-fighting men, non-fighting women, non-fighting children, and children so young they are not capable of fighting. We literally have large societies which have embraced this "We ought to hit people to death" when those people belong to another society they want to take possessions like land away from. That society might justice in their minds doing this by saying "We are the chosen people of God and God gave us the land, so we have the right to kill all of those not chosen by God who are not getting off the land God gave us, the chosen people". Point being, what ethical moral values people and a society agree upon is subjective.

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 Of course "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared goal with regards wellbeing and the values it incorporates like empathy altruism reciprocity equality, respect ect Whether an action is "Good" is entirely *"relative"* to the desired objective / goal one is trying to achieve, the specific situation our levels of information and understanding and the range of posible alternative actions and outcomes available. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of the Christian "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.

@@davidjacquemotte6850, right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

did you... did you just just "begging the question" correctly? BLESS YOU, FRIEND.

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 I believe so. To say someone or something is doing what they ought to because for their nature assumes there is some ontologically correct nature that one ought to adhere to. But that ought is what is under consideration and you’re just intuiting what that correct nature is. Look, here it is in syllogism form: 1. Someone ought to do what I think is right because it is in their correct nature. C. Someone ought to do what I think is right. But according to evolution, there is no “correct” nature and I don’t see any reason to believe there is otherwise.

biology is riddled with function talk and teleology. its why we recognise abnormalities and defects

@@antiyttrad Sure, but in that case, it’s a “this is what we usually expect” type of ought. But that doesn’t seem to be what the assertion is here.

Weirdo.

Stop using drugs and get your therapy, which is drugs as well, so in any case, take your drugs and chill. lmao

​@@KlPop-x1o, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Makes a certain sense but..why Krishna, among all the other Gods?

But why is it wrong to destroy the poor? It's subjectively wrong. It's in the subjective realm.

@@CuriosityGuy, right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@@TheWorldTeacheryes, slave!

​@@CuriosityGuy The Sanskrit word "KARMA" originates from the verbal root "kri", meaning work, action, or deed. Every thought or ACTION produces an equal and opposite REACTION. When junk "foods" are consumed, one's health is damaged to the degree that we eat such things. When we deliberately hurt another living creature, we are burdened with feelings of guilt, etcetera. Based on this premise, what do you think would be the penalty for insulting or disrespecting a member of the Holy Priesthood, SLAVE? MUCH greater than you may realize, I'd posit. "Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead." 😈 John Ono Lennon

​@@CuriosityGuy The Sanskrit word "KARMA" originates from the verbal root "kri", meaning work, action, or deed. Every thought or ACTION produces an equal and opposite REACTION. When junk "foods" are consumed, one's health is damaged to the degree that we eat such things. When we deliberately hurt another living creature, we are burdened with feelings of guilt, etcetera. Based on this premise, what do you think would be the penalty for insulting or disrespecting a member of the Holy Priesthood, SLAVE? MUCH greater than you may realize, I'd posit. "Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead." 😈 John Ono Lennon

Yeah, this argument ab initio assumes Determinism though

@@CuriosityGuy i am an incompatibalist. So i would grant that an assumption of determinism makes LFW impossible. But that is not worth a whole lot to one who rejects determinism

@@mindtrap0289 NFW is the case regardless of determinism or indeterminism, for the LFW FW definition. You may checkout some previous videos of mine if you please

@@CuriosityGuyI will have to, because as long as LFW is possible (such as in the case of God), then LFW is plausible for us as well.

Well sure! I'd like to! I'll probably read more on that first and we can catch up later.

Good question. If criminals say that they did not have free will while they committed whatever crime they did, and that they're not morally responsible for that act,they'd be right. Now, it's a separate question, what needs to be done to them. Suppose it's just one serious crime they will ever perform (the crime in question here) and we somehow know this fact and that act has already been performed. Then, it doesn't make sense to punish that person retributively and it doesn't make sense to lock them in prison either. Now, suppose we know this guy is a repeated offender and has this psychological disposition that leads him to commit crimes repeatedly. It still doesn't make sense to retributively punish them because they don't have basic desert moral responsibility. By retributively punish, I mean "you committed this crime, hence you deserve punishment as revenge, as justice". It makes sense to quarantine them though, like we did during the Corona times. It makes sense to morally educate them, to keep them in confinement and rehabilitate them. I hope that answers your question?

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont…

@@CuriosityGuy, your understanding of normative ethics is truly abysmal. 🤡

Not sure! A couple of guys told me this, but most haven't 😕

@@CuriosityGuy Depends on one's setup, if one has true stereo headphones or speakers it will be left channel only. Some cheaper headphones and speakers are not true stereo but one mono-channel copied over the two channels, they almost always take the left channel for the copying/mirroring. If you record in mono and don't manually create a left and right audio channel in some software like Audacity, it will only have left channel audio by default to a stereo system or headphone. Hope this helps!

@@Top_LadI see.. that was useful, thanks! I'll try fixing that for the next one

Just found this gem of a comment today! This means a lot! Thank you so much 😊