Apparently UA-cam doesn't always notify subscribers when people upload anymore. Please click the little bell to make sure you see when I do, or follow me on social media (@cosmicskeptic). Let me know what you think of all this.
Ok I mentioned this before in my other response, but I'll lay down another video to explain in full how free will is discussed and how it is necessary for you to have free will to do things like knowing truth, or knowing if what you say is true. I actually foudn it a bit cheeky you glossed over the problem that it introduces of not have interllectual liberty my dude, nice try but I know very well the issue you have there. Anyway I expect ya to address my points when I make the video. Overall, your points were good but the logic did not follow to it's conclusion, and there's a underlying self defeating idea in your entire argument.
The problem with your idea of free will is that you're starting with the ending. Deliberation exists before the desire that leads to the action. The longer the time In deliberation, the less certain the outcome. In addition, you haven't discussed the absence of desire as an alternative.
I was in a Subway's once and the girl asked my friend 'Do you want extra cheese?' to which he replied, 'I don't know' and for a brief moment the entire structure of the universe just stopped.
Kind of like how it takes time to process anything, even hand movement, the brain probably got a slow / unreachable receptor or something. Or maybe the brain decided "let them choose for me, as I trust their decision to be the best" + had an added fear of being wrong.
scott mcadam you can't just assume all women are shit at making decisions... What does your comment have to do with anything... They were talking about their friend at Subway. The friend was a HE.
“Want” doesn’t seem like a real word anymore. edit: guys i was making a joke about how many times Alex said “want”. Not trying to have a deep philosophical conversation about it.
I think it's even more simple, yet deeper than that. Any action is preceded by a thought. If you want to choose between vanilla and chocolate, you think the decision before you physically make it. So, free will would then require that you choose your thoughts, which is paradoxical. How can you choose to think something, without already thinking about it?
@@moss_yass My hypothesis is that that voice is indeed not "you". I'd say that "you" are merely the passive experience of having those thoughts. I think the thought "where does that voice in my head come from" is proof of that. Clearly, you see the voice already as something that you "have", instead of something that you "are". So, what are you? I feel bad that my comment made you feel distrustful though. I sincerely hope that you can approach the dilemma with positive curiosity, instead of with distrust. In everyday life, that voice feels like it's "you", and that works totally fine.
I think before thinking that you want vanilla rather than chocolate you think and evaluate you options, and during this process you make your choice wich then becomes your desire, no?
A fly flew into my eye and I blinked without thinking. I always prefer chocolate to vanilla so when offered a choice I automatically choose chocolate without thinking about it. When faced with a variety of foods I consider what I prefer and choose accordingly. What I like caused my preference but did not determine me to make that choice--next time I might choose vanilla, say, to win a bet or out of boredom. Every effect has a case, but doesn't necessarily destine us.
>imagine believing freewill is an illusion based on retarded antiquated physics and darwinian evolution which has basically been mathematically disproven.
? A higher conciousness wants nothing though.. You are not your thoughts.. Why is it that no one is talking about levels of consciousness? This comment does not apply to all of the population.
devzkii I would not say that it is using want like choose. We want what we want. I want chocolate rather than vanilla. But did I choose to want vanilla? No. I just want vanilla, i can’t help wanting what I want. It just arises as such. And I can then have the vanilla, as I want. But I didn’t actually choose to want it.
surrender & survive I can relate to not wanting anything, what you call higher consciousness. There are moments of such utter peace and fulfillment that there is no wanting. If you’re sitting in bliss and don’t eventually want to eat you’ll die, however. We and the other animals have want built into our DNA. if we didn’t it would be the end of life. It seems evolutionary drive in life to want: to find warmth when you’re freezing, shade when you’re hot, food when hungry, and then there are those damn hormones that make us want to mate. All of it designed to sustain and perpetuate life.
I just finished watching hentai. This video told me I didn't watch it with free will. I will now go back to watching hentai so that I can test this hypothesis. For science.
I would actually say that the reasons we do anything is actually singular - it is because we want to. Even if we are forced to do something at gunpoint, we still do it because we want something - that something is to survive and continue living.
I wouldn’t agree with that premise. Imagine you were very sick or broke your legs or had a mental illness and you were bound to your bed temporarily. You would want to get up and be productive more than you wanted to be in bed but you physically couldn’t get out of bed no matter how bad you wanted to because you are forced to be there.
He's a perfect definition of a narcissist. When he said "we've already concluded.." blah blah blah, no, "we" haven't concluded anything. We are in control of our lives, period.
@@tyemaddog but we actually are not because what ever is going to happen or what ever ever happened...happened and there's no changing that ever....everything is technically predestined wether you believe it or not.
@@tyemaddog Point me to a single logical mistake in this video, please. Because as it stands, it just seems like you are stubbornly refusing to listen to what was said, not because you actually have any argument to make against the stance (which is, just by the way, utterly impossible, as the logic is completely obviously clear and sound).
It appears many individuals are misunderstanding the message. Changing your mind on something isn't changing what you want, but simply following a greater want that moves in a different direction. We are endlessly following wants and what we want changes based on the environment and past experiences.
But i'm changing what ME AS A PERSON want, choosing between your "greater want" and a "smaller want".. *note* I thoroughly believe I can make myself want something I despice, given enough time and thought.. In other words, choosing to want what i hate
ugseth2 but isn't changing that want, even if it's to something you hate, is satisfying your want to change ? no matter what you do, you want to do it, it's all a choice of wants evolves through time based on your experiences. :)
I have crippling depression and have killed myself after that challenge I am now a dead rabbit who cant do nothing but think and I have wifi somehow I think this is hell
From a psychoanalytic point of view you are not free about your decisions, desires, etc., but that doesn't mean psychoanalysis didn't believe in freedom. From a Hegel, Marx and Freud point of view the more you are aware of the forces (external and internal) you are attached to the more free you become.
What do you mean by this, if you don't mind me asking? (No, I am not asking you to clarify OCD, I'm asking you to elaborate on what you mean by it making you realize you don't have free will.)
@@shinmoda I’m pretty sure they meant it as a joke, but Obsessive Compulsive disorder is based on the experience of compulsions, basically like your brain acting like an annoying younger siblings like “do it. You have to” to the extreme
@@p11_studios Again, I wasn't asking then to tell me what OCD was, I was asking them to clarify how they mean it taught them they didn't have free will, but I guess based on the compulsions it's like your own brain forcing you rather than others. I found, though, that as time gets going and it's been longer since my original diagnosis, I tend to fend off the sudden episodes with rational thought; but originally, I always felt like if I didn't do when I felt I needed to do them, then something will happen (negative). Or the flip side, sometimes I felt that if I do something then something will happen (positive). I still respond to these thoughts due to it making me feel satisfied but it's not as bad as it once was. It got tough when, being someone interested in spirituality, this realm of thought crossed into that realm. That's when stuff got tough. Thank you! :)
When free will is defined as "ability to have acted differently", then this is true. The reason most of us feel we have free will is because we subconsciously define free will as "ability to do what you want/desire". Most people are not that concerned that they don't have the ability to choose what they want, or your wants are beyond your control. As long as we can act on those wants we feel that we have free will.
Then I would say that the term is wrong and it's implications still equivocated. If your will is determined by your "wants" which you aren't in control of, then it's not free, why bother with reusing the term to say something completely different? Specially if we don't redefine it's implications, like moral responsability. If we aren't in control of the desires that motivate our actions, how can we hold people accountable? It would radically change the framework in which we base or social systems, which people seem not so eager to do, which I think is what makes them clinge so hard to using the same term.
what gives us a taste in music, did the universe choose my favorite color, if the universe can choose my favorite color than god can create a soul and if god can't create a soul than the universe can not choose my favorite color and im liberty to do as i wish to do constant battle with the universe
This sounds to be very true so although we don't have complete free will the will is still in our character/traits to (choose the things we want) So i think in a given moment we definitely have will/free will (based on our character traits) I mean I didn't have to comment here though i did so based on an inner impulse to do so Ohh yeah when I say choose the things we want I didn't mean we choose our wants but I meant we have the choice or decision to act on it
@@sensibleone3268 Before you had the impulse to write a comment,that was already set in motion.Then you had the thought I will write a comment.In reality the comment had to happen,you just claim authorship for doing so.There simply is no doer.
This is pretty close to how I felt leaving Christianity. My family kept talking about my "choice" to stop believing in their God, but I never made any choice regarding that. It simply didn't make sense to me so I didn't believe it. The only "choice" I made was to stop suppressing my own doubtful thoughts which really were becoming extremely overwhelming and upsetting to keep down.
I feel the same, but the opposite way. I believe in god. I don’t know why, I can’t explain it. I just do. Was never bought up religiously or anything either.
@@celtictarotreadings333 You're the kind of religious person I like. I personally find myself wanting there to be a god who suits my preference for what I want god to be but I don't want to believe something without knowing it to be true. Since evidence is a matter of demonstrating something through immutable natural laws which produce the same result of the same causes under the same circumstances every time those causes are applied under the same circumstances and since the supernatural as a concept does not rely on immutable natural laws, I can only hope and can't believe since my belief of anything depends on knowing. Thus, I can't help not believing in a god and can't help hoping for a god I would like. I suppose a god could exist who I wouldn't like but I can't hope for that and I can't believe it either. This is why I can't hope for or believe in a god who would punish anyone for not believing in a god as believed by the kind of religious person I don't like... well, that might not be the best way to put it, I should call them the kind of religious person who's beliefs I don't like since their beliefs themselves cause them fear which forces them to believe the beliefs which cause the fear. Anyway, I'm always happy to come across someone like you who just believes in a god because they want to believe.
Well.. that’s genius. You definitely convinced me. I always asked people what the definition of “free will” ment to them. Now after watching this video and actually understand what you mean, i have a whole different perspective on it. Thankyou so much for this beautiful video ❤
I feel like the dangerous implication here is that, if there is no free will, criminals are innately evil, because they could have never chosen the right thing. Logically that creates a category of good people who are righteous and self-improving and evil people that are beyond help.
@@skeleton1765but that also brings into question whether or not we should hold criminals morally responsible to begin with. If they had no ability to do otherwise, why should we punish them for something out of their control? Of course the obvious question is what would we do instead and to be frank, I have no idea. It’s something I’ve been trying to grapple with
@@MoonlightMaggie Exactly, I do good because I want to do good, than I am part of the righteous class. If I can’t help but be evil, or don’t want to do good, or prefer to do the evil thing than they are part of the deplorables. This is almost leading to a justification for genocide. If it looks like free will, feels like free will, society and morals collapse without the assumption of free will, than why would it not be free will? How many senses/mechanisms have to positively support free will before we assume it’s true. Is it like a Schrödinger’s mechanic where we can observe what choice a person makes but only if we look at the decision matrix in their brain at a certain instance, or even after the decision has been made. Even if all the ‘decisions’ you made leading up to that one MAKE you ‘choose’ a certain outcome, does that disprove free will? This seems like another instance of an atheist (I’m probably part of that category/agnostic) being infinitely and annoyingly reductive. If got so annoyed with myself doing this I had to stop. Clearly I have a low tolerance for this thing and was always destined to choose that choice as well. 🙄
@@MoonlightMaggie Yes but ask yourself, why does your reasoning stop there anyway? It's wrong to stop there and call it a day. "Holding them accountable" or not doing so would be a "choice" i.e something you'd want (to want to..(etc recursively)) to do in itself, which in itself is already uninfluenceable, that line of reasoning goes on infinitely. It's not about "what would we do instead", it's that anything else we do instead, then that too, wasn't chosen or free will. It's not about thinking of things in that macro/limited scale of people/society/the justice system etc, we're discussing the general concept of "free will" at its bare-bones, philosophical/logical root. What I mean is, in your example about crime etc, it's not about just holding anyone accountable in that sense, it's about that if you do hold them accountable, then you were already always going to, same of the opposite. It's not "should" we or "can" we hold them accountable, because there is no choice there either, "choosing" to hold them accountable or not was inevitable. Same with: If you jumped then you were already always going to jump, whether you "chose" to or not, if you were born then you were already always going to be born, etc etc etc, get what I mean? It doesn't even apply just to our experience of free will, but to causality itself. The takeaway is pretty much that everything that happened so far was inevitable (and I don't mean in the woo-woo way "everything happens for a reason" because "God chose it"), and that "consequences"/the future/causality is as inevitable as the flow of time itself, you are stuck in your unique experience or "illusion" of the present, some will find great solace in that, some will find terrible distress. 😛 (Both are also inevitable, like everything else - and the illusion of a consequence/event being avoided arises from the fact that its avoidance was also inevitable, etc.) So within the confines of this illusion you can "choose" to recognize that since this truth is inevitable, then there is no point worrying or thinking about it too much, because it doesn't change anything for you or your experience, whether it was "predetermined" or not. It's just that if you do worry/not believe it,/do anything at all, then that too, was inevitable in its very nature 😅.. but just "choose" not to care, and for all practical purposes, live life the way you would have either way, even while knowing you didn't really choose. I know it feels like a paradox but they aren't mutually exclusive, because one of them is an illusion that arises from the other. The illusion of free will/choice arises from the fact itself there is no free will/choice, which personally doesn't bother me, it's just a logical fact, and a conclusion that you come to when you really think about it enough. I find this beautiful and awe-inspiring on its own. So yes, continue to hold criminals accountable etc. not because they are "innately evil" (which is a conclusion you arrived to because you decided to stop there) etc., but because you don't justify "choosing" do something BECAUSE there is free will or not, it's just that it HAPPENS / HAPPENED / WILL HAPPEN *because* there is no free will, that doesn't mean you shouldn't still continue "choosing" just because it's an illusion when you look deep enough... for us it might as well not be an illusion because it's all we will ever experience, there is no need to "adjust" just because you learned this (it's just that if you did adjust, you didn't truly choose that either lol), it is logically and by nature impossible to truly choose, as it breaks all logic and the concept of time and causality itself. It doesn't mean there is no beauty in that. To me there IS beauty in that this illusion of choice itself can be born from the fact that there is no choice, almost as an extension of it, and within it we can experience everything as if we all truly chose it, almost going full circle. There is no need to think of it as fake when it is a direct consequence of that initial truth.
@@Siegfried5846 Yea, because then you wouldn’t be accountable for anything you’ve done right or wrong, though that isn’t how societies live. They live as if we are all accountable for our actions and that’s why there are ethics. And why do we tell people you shouldn’t have done that or that wasn’t right when the person had no free will to do so? And why do we correct someone by saying, “No, this is how you do this.” If we believe there is no free will and want to be consistent, we cannot complain when someone violates our human rights.
@@satellitecannon9463 I most certainly can be consistent because right and wrong are objective according to God’s character and not my opinion or yours or anyone else’s. I just follow what He says whether I agree or not. He made the universe, so I’m not going to tell Him I know better
@@trustthetruth2779 that isn't how it works. You were predetermined to see this video and make the comment you made, because of all the things that happened to you before, and all that you ate and consumed, all that you were taught. You couldn't help but make the choices you've made, but you still feel the suprise when someone appreciates your work, or you still feel the pain of bad choices. You are the agent of change, but you had no other choice in the end as you look back on things that have happened. Theists have this loophole that they pull out when the pain of bad decisions starts to haunt them, and they often just claim it was God's plan or God's Will, so you can forgive yourself and move on. We live in a deterministic universe with an endless chain of causality, and there is a liberating freedom from excessive guilt, to some extent, but if someone murders another person in cold blood and they feel nothing, that isn't a normal person, and they go to prison no matter how they became broken. We are still held accountable for actions, but even you have to admit you have an out, in regards to these problems of choice. All normal people react to good and bad things and they make changes to remedy the situation, but sometimes it takes time and more input from the chain of causality, like friends telling someone they messed up. I simply don't believe in a God that is supernatural and outside of the Universe, making things happen and intervening when he wants and letting you have your will, and then a little bit of his will, and then a bit more of your will, and a whopping amount of his will. An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can't give you Freewill and also be all of those things.
lol this is something i struggled with when i was 15 and i didn’t get why no one else cared about this!! the lack of choice to want something is so important and figuring this out has made me a much less judgemental and empathetic person tbh
That’s really interesting to know. Cause it has happened to me also. I’d say that the exact same effect it was caused on you was really caused on me as well. It has made me reflect a lot more than usual about life in general after I started gravitating towards this possibility.
@@jes8253 yeah i'd say i used to feel scared about it but now i think it's quite a freeing mindset. i study sociology now which has helped me explore how unhelpful this belief in free will really is to almost everyone - means we think we can judge other people even when we can't relate to their situation at all because we think 'well I would never do that' without having any context. empathy is a great skill and i think we need to remember what it actually means to put yourself in someone else's shoes - it doesn't mean put yourself in their particular situation, it means put yourself in their particular situation within the whole context of their life. rugged individualism has meant we think that's not important somehow and i think without a radical shift in perspective in the very near future the world is going to be totally irreperably fucked soon
@@Jemmainadilemma I couldn’t agree more with your words. It’s really fulfilling to get to know there’s still people in the world that has this sort of insight to reflect upon it the way you do. It’s quite funny cause I couldn’t ever imagine I would definitely bump into someone right here on UA-cam who shares the same concept as I do and also as accurate as my concept is about this idea. It’s really gratifying! I do think the same, moreover, I still sense that the world unfortunately is more likely to be fucked up as soon as we can’t expect because of individualism.
@@Jemmainadilemma What isn't it a free choice that "I want to prove a point by regaining my free will"? Didn't I freely choose to want one over the other?
@@CuriosityGuy well you want to do something to prove a point, but you don't choose to want that, you just want that. The source of the want is the point here - you can't choose to want something. you could explore why you want that but i don't think that would affect what you want
That's a very good point, despite the joke, because you didn't yourself decide what you like. Your genes and experiences did. You only decided to express that feeling of liking. And why am I writing this? The point is that we are incredibly advanced "machines", and whatever we think we decide is always within the framework of our genetic programming. Thus, free will only exists within certain limits. Another argument against free will is that people understanding the consequences make stupid or "wrong" choices that severely harm them. If they truly had complete free will, that wouldn't happen. One example is me writing this, despite being better off in health and freshness tomorrow if I were sleeping now.
Only stones and rocks and inanimate matter have no choice. You had the choice to not like this video but you have already been convinced that whatever Alex says is intelligent so let me like this video blindly without using your 10 brain cells to contemplate on what he says.
@Jo-Ash Scott Official You have will- your free will was based on the question regarding free will, which was freely chose to respond- if he didn't respond, you could just as well have asked, did you have free will to not write that comment.
James Walker I think you are missing the irony and true point of the quote. By saying we have free will and we have no choice but to have it is purposely contradictory.
Actually, the only reason you'll do anything is because you want to. Being forced to do something has a want of survival or the avoidance of punishment behind it, unless your hand is being moved by someone else physically.
But do you really "want" to in the sense that it's something you choose truly on your own behalf? For example, if you buy a soda or something at a store "because you want to", it could realistically be for a variety of factors. For one thing, you could be thirsty while also holding a disposition towards sweeter drinks. That would naturally cause you to gravitate towards the sugary drink. If you weren't thirsty, then it was probably a craving - something you don't necessarily choose to have that holds a significant amount of power over deciding what you buy. If you had a craving and instead got water since it was healthier, there were prior decisions already dictating that choice as well. Free will is essentially impossible to prove, in reality, since if you go back far enough and with enough detail, every single one of your actions could likely be telegraphed. Even without this consideration, the concept of free will in and of itself is so nebulous that it's genuinely hard for our brains to conceptualize. That's just my thought on it anyway
I was just thinking of this. You can’t be forced to do something unless whatever is forcing you has a consequence for you not doing it in which you do it because you want to avoid the consequence. I didn’t think of your hand being physically moved by something else though. Interesting point.
That's why I think there will be anarchy in a lawless society. Most people don't break the law simply because they don't want to be punished, not because they are well-intentioned and well-behaved citizens. Humans are not superior, civilised moral beings. We're worse than animals.
I had to write an essay in high school about free will in the form of destiny. And my answer was basically "we can act like we have free will because we can't know the future so it doesn't matter."
Here's a brain twist. The decision after learning about free will not existing, and then deciding to make an expository video about it, is actually in itself an act of free will.
Sorry you have that compulsion! 😂 When I see a video about free will, I have full range of choice. I watched about 4 minutes of this one, and then I quite watching! I'd heard enough of his nonsense! 🤣
@@rexlion4510 So your “want” wasn’t strong enough and you’ve made a choice based on you not wanting to continue - clearly proving the point of the video here! ^_^
@@NousTrapper It might be the case the your reason for doing so is because determinism causes you discomfort, and so you act accordingly to minimise discomfort since we seem to be exclusively motivated to minimise suffering/maximise pleasure. Even seeking pain is pretty much always done to minimise it or seek a future pleasure, such as in the experiment of people choose to shock themselves to relieve boredom (choosing a lesser pain to relieve a greater/worse pain) Even seeking a meaningful life filled with meaningful experiences is only done to relieve the suffering of meaninglessness.
@@NousTrapper “Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do and well as determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong and on the other the chain of cause and effect are fastened to their throne. They govern us in everything we do, everything we think, everything we say. Every attempt we make to throw off our subjection will serve but to *demonstrate and confirm* it.” - My boy Jeremy Bentham spitting straight facts
Why are you terrified? It is out of your control. You can either accept or reject it, but neither stance will affect the outcome in any predictable way. So why worry? if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. This is also the same argument that renders faith pointless. Faith is belief without evidence, yet the only reason belief can be validated is if there is evidence. Thus, faith is a waste of time since without evidence, then it is equally likely that something will happen as it is that something will not happen. This is the problem of non-falsifiable claims. Either it _will_ or it will _not_. Belief nor faith can change this.
Dylan Wight Well that's completely off topic, but I agree. But just because something is true doesn't make it comforting. Just because something is out of my control doesn't stop me from finding it unsettling, no matter how much I would like to pretend it does
Like Alan watts says. There’s no such thing as a selfless man. Even when we give money to a stranger or poor man, we do it because we want to and it makes us feel good. Giving to the homeless does not only help the homeless, it also helps us as well
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” ~Stephen Hawking
@@choco1199 they are contradicting themselfes. if they look before they cross the road they have basically reduced their chances of getting hit by a car to 0% meaning they chose their own destiny
@@robertjusic9097 or it's just survival instict doing it's work. It's just like animals that try to avoid pain/danger. It has nothing to do with choice.
Peter Griffin I’m not being facetious I promise, I’m just curious about the topic. But what about a suicidal person who has those same instincts to avoid pain but walk out in front of a truck. It was there choice no?
@@carsonmcmanus9410 No. This completely ignores the fact that their "want" to walk in front of the truck overrides their "want" to do otherwise. Do you think a suicidal person would choose to want to be suicidal? This is actually a compelling case AGAINST free will.
I think you can actually combine "want to or have to" even further into just "want to" Even if you have a gun to your head or you have a boss threatening to fire you, the pressure only works if you want to be alive or have whatever luxuries the job affords you more than you want to do whatever they're demanding. Put someone suicidal or someone who has been on the fence about taking a vow of poverty into those situations and it's pretty obvious how those change the scales. In effect "being forced to" is just adding one weight to one end of your scales deciding what to do, often an inordinately heavy one, but isn't necessarily a sole determinant.
@@actualwafflesenjoyer in judicial situations the distinction is never that clear-cut. E.g. self-defense and 'acting under duress' have to be proportionate in order to be legitimate. E.g. agreeing to kill a third party because someone threatens with releasing your naked baby pics hardly seems proportionate. It's up to a judge/jury to decide. But as long as questions of moral responsibility (which only exist on a societal-artificial level) are out of the way, both 'have to' and 'want to' seem to describe deliberate action under desires and constraints
@@ashleystrout6651 I agree with Ashley, and I think the distinction is important for this reason. You did not "want to" be pushed off the stage (presumably), but you were. You did not "want to" shoot the man while you were sleeping, but someone moved your finger to the trigger of a gun they put in your hand.
This reminds me of Eastern religious philosophy, specifically the concept of being enslaved by one's desires(wants) and the idea that true freedom comes from not having desires(wants). The Mahabharata depicts many ascetics living lifestyles free from desire. The desire to not desire is a desire itself. It is extremely difficult to achieve a desireless state of existence.
@@dionysusnow This is likely why religions like Jainism have elaborate death rituals connected directly to shedding yourself of your connections to the material (and social) world.
Doesn't that simply mean that those ascetics are simply ruled by their desire to not want desires? Or maybe that's the ultimate state, where they've eliminated so much of their worldly desire, that the only desire left is to maintain the desire to not want any other desires.
Not necessarily since as he mentioned it is indeed possible for you to make different choices, but ultimately what lead to those choices isn't really in your control
That's a really good one! And speaks a lot of truth as well. To the best of my knowledge I could say that the belief in free will or not is predetermined. Gazzaniga I believe his name is backs this up, as well as other Neurosciency people.
@@benj766 Sure, you have a choice, but it's always determined in the past. A choice is never made of anything but thoughts you already had. Any thoughts you think that are brand new, any responses you can imagine, and all reactions to everything are always old once they happen like the choices they help to make. We live in time like the crest of a wave you cannot ever pin down even if you snap a picture of it because it required time to take making it a wave from the light traveling in the past to build up enough photons collapsing from the quantum light wavelength to capture in the camera. Your brainwaves must behave by quantum physics too.
I use this same argument against freewill. The only difference is i use the word impulse instead of want. There will always be an impulse to do one thing over another and those impulses simply arise.
You have made an astute observation. Perhaps freewill is our mind simply "managing impulses" to prioritize which to act on. I'd love to hear your answer if you have a few minutes, but if you choose to ignore me, that's ok too. ;-)
@@paultomori I think there’s a deeper issue with the idea that freewill is simply about managing impulses. If our decisions are just a matter of prioritizing impulses, then we're not actually choosing freely, we're just responding to the strongest urge at a given moment. But it goes even further: the impulses themselves are beyond our control. They’re shaped by past experiences, genetics, and external influences, all of which we didn’t choose. If our impulses arise from factors outside our control and all we're doing is selecting among them, where's the freedom in that? It seems like we're just following a predetermined path laid out by our past and biology, rather than exercising any real autonomy. If freewill is about making genuine choices, shouldn't it involve more than just reacting to whatever impulse happens to be most compelling? Your idea implies that our decisions are essentially pre-programmed, which seems to strip freewill of any meaningful substance. How can we claim to have freewill if we can't even control the impulses that supposedly drive our choices?
When I hear you say something along the lines of "you are completely controlled by your wants", it doesn't make sense to me. It seems to imply that "I" am somehow a separate entity from my desires, when in fact my desires are actually a large part of what I would define as "myself". What is a person if not a set of changing desires motivated by memories? I don't feel like a slave to my desires because I literally am my desires.
Yes, agreed, scrolled down to say this. If we confine the definition of self and the definition of free will to just the conscious component, as was discussed in the video, then the video is logically correct. However, that definition is a bit narrow. It may make more sense to redefine the argument presented above as "you don't have fully conscious free will." Part of us - our desires - are subconscious and driven by various environmental, historical, and genetic factors. That does not mean that those factors exclusively define what we are - and vice-versa, we cannot separate our conscious decisions from those factors. We are the sum of our consciousness and the above-mentioned factors. To put it another way, CS could have two competing desires - the desire for chocolate or vanilla. Which one he selects is up to his conscious mind, based on various factors, including other desires, memory, knowledge, etc. If he went back in time and told himself that chocolate ice cream is bad, he could and likely would select vanilla, based on the updated knowledge.
This reminds me of a weird thought that's popped into my head a couple times... "It couldn't have turned out any differently, because if it could've it would've."
I'm no expert but I think it has nothing to do with free will but you're speaking of possibility of different outcomes (my expression, not a real term). Let's take the ideas that pop up in your head be called made up ideas, as in comparison to reading that water is liquid and thinking of water as liquid (constructed, extracted by communication E.C., non-genuine) ideas. I THINK we're speaking of EC ideas, the ones we, allegedly, consciously construct, not the made up ones, which I have no explanation for.
It really could’ve though. Due to the randomness of particles’ behavior, if the universe was rewinded to the beginning to play again, we’d get a vastly different result. Though there are likely some structures that are inevitable.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 I think, not authorized tho, 1- deep in the most minute scale, if there is a randomness in the process then the possibility of a different outcome than what we have now is definitely present. What I mean includes if particles popping behaviour in and out of nowhere is literally random, then that could very well indicate a random outcomes if the uni were to rewind again. 2- if the laws and contants (gravity, forces, electro, maybe even matter if there were other particles similar to electrons and protons) have behaved differently then we would have different outcomes. Otherwise, I think, had the uni been rewinded and if the laws have been identical and the randomness is non-existent (which is something hard to prove by experimenting on every place, planet and black hole to test the validity of matter/space/fiber-stuff determinism and predicting every single instance with the properties of space, time and mass -excuse the metaphor- of the presence of matter there) until then, wait I might sound religious there but objectively speaking, we couldn't yet prove the non-existence of consciousness, everything we know is based on the likely possibility of dependence on neural networks. Such inductive argument might not be true as, as far as I know, we know nothing about consciousness. All we know is brain activity. I'm not saying there is a soul because consciouness is so mysterious that we can't explain yet. All I'm saying is we have no idea and we could base assumptions on this possibility. I don't say I believe in free will certainly, what I'm saying is the arguments of free will non-existence are still not 100% conclusive. I'm not sure if there is a part of us (allegedly that we are a distinct part of the world) that is not dependent entirely on the material interactions. I mean there is no reason for us to do good to each other and yet we do! We could be killing eachother over territories yet we feel the deep urge of loving each other. I wanna hug every other person. I don't want to think of them as junk space-time-matter that magically surfs the space-time continuum. I wanna shake hands with aliens. I wanna see the last bit of conscious being enjoying his/her/whatever gender "they" call themselves to the last moment they live it. I wanna preach the morality of no-suffering to every conflicting conscious being. Because the other possibility of only material world (speaking of conscious beings, not dieties) is utterly terrifying. A sadistic authority could rise one day and have a grip over the whole humanity and in his thinking, there is no difference between life and death at all!
Reda Ali Personally, I believe the brain and the mind (consciousness) are related, but distinct things. I believe the brain is largely automated and runs our day to day lives on auto pilot, but the mind is the “quality control” of a decision, if that makes sense. So the brain is like an automated assembly line. It does its thing when left to do so, but a line manager (the mind) can stop the process momentarily to check for quality and give their stamp of approval. I think consciousness is present in the brain, but that it doesn’t rely on the brain to actually exist, I feel there’s more to it than that. To me, consciousness is more likely to be a quantum event and not necessarily a physical one (unless you consider quantum events to be physical phenomena). We forget that our brain isn’t our entire nervous system. It runs around our whole body. It’s curious that sometimes when someone receives an organ donation, that recipient begins to show personality traits that were present in the donor, such as food preferences or general personality.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 you're right. I share your opinion of modes of operation of 'mind' as auto-pilot and active decision making. I heard many arguments about controlling someone's arbitrary decision like moving a hand or pressing a button. While scientests have done some experiments of predicting when someone would do such arbitrary action, and also the presence of consciousness on actions, aka hypnosis, while still having the same brain activity, and the similar subconscious acts are very variant like preferring a food or flavor over the other. While genetics could, and very likely do, play a huge rule in dictating how sensitive I am towards anxiety and what category of games I enjoy, (which are once again subconscious; I don't choose to like a food. I have been pre-programmed to like this taste and would be, I expect, very difficult to change the physical part of me that changes my taste. I want to remind you of the 'subconscious' part of our actions that we are all aware of) that still doesn't explain how I find the urge (automatic response) of wanting to laugh when I hear a joke that I understand while still holding myself (2 wants. Which one do you prefer more?). Like I find the two wants, forces, speaking in Greek style, are present both at the same time, albeit that whichever weighed more to you, you would choose. And let me be clear about this: a conscious being could either have a reason to do so or not, and in either case it's a lost case due to 'you want to'. The part where daily life free will means when you allegedly intentionally attempt to strike a pedestrian with your car instead of applying the brakes. Let's ignore the moral part while holding into the social aspect of it. Assume you have 2 wants: to kill the pedestrian, and to steal him. And you have 2 wants-not: social demeaning, and law prosecution. Assume also you have no moral restrictions as killing him is of no psychological downsides, only social ones. Coincidentally, the wants on one side and the wants-not are on another; there could be option A with 2 wants and one want-not, option B with 3 wants ..., but atill the wants-not are inherently want by definition (want not to). So, where my alleged free will comes into the picture is when I *evaluate* the options, in this case, only two options, run him over, or apply brakes. There could be a situation where I could talk with someone and have A) talk gently, B) use some offensive language, C) agitate a friend with a statement to catch their support into my argument, D) punch him in the face... So it's not like only black and white choice that I "could" choose. These options have the high likelihood of resulting the mentioned outcomes (2 wants for A and 2 wants-not for B). But remember that these outcomes are in many cases exclusive: you are unlikely to kill him, steal him while still escaping the police and social demeaning unless you're that Dostoevsky's novel character to get it all. So you are highly unlikely, let's assume the impossibility hence, of gathering different options' outcomes, aka options' outcomes' exclusivity. The situation at hand is you could either choose A, B, C, ... or N. What do you do then? You simply *evaluate* the outcomes' (both benefits and downsides. And for simplicity let's assume the certainty of these outcomes benefits and downsides to eliminate the probablistic aspect of uncertainty). The question now becomes: do you value X and Y more than P and Q? These are your wants, true, but it comes down to what values weigh to you more than others. Money, knowledge, morality, social class, civil prosperity? I think here it could need some compromises regarding your wants against public good where we should draw the line between the want and freedom to take a decision. You could sacrifice you wants and leave them for something else, like future reward. Even though you don't want to leave this choice, you did have the capability to choose or not choose it (you could value the outcomes more than your wants and sacrifice your wants for unwanted outcomes). It could reach to a moral or public good standard where someone would only sacrifice their wants for others' benefits. The difference here is in the future case, the benefit would still reach you afterall; while in public good it would highly unlikely benefit you, at least in the short term, to leave your parking lot for someone else that needs to park closer. I'm not speaking about morality in specific, rather how we would sacrifice our benefits for others even when we know that the odds of benefitting are not on our favor. True, generally, we are acting for a better life of us all, stemming from a beneficiary prospective, but still based on basis of what you want more than the other. And if the better good requires sacrificing one for the whole then so be it. Evolutionarily or not, that gives my life its meaning. Is it free will? Yes because there are other wants. Unless someone considers any want to be decisive to one's decision then even choosing not to follow it stems from that. It's a lost cause anyway! I can almost remember no argument regarding the 'conscious' (carefully using the non-scientific term of conscious as I 'm still not sure of my opinion) part but many arguments on the auto-pilot part. An aspect that is highly exploited by psychological biases and subsoncious manipulation in advertisements and giving people the imoression that "I feel I'm winning in the casino just because everything is suggesting that even tho I rationally know the odds are totally not in my favor and it's totally randomly-base rather than skill-based. Don't get me wrong, we don't need to embrace some facts as certainty of death or the possibility of my partner cheating on me but these tendancies should be given and informed to the agent rather than exploiting them against him/her.
William Esping: Absolutely William; we have no choice in possessing free will as a created member of the human race; the choice that we have is whether and when we will use it or not. God bless you.
I like this explanation, it's sort of a mirror of what I thought about in that free will as an absolute concept, meaning a total freedom to do all things at any time purely of your conscious mind (even if we include illogical things like flying at will), is impossible on the strict basis that the brain cannot create raw data, it can only observe it. So the three most general aspects dictating wants and forces are these: Genetic nature, parental nurture (or lack thereof), and environmental circumstances (like culture of origin). I would say that the illusion exists because the brain handles all the options available and processes which is "best" for it based on the aforesaid parameters, which leaves it making a "choice", but that choice is made on factors outside of control. Quick example of the brain not being able to create raw data would be: reliably speaking a language you've never heard, imagining a color that you haven't seen, describing a color such to confirm you see it the same as someone else, regret in light of hindsight, et cetera. Conclusion, in order for any being to have free will, it must be infinitely knolwedgeable (and infinitely capable). A god, basically, which is silly to suggest as a possibility. Now someone said to me once that this justified atrocities like pedophilia, because it isn't "their choice". No, it doesn't justify anything. It means that such a thought process as well as the parameters that caused it are best forceably changed or exterminated. This is where the conversation becomes dangerous, but just because it is dangerous does not mean it is false.
Free will is in the realm of quantum mechanics so the Cosmic Skeptic is wrong. Since if you had no free will and were just an observer in your head and had no control of the rest of your brain, your brain is then like a computer doing things. And it is like you are just watching a movie play out. Your brain apparently gives you notification on how to feel, like when you want something. So why is this computer asking about free will ? It has no consciousness so would not ask this question. Therefore there must be free will and you and your brain are connected and you are conscious. A mechanical computer would not ask questions about free will and consciousness. So since we are really very complicated mechanical computers and we are asking about free will and consciousness, must mean these things are real. Somehow in quantum physics this happens. There are fields, electron, proton, light, everything has a field , even human beings.
He is wrong , I have written the explanations elsewhere in the comments. If you analyze any word to death , it loses meaning and we live in a quantum world. He is stuck in the classical world. Quantum physics has observers and measurement and quantum states that are completely unknowable and uncontrollable.
@@rl7012We don't have any control to what we want because there's a reason behind why we want this why we want that as long as reason exists we can't have absolute true free will free from everything.
Using the icecream scenario since that's what the video had - What if one were to chose between two bowls of vanilla ice cream that had the exact same amount of icecream in it, in the exact same bowls, kept side by side. Would that constitute free will since there isnt a 'want' of either one of it in particular?
But there is. For example, if you’re right-handed, that might make you more likely to grab the bowl on the right. This is an example of a puppet not seeing its strings and falsely concluding that the strings don’t exist.
@@Rio-zh2wb Wrong, these are assumptions (being right hand, etc). There is no proof against or for free will. We dont know. This was chewed since millenia. We dont even know how the brain works, or consciousness.
I thank my attention deficit disorder for helping me to enunciate my lack of free will when I threw that rock hitting my bullying physical education teacher square between the eyes for teasing me about not being eligible to try out to be a baseball pitcher on that fateful day of 1990. The principal didn't buy it, but I remembered ever after the truth that I have no free will, nor do any other of my fellow humans.
More precisely, free will is about the ability to interrupt from COMPULSIVE action. if you are aware, you can do it, free will goes together with awareness.
Actually when your “forced to do something” you aren’t. Even if severe punishment will follow not doing something you still “want” to not deal with punishment rather than doing the task. Only exception being prison where no matter what u will be physically forced in there
Agree. Other exceptions: blinking, breathing, and anything that you do automatically and unconsciously. You are "forced" to do this by your brain, then...
@@soybean3423 I would contest those. You blink because your eyes get dry, and you implicitly "want" to make it stop. It may be automatic, but there is still a choice to continue.
I was looking for an example of being forced to do something. It seems to me that all of those would still come down to a want. I'm not sure that even your example of being forced in prison works. You could fight the correctional officers & they might have to kill you. If they succeeded in transporting you to prison without killing you, I'm still not sure that it works. Once in prison, you could refuse to do whatever they told you, no matter what the consequences were. You still wouldn't be forced to do anything, at least not that I can think of. Being forced into a location seems different than doing something.
@@SpikeShroom @soybean blinking, breathing, those are involuntary actions. If you want to argue that you could not blink until you go blind, or hold your breath til death, consider your heartbeat, you cant choose for it to stop right now. These are involuntary processes. Alex carefully chose his free will definition because we do have voluntary choices, it's just that once they're made, they never would have been different.
Dear Alex, Free will is an overcomplicated concept because of all the religious and societal baggage that word got saddled with. The problem at its core is the ability to decide between, say, two choices A or B, and whether the choice made is predictable or not. Let’s look at all constituents of that situation. 1. Input data. 2. A brain, that makes the decision. 3. Output choice: A or B. Let’s start with the brain first. Our brains are probability calculating engines. The Brain is programmed from the very beginning of the formation of the first neural cell, until the brain’s death. The brain also comes with preprogrammed models to drive various functions and emotions, obtained through evolution and environment. The brain contains a model of the world that is influenced by every input it receives through its various sensors. This model is shaped and reshaped throughout its life as the input data is received by the brain. Input data could take many forms - From touch, vision, sound, taste, smell, etc. - To chemicals such as hormones, whether from your own body, or your mother’s body during pregnancy, or environment, etc. - There are also meta Input Data that could influence the model such as language, emotions, the experience of others, past experience, observations, learning, etc. - Input Also could take the form of societal norms, rules and/or regulations, shame, love, hate, etc. Let us assume that we have a system of Input data and a brain model such as: - We can provide a very precise and perfectly known input data set. - Also, we can provide a very precise and perfectly known brain and brain model starting point. - Let’s also assume that system, if provided a choice between A or B, that A would have a higher probability to be selected by that system, hence that system will choose A. Now, the people who would say that we have free will, argue that even though the system is predisposed to choosing A, that system could choose B instead. People who would say that we don’t have free will, argue that the system will choose A no matter what. And we don’t have a choice. For that system to choose B instead of A, would mean that there is an input data condition that we did not account for, hence the input data set is not perfect or complete, which violate the assumption. Hence, we don’t have free will. In my opinion, the reason people get confused about this illusion of free will is that the probability calculating engine (our brains) is constantly and recursively being updated by the experiences we have on a second by second basis. Also, the set of input data into the brain is large and complex, not to mention the combinatorial factor of how all that data is processed in our brains. This is, as referred to it by Data Science as an AI-complete problem. The decision tree is vast, but not infinite. If we have a big enough computer (let’s go crazy, the size of the sun) with “perfect” input data set and “perfect” model of that brain at that point, we can predict the outcome and choice. So, if that is the case, then anyone who will commit a crime, could claim that she has no choice and it was predestined, yes? No! one of the inputs in the input data set is societal norms, rules, regulation, etc. this is another variable that could shape our world model in the brain. So, if this probability calculating engine decided on B instead of A (where B happened to be illegal) they will suffer the consequences. But more importantly for this discussion, there is an input condition in this brain’s life that made it set low priority or low weight to the legal and societal rules, and for that, it needs to be corrected. Having rule enforcement in our society ought to help shape the model for these probability calculating engines, toward the betterment of society. The other aspect of this, is if the brain itself was deficient or broken in some way to allow it to choose B instead of A, No matter what the input data set is (training, or rules, regulation, or experience) then you can say this person is not responsible for their crime (choosing B) and should be treated differently (send to a mental institute, instead of jail). I wish the atheist community stop using the “free will” terminology because it is awash with imprecision and theological baggage that misses representing reality. Whenever we try to explain it, we always get wrapped around the axel. The model above is derived directly from Neural Science and AI research. Thank you for all your great work.
I don't disagree with your comment, but you are ironically part of the problem why concept of free will (its nonexistence) is harder to grasp than it needs to be. You make it way too complicated. The fundamental mistake I think is to argue (firstly) from the point of brain science to debunk free will, when we have the logical killshot under our noses. Choice is either: 1. predetermined 2. random You could even have full reign over the universe and laws that govern it, but you wouldn't be able to make it as such, where you would escape choice being random or predetermined.
@@25hvghfgetr6 which is exactly why we are also in a simulation, acting out our roles. No universe can escape predictability, so reality means absolutely nothing anywhere.
@@optionsstrategies7511 yes... Think we want? When we think we want something we actually want that thing..but.we cant control what we want...we cant control our choice of want.
Sam's Studio Certainly there are things in your life that you have wanted and no longer want. Or there are things you thought you wanted, but then decided you did not want. What is the force controlling this desire and these changes?
This is *such* a fantastic mott and bailey. He claims he is going from the assumption that free will means "we could have acted differently" and then immediately defines it in an extremist form that no one supports: "We have free will if and only if we knew all the factors affecting us and were in complete control of them." If you had partial knowledge of your influences, and partial control over them (for example, at least weighting some more than others), you still could have acted differently, and met his original definition of free will. Of course, since he cannot proof that we have no awareness and no influence, he immediately constructs a much more extreme and fragile argument. Can you choose to want? Absolutely. People can and do change their desires. What you focus on shapes your desires. For example, smokers told to pay close attention to the sensory experience of smoking desire to smoke less than people not attending to it. So, if we can in fact change our desires based on what we attend to or focus on, we can change our desires and his entire argument fails. Of course, he try to turn this into an infinite regress, saying that what we attend to is shaped by our wants. But that's an assumption on his part. It is just as likely, that our attention is, in fact, the location of our freed. And that is what we actually experience: that *sometimes* we choose where to put our focus, and that shapes both our outcomes and our desires. Now either could be true, one is clearly more supported by our experience, but Alex assumes the second without proof and bases his argument on it. He offers a broken analogy: think of something you want, and try to not want it. That fails because it's patently not how the brain works. Try NOT thinking about a pink elephant, etc. However, you can absolutely intentionally focus on something else (or like the in the case of cigarettes, focus more on the thing itself and realize how unpleasant it is), and actually change your desire. This is only an infinite regress for Alex because his thinking is a tautology. Things must be determined -> I have want -> therefore my wants must be determined -> therefore when I do what I want, I am not free. But if you remove the initial assumption: I have a want -> When a I do what I want I am -> ??? For example, in the case above, with focus / attention as the basis of a freedom, the reasoning is: I have wants which are combination of external factors + my free attention -> I act on those factors -> my actions are partially free -> because there is freedom in my actions, I could have acted differently based on my attention -> because I could have acted differently is our definition of freedom, I am free. Of course, you can choose which to assume at the beginning, determinism or freedom. But because one aligns so much more with our experience, and there's little to no evidence for the contrary (remember, all of Alex arguments rely on the assumption of determinism first)... I would say, go with the one that actually matches experience.
"What you focus on shapes your desires". Do we choose what we focus on? What we focus on is just what we want to focus on, and can we control our wants? You say yes, by deciding what to focus on, and we are now in a circular dilemma. What do you think of this?
@@AlejandroFernandez05 Funny observation: this is a conversation between Alec & Alejandro about Alex. I think you missed the point of my statement above, so I will attempt to explain more clearly. The infinite regress (or what you call circular dilemma) is of your creation, because *you* are the one saying "we focus on what we want to focus on." I didn't say that, and so I don't have an infinite regress. In fact, I spent some time in the comment above highlight that Alex has this exact problem. He's creating an infinite regress because of his assumptions, but one does not have to accept his assumptions. In my view, you can (and by default do) focus on what you want... but you are free to focus on anything you are aware of. So yes, you *can* behave in a a determined many, but you also can choose not to; much like how breathing can be reflexive or voluntary. But, you ask, "What *determines* whether you focus on what you want or something else?" Because what you deliberately focus IS your free will (or at least, how you exercise it), this is as silly as asking "But what determines your free will?" Nothing determines whether you exercise your free will; it's free. That's the point. If I don't assume determinism, I don't have to have something to determine my free will. =================== The arguments in detail =================== Your argument boils down to 1) (Premise) everything must be determined and 2) (Premise) "want" means whatever we are internally motivated, therefore 3) (conclusion) our wants must be determined and cannot have behaved differently. #3 is logically correct based on your premises, but I would argue with both of your premises (#1 and #2) Criticism of #1: Whether or not our wants are determined is actually part of what we're supposed to be proving, so we can't assume it. Criticism of #2: Want is very poorly defined. According to you and Alex, want is whatever internally motivates you. This doesn't really reflect how the brain works, because the brain has multiple systems of motivation that behave in different ways as well as meta-processes that analyze or judge motivations. So "wanting" in this sense doesn't really refer to any biological or physical reality, it's just meant to describe the totality of what goes on in your head, which could be any number of processes free or determined, conscious or unconscious, etc. These processes do not have to be determined, unless you're assuming #1, but you can't assume number one because that's what you need to prove. That's why you're getting a circular dilemma when you try to examine free will while keeping your premises. My argument is not circular: 1) (Premise) Desires (referring specifically to both short and long-term systems) and even thoughts can be determined in the sense that they are wholly "unfree, " or that all the influences upon them are completely beyond the reach of freedom. I don't assert that they are, and in fact there could easily also be randomness or freedom involved. But lets assume they are unfree for simplicity. 2) (Premise) Attention can operate either reflexively (outside our awareness and/or freedom) OR under free will. You can think of attention as a dual control system, like breathing. It can happen outside your awareness (and outside of your control), or it can be intentionally controlled. The deliberate movement of our attention not under our control; it *IS* our control. It is not our wants, it is operating on our wants. And it needs no cause beyond freedom 3) (Conclusion) The fact that we *can* exercise free will in our attentions means that, whether or not our behavior in a particular case was determined, it could have been partially free, so we always *could* have done something differently. Since that is Alex's definition of freedom (and I whole heartedly agree), we are free. If you have difficulty with premise #2, it's because you're asking: "but what *determines* whether we intentionally shift our focus?" By using the word "determines," you are inserting your premise of determinism into my argument and creating an infinite regress / circular dilemma where there is none. You are basically asking: "But what determines free will?" It's a nonsense question. Things do not have to be determined in my argument. Because I don't assume determinism, I don't have to have a determinant for free will. Perhaps underlying your assumption (your premise #1, everything must be determined), your full argument is more like: a) everything physical is be determined b) we are physical beings, therefore c) everything we do must be determined. Again, you can assume that for your argument, but I don't have to. Particularly with number #1, I don't have to assume that the physical universe is deterministic. For example, does a rock fall when you drop it because the universe is determined or simply because it lacks the mechanisms of movement (the physical capability to do other wise, like wings) and awareness (the potential for freedom in choose what you focus on). Either could accurately describe why the rock always falls. So the universe could be determined or free. Also helpful for my premise #2 is more of an Eastern / meditative view of the self. In the West, we strongly identify what we are with our thoughts and desires. But when you meditate, bringing awareness to your thoughts, you start to notice a few things. 1) Thoughts just pop up on their own, uncontrolled, and so what you think really isn't up to you 2) There is something observing those thoughts, so that "we" are more than the sum of our thoughts and desires 3) We can choose to focus on a thought or let it go. This is our freedom. You don't have to meditate to be free, but it is one of the purest experiences of freedom because we de-identify with our desires... but some amount of freedom could still be expressed while identifying with them.
When I was a little kid, I didn't have the illusion of free will. It seemed kind of unfair that my parents would punish me for something, when I didn't feel I had any control over whether I did it or not. It was when I was about 6 or 7 that I started to think I had control over my choices.
It would seem that punishments/consequences for your childhood actions were designed to create a want strong enough to act against your current wants. Building up your Id, ego and superego in the design of your parents.
THIS IS THE END TIMES🔥🔥🔥.ENOUGH WITH ATHEISM FOOLISHNESS. YOU ARE ALL STUCK IN PLATO'S CAVE AND SATAN 'S MATRIX OF LIES. THE SPIRITUAL REALM IS REAL. REPENT OF YOUR SINS AND TRUST THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. YOU WILL BE SAVED FROM HELL 🔥 ua-cam.com/video/bVlfo0KHlVc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/myaroler0wM/v-deo.html Your soul is on the line. Jesus is coming soooon. Jesus loves you❤
@@loocypher150🤣😅.But it's not certain yet. Heaven and Hell is like a quantum phenomenon in which 0 and 1 can coexist at the same time but your consciousness gets to decide/observe. We live in a quantum reality. Example the double slit experiment. The electrons are estimated to be moving in on the two paths simultaneously until the final observation is made. That's what heaven and Hell is like. If you are saved by Jesus, heaven is a certainty. But if you are not yet saved it's not yet certain where you are going. Until you finally take that jump. And since you are not allowed to see the end Until you reach the end. God sees your end. But it's you who is accountably walking towards that end. Have you watched TeNeT? "What has happened happened" but until you see the end you will never know. But For us who are saved we certainly know. The offer of forgiveness from God is offered to you NOW. 2 Corinthians 6:2 ..Today is the day of salvation Albert Einstein proved that time is a relative illusion in his theory of general relativity. The only time that truly exists is the NOW. You can use it with your God given free will to reject or accept God's forgiveness. To reject or accept God's love. Heaven or Hell. The choice is ultimately your's..
7:40 what about the case of people like david goggins who were initially lazy and fat then became insanely hard working men, how did they experience a sudden and completely drastic change in their priority of desires i.e how did the desire to go to gym stay fit get healthy triumph the desire to not go to the gym and stay fat in a very drastic sudden manner when the priority of desires was opposite just before? What causes the shift in priority of a desire about a matter? Why do we love chocolates as kids then not so much as adults ( some do obv)?
Everstruggling You are right that Buddhists don’t believe a human can fully rid themselves of any desire. They do however believe you can curb and temper those desires (The Middle Way). Therefore, a Buddhist would agree that our desires/wants have strong influence over our minds and our decisions and that there is no way to totally eradicate them. However, they would disagree (with the guy in this video) that it is impossible to want something and then decide not to want it. The more you practice not wanting something the more you don’t want it, and therefore, you choose what you want. It’s a long process that takes a crazy amount of willpower and focus, but it can be done. Once you curb one desire, another may pop up as you go through life and circumstances change, and you’ll have to start the process all over again. There’s really no difference from this belief and behavioral psychology. If you believe you can retrain your brain and change habits, then you should believe that we have control over our wants. They go hand in hand. But I can understand peoples’ confusion because westernized culture teaches us to do the opposite and blindly satisfy our desires from the time we’re born. One could argue, following this video's logic, that the desire to curb your desire is in itself a want, and therefore, that desire must have been stronger (due to pre-determined circumstances) than the desire not to change one's behavior. But anyone that has suffered from any kind of addiction can tell you that they can be so chemically dependent on their object of desire that they seem to crave it with every fiber of their being. And yet, one will at some point face that inevitable and pivotal choice: whether to give in to their desire for temporary pleasure or fight back against it in order to reclaim their freedom. To me, this is evidence of another aspect of our brain that moves past our simple wants/desires. It's some kind of willpower/force science and classic logic fails to explain. Some may call this one's spirit or soul. And this goes back to the age old debate over whether man's mind is distinct from one's soul and vice versa. So, I guess you could say this video is only true if you don't believe in the existence of the soul. And neuroscience just hasn't gone far enough yet to be able to rule it out. And therefore, how can we say every choice is a product of our desire if we are yet to fully understand where that desire stems from? As of yet, I'm not convinced one way or another that free will exists or doesn't exist. But if it doesn't exist, I don't think it's because of the reasons in this video. If anything, I find it more likely that our lives are already laid out before us due to forces beyond our comprehension. Whether that means we're just pawns in a simulation and our choices are a complete illusion; or our understanding of time is skewed and everything that will happen has already happened and will always be; or both; or something else entirely. Either way, humans always gravitate toward black and white answers. But the truth is rarely simple. My personal belief is that it's a little of both (a combination of fate/free will): that we are destined for some experiences and have choices over others. And this goes back to the Buddhist idea of the soul and reincarnation and the choice to either take the opportunity to temper our desires and free our spirit or let it pass us by and be born again...
Everstruggling You don’t need to want to become a monk to want to be a better person. I’m sorry if that is a difficult concept for you to grasp. And i find it funny you think I helped prove your point, because I feel like you helped prove mine with your question. I’ve never met one person that doesn’t want to be successful or grow as a person in some way, unless they have some kind of psychosis. The main thing that differentiates people who want to get better with those who choose complacency, is that the former takes responsibility for their actions. Really think about why the idea of there being no free will comforts you so much. It’s appealing for a reason. Also, people these days are always angry if you use “too many words.” God forbid they put effort and brainpower into understanding anything more complex than what can be depicted in a meme. And psychology is a lot more complicated than a simple saying. I’ve read countless books and taken courses and gone to psychologists myself, so I know plenty. Anyway, knowledge and what’s written in the textbooks isn’t everything. People can memorize every fact in the world and still know nothing. Just like everything else, the field of psychology relies a lot on one’s intuition since there is actually very little proven about the human brain. Until we understand more, I don’t see it as appropriate for some UA-camr (credentials unknown) to make blanket claims - in the name of “philosophizing” about free will and our desires - with no real evidence to support it. We don’t yet understand where our wants stem from, and therefore, I don’t see how anyone could make a statement like that with absolute certainty.
Free will and gods punishment was something I always struggled to believe too. What convinced me was imagining that I was a scientist who had the ability to create life and who could also see into the future. I can create a being and hardwire every single desire and thought process of this being. Not only that, but based on precisely where I raised this being and the exact people this being grew up around, I would know exactly their desires, beliefs, and life path. Now, this is even less than what god can do. My thought was, how can a god, who made me with the specific desires and thought processes that I have, and put me specifically in a home and surrounded by people where he knew exactly how they would affect me (i.e. god is in control of both nature and nurture), how could a god like this fault me for any of the decisions I 'choose' to make?
Well Christians will say God only created the first two humans. Other humans came through reproduction. Still God should not held us responsible. He knew it will happen and should have stop it. Then again if someone thought a wrong thought, that doesn’t excuse them to commit it.
@@polandball999 Right. That doesn’t mean he cause it, but allowing it is just as bad. Before you say God created us. He didn’t. Only the first two people who were said to be prefect until they are the fruit. Besides having a bad thought doesn’t mean you should act on it. Unless you was raise wrongly, you could have rebuke those thoughts.
@@Bunni504 but god made me uncapable of not getting the proof, he changes environmental facts, and hardwire my thought process, he knew i would do that, i can choose to not do it, but that is just an illusion since god created me knowing i wouldnt get the apple
this reminds me of what I used to think in the childhood. when ever an ant was passing, I'd think that if I kill the ant right now, that's the death the god has decided for the ant and if I don't do that but kill it after five minutes then that's also decided and if I don't do anything of them and just let it go then that is also decided by the god. I used to be very confused because of that.
Free will doesn't imply the supernatural ability to transcend your identity and instantiate a different set of desires than the ones you come hard wired with. Free will implies the mental capacity to exercise conscious choice within an available context. It is a psychological phenomenon, not a metaphysical power. By consciously choosing to reject free will, you are inescapably exercising it (in the psychological sense - the only sense in which free will can meaningfully apply).
Is exercising a conscious choice meaningful if you don't control the reasons behind that choice? I would argue that even if you think it is, the choice we make is still deterministic in nature. If we were to make an exact copy of you, with the exact same brain state and put you both into an identical room then all of your choices would be the exact same. You would both say the exact same things at the same time etc.
Libertarian Realist Right, that's a different definition, one that basically boils down to "we have free will because we feel like we have free will" which Alex mentioned. Can an entity have no consciousness but still have free will? Can an entity have no free will but still be conscious? How would that work? If not, what's the difference between free will and consciousness? If there's no difference, free will is a redundant term.
michaelmath Puffy would agree with you..... :3 This whole "free will vs. determinism" thing is ridiculous by default..... :3 Can't Fight The Systemagic..... :3
By invoking the concept "you," you are presupposing the existence of a being with a particular identity. Yes, an exact copy of me would make the same choices given exactly the same circumstances. That doesn't mean the choices aren't real as mental processes. Would only the choices of a boundless, unlimited consciousness capable of transcending the law of identity count as "free"? I don't think that's the basis of the concept of free will or what proponents of it believe.
While true free will is nonexsistant due to physical, legal, or other limitations l like my little illusion of being able to make choices about personal expression.
Indeed, our brains evolved "fooling" themselves so as to make us convinced that we have free will. This is because (becasue) for a highly intelligent species the idea of free will not existing would be quite hard to swallow and therefore would prove to be PROBLEMATIC both socially as well as for individuals, hindering the ability to survive and reproduce, so this position of blissful ignorance is 100% logical.
you can like the illusion while being completely aware of it though. or are you telling me that since you got convinced about the lack of free will you don't feel like you make decisions anymore? ever?
I absolutely understand, for all practical reasons we have free will, randomness exists, there may as well be a god, etc. What is true and what is practical are two different things.
Cognitive dissonance can be hard to get through. Skeptics are really just intellectual masochists. We've grown fond of hurting ourselves in the pursuit of truth. But it's not like you can help it. Once your brain has stopped resisting by forwarding confirmation bias, you'll most likely keep coming back until it has found a satisfactory solution.
One day I went into dairy queen to order an oreo blizzard. Went up to the menu and I looked at the new blizzard of the month and was a red cake blizzard. I always preferred choc cookies in my ice cream before anything else and it didn't look so great but I decided ( I think anyway) to take a chance for once and get something different. Was that an exercise of free will or predetermined by an impulse?
The debate dissolves when you take an honest perspective of your opponents position (I have Free Will). This video will mean nothing to them, because of reasons you eluded to early. It's a problem of Symantecs. When you say you don't have the ability to pre-determine your wants. They say I don't need to. I know what I want and why. I could choose otherwise but I don't want to; hence I am exercising my free will by wanting this want rather than that. They are unable to see the fallacious nature of this logic. It's circlular reasoning with a dash of ad absurdum. Couple your arguments against free will with some critical thinking lessons for a complete demolishion of their delusion. :) Great vid btw I always at the end of this debate give an uplifting. "Don't worry too much over what you never had, you got this far without it ;)
Makeshift Altruist Agreed, mostly. There are simply some tragic horrors that befall us due to some of these kinds of delusions. I don't know how to present the information to people in a way that convinces them of the need to stop retributive responses, to have more forgiveness and compassion. It's true, we got this far with no free will while thinking it was coherent, that we had it. But it seems to me we could do far better facing the facts - no matter how bleak they might seem - in the long run. The false positives have a way of coming back around and biting us.
I think there may be a fine distinction between 'free will' as in: the ability to choose, and autonomy as in: the ability to choose free of influence. BTW I love your videos, your ability to think critically and logically is incredible and something I strive to achieve as well.
We are the sum of our senses, the society we live in, our culture, and the people around us. It is impossible to have free will (free of influence). Just take a look at how hormones control what we think and do.
Are you saying you are aware of, and exert conscious control of the cascade of electrical and chemical reactions that happen in your brain continuously? Unique.
@@TesterAnimal1 I am not saying that, we are not in control of the chemical reactions in our brain. I'm basically saying that the chemicals and hormones in our brain control us.
Yes this cosmic person unwittingly is deterministic in the way reformed theology teaches. I wonder if he is familiar with infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism. I don't think so however. He reads Richard Dawkins books.
Calvanists might be right about free will, but they are pretty wrong about everything else... especially what it implies. Free will (or not) isn't a problem unless you posit the existence of a being which can actually predict everything. For us mortals, free will is just a very practical illusion. There's no more use worrying/arguing about free will than there is in trying to prove the statement "This is not a sentence." is true or false.
Calvinism doesn't teach free will doesn't exist. Hypercalvinism does. Mainly, the Calvinist would say free will is overpowered for soteriological purposes.
I would argue, that to a certain degree we can control the degrees or intensity to which we desire what we “want” across multiple dimensions because we organize those “wants” into a hierarchy and inter connect them with one another. As we change different areas in our lives, we rearrange the hierarchy, and shift multiple items based on the initial change. For instance, the decision to go to the gym is not only a shift in want, it is a shift in value structure, and therefore you’ll shift multiple other “wants” within your hierarchy of wants in order to align yourself with the new value. I do agree that changes like this are rare and take conscious effort, but we are most definitely capable of shifting our wants. I think a better argument for free will would be that the future is already predetermined, and therefore we will always fall prey to the future.
I agree that you can change your "wants" by changing your cognitive value structure. But you will change this structure because you want to do it. And then you will try very hard and think about it and question it, because you want to do so. In the end you have changed your "wants" by using your wants or being forced to by a therapist or someone/something else. In no point you are free of your "wants". At least according to Alex ;)
This is what I am currently doing: diving deep into this topic and changing my wants and desires. My desire to sit on the couch or be on the computer is stronger than my desire to go to the gym. As soon as the thought of going to the gym arises in my mind, I ask myself why my desire to work out and improve my appearance and well-being is less compelling. Clearly, one option involves more effort but offers long-term benefits, while the other requires less effort and provides immediate gratification. Without delving too deeply into our reward system, I aim to make my desire to work out stronger than my inclination to sit idle. The desire to desire something is potent, whether we believe in free will or not. This shift in priorities is the most powerful step I've taken to accomplish more.
Oh I know I do...his definitions are terrible and I don't agree with them XD It's the cult problem all over again where depending on your definition the impact of it loses all meaning.
If we define free will as "the ability to have acted differently" then it is defined in past tense, and can't be applied to the present. Nothing has ability (present) to have done (past) differently. Present can't change past. What is true though, is that hypothetically, IF things were different in the past, we could have acted differently in the past. But the current definition is a no-brainer, because we know that things were as they were, therefore we did as we did. Or the other way around, we did as we did, therfore things were as they were. It has nothing to do with consciousness really, cause your consciousness is always here and now, not there and then. The definition is in some weird hypothetical way referring to "a changing of the past" which can't be done. Nor can we say it could be otherwise, because it was simply not otherwise. So it's useless to define free will by reflecting on the past. The definition in and of itself is merely hypothetical, and we know that this hypothesis is in fact false. So the definition directly contradicts the intended purpose of the words. It can in some sense be translated to "free will is the ability to change the past," but we know for a fact that we can't. But if we set aside the past for a moment, it does not eliminate the possibility of us having some kind of free will here and now. Even though we in the future can't prove that our will in this moment was free, because we can't prove that we could have done differently. In reality, we can't really scientifically prove subjective experiences. And free will is exactly that, a subjective experience. I wonder, is everything determined, or does it become determined the very same instance it happens? 'Cause as soon as something happens, it is in the past. And the past is unchangeable, therefore it couldn't be otherwise ie determined. Can anyone else see this?
I'm still confused on all of this. But, I do agree that since the past is unchangeable, a thing becomes determined at an infinitesimally small measurement of time after it happens. But that does not get rid of free will unless I do some more thinking to get that conclusion.
I see your point more now. Since we cannot know how other people experience in the present i.e. get in their head while still being yourself in the present, you cannot know if they have free will. To experience what they experience is to be them. Free will is a purely subjective experience by definition since it is based on a subject. And you can only be one subject: yourself. Right or no?
@@hellothere-hx5by Yes, that's a nice way of putting it! Free will can only exists in the present moment as a subjective experience, therefore it's not for science (or a youtuber) to prove/disprove it. But we can conclude that if free will is merely an illusion, then all subjective experience is an illusion, hence the whole universe (including science) is nothing but an illusion. And some people do actually believe that to be the case. But at the end of the day, people can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change our subjective experience of existing here and now. Even science can't deny this, as scientists themselves use their subjective experience in their observations.
the fact that we are beings capable of producing an infinite number of desires and that we can consciously pick one desire over another, is enough evidence of free will for me.
The whole premise of the video of we can’t control what we want is just untrue. To a large degree, we can start choosing differently by focusing on the positives of the things we want to choose. It is so common we call it rationalization. The video maker seems smart enough, I wonder how did he miss the point … or did he just went straight to absolutism to be able to make a video.
@@scoobydoo9579I don't share your opinion, if you rationalize, it is because you want to, and you didn't chose to want it, for everything you do, or think, there was something which motivated you to do so, otherwise you wouldn't do it
@@gregvanb Interesting. In your view, when we are "motivated" to do something -- what do you call that motivation if it is not rationalization? Or are you suggesting human should operate purely on impulse -- the same way a sea cucumber would?
@@scoobydoo9579 what I'm saying is that if you rationalize, it is because you have the ability to do so (which you have no control on), and the will to do it the moment you do it. For example if you're in a moment when you are too emotional, you won't be able to rationalize immediately but then you'll do it once you realize that to just follow your emotions might not be the best way to deal with your actual situation (so there is one or many reasons that leads to rationalize, but you don't choose to do so from nowhere, if you do something you have reason(s) to do it, otherwise you wouldn't do it). So every decision, thoughts, change of opinion, action etc. you make is actually the consequence of a lot of different things that happened before you make it. An idea doesn't come from nowhere, your brain doesn't generate ideas from nowhere, and if it did it would mean that we all are gods at our own level
@@gregvanb You lost me there. Is your view that our every decision is the "natural" results of trillions of factors we can't control, and therefore we don't have free will? And why must we be "gods" just because we can create an idea out of nothing -- can't God create us to be able to create an idea out of nothing -- especially if that's what giving us "free will" means?
Even if you can’t control what you want, the precise outcome of your actions in doing what you want are not known to you. Also, a chain of wants that leads to the final want gives the feeling of free will, as you have no memory on a conscious level of every experience that led you to that point. It’s more of a feeling.
But why do you want your outcome to be doing what you want? If your outcome makes someone happy, then that is what you wanted. Whether you successfully made them happy or not doesn't matter, what matters is, that is what you wanted to achieve. So the outcome doesn't really matter. What matters is what made you chose the option that you did. Your want for something made you choose that option. Even if you don't remember all experiences, it doesn't mean they don't influence your decisions. You don't have to remember precisely the time when you were 3 years old and you put your hand on hot plate and burn it to know that this will happen if you do it now. You experienced it and your brain remembers it, it remembers what it needs to remember for you to not make such a mistake again.
This makes no sense at all. What are you trying to argue? The more confident you are that you have free does absolutely nothing. You concede you can't control your wants, and the only driving force behind your actions are your wants. Self delusion does not grant you free will all of a sudden
@@The_Jumpman I think they are answering the question why do we feel we have free will, they are not arguing/disagreeing with anything they are adding to what Alex is discussing.
7:36.... Now I'm curious how this relates to relationships. My 31yr old ex fiancé left for a 17yr old, leaving me homeless and having to take him to court to get my car back, and still he defended himself with, he's just trying to be happy. I just wanted my car to sleep in and get over what happened. After 7 years with him, I knew he'd grown and changed over time, but couldn't see how he'd done it. I somewhat understand now how his insecurities about his age and sense of impending death had effected his wants over time. I couldn't change what he wanted and I have to accept that if I want to move forward. Sorry, this may be unrelated but I'm glad this video got me thinking.
This is a very rational and mature reaction, one that you no doubt did not feel at first, as we are dominated by our emotions, but understanding that we lack free will really ought to increase our empathy for others, even others who seem to have done us wrong. As you say, there are so many reasons behind what happened between you two, and it is impossible to work them all out, and even if you did it would not do anything to change it. He just did the sort of things that the type of person he is was going to do. You too. Men are cursed in some sense by our sexual attractions to younger women. We are biologically programmed (most of us, anyway, there are lots of exceptions) to want to spread our self as far as possible, and to go after what our programming tells us are the most healthy specimens. It's very cold and clinical, but it really does explian a lot of male behaviour. The veneer of civilisation and marriage and monogamy and all that cannot tamp this drive down. The sexual drive is the most powerful in animals. My own story is somewhat similar, me being the bad guy. I never did it because I wanted to hurt anyone, in fact quite the opposite. Knowing I had hurt the mother of my daughter was very painful, but I was not in love with her any longer, and was in love with someone else (who ended up leaving me for someone younger, how's that for poetic justice!). Here I am, all philosophically minded and I still am reeling from this loss almost 4 years later. Knowing that we don't have free will does help with our empathy, but we still are deeply governed by irrational emotions.
But we must reduce things, for this it what science is supposed to do. We must be honest of what the science shows, otherwise we are constructing falsehoods to avoid the obvious uncomfortable facts. You are suggesting constructing some kind of religion, of made up ideas, over science to make things fit an old, religious world of "morals" and "ethics"
Morals and ethics have no scientific evidence proving they exist; they are as made up as religion, just stories to exert power and constrain freedom...
I would also argue, from a sociological perspective, that we don’t have free will because we are inevitably influenced by external factors since birth. These factors influence our wants, and how we act and our ‘free will’. Great video
Well I guess it's impossible for us not to be influenced by external factors since day one of our life outside our mothers. It's a good question from you but think about it - animals, bears let's say, how could they possibly survive if their parents gave them free choice to eat or not to eat and what to eat. Do you think them being infants could possibly have the "free will", I mean "free will" to do EVERYTHING on even such basic level of existence? They'd die after few days. Few hours maybe? Parents provide house, provide food, warmth and make sure their offspring don't drown in their own excrements. If a one day old being was suppose to decide about himself from the day one, he would have to have any base of experience anyway. If you know what I mean. Cheers :P
Fun video! On a small note, I would like to put in a small bit of info in relation to the chocolate vs vanilla ice cream bit. Beyond you not necessarily having the ability to freely choose for yourself and your choice being pre determined, you actually have even less controll over flavor profiles, given that a majority of our food based preferences are controlled by the micro biome inside of our stomach ("The Second Brain"). An uncountable number of tiny organisms; sometimes "large" ones as well 🤢, that release chemicals to sway you into eating what they want to eat rather than what you would like or need to eat. Hilariously, their dietary choices would fall victim to a biological sort of determinism as well! Make of that what you will! Never the less, just try to enjoy the ice 😅 cream!
There is a want behind all Force. Someone 'forces' you to do something can only happen if you want something. You want to stay alive so you do whatever the gunmen says. So 'force' seems to be an illusion as well. Also, your example seems to assume you can't want two things equally. Can you want 2 things equally? Can you want 2 things close enough to go either way? Can free will be hidden in this grey area?
Steven King In the case of wanting two things equally, any action you take towards either option, if mutually exclusive, is due to what you did and wanted up to that point. If the two equal wants aren’t mutually exclusive, then any action you take towards either is based upon the wants and actions you’ve taken up to that point. And if you want both equally, but don’t wind up taking any action towards either, then that lack of action is also dependent on the linear processes that brought you to that point.
@@aidenbusselman9442 Lets say that you could want two things absolutely equally down to every synapse. That is to say that you dont have preference in the matter. If you truly don't want one thing over another, it's truly indifferent to you. But thing here to realize is that having no preference by definition, means that choice is random, it can't be caused by previous moments. Also libertarian free will cannot be behind the choice, because without preferences you run into the wall of randomness.
We are not able to 'control our wants' (choose what we want) at any given moment in time, but realising that we (don't) want one thing (and not another) is an essential first step in evaluating and eventually re-programming (neuroplasticity) those 'wants' (or reactions of rejection, for that matter). Humans are basically empirically-learning (through imitation, initially) automates (relying largely on our (program routine) subconscious) with the added ability of (re-)programming themselves (critical thought)... but granted that much of the human population does not use this function, and are indeed 'stuck in their ways'. This is not an argument 'for' free will, by the way: critical thought (self-analysis and re-programming) just makes our role in the universe's 'action-reaction' chain of events more complex, that's all... because even our re-programming abilities, choices, etc. are determined by past experiences, tastes, etc.. Sorry for all the brackets: trying to say a lot in a few words, here.
@J.M. Schomburg - I really appreciate your comments and ideas (how could I not?) as it was something I was wanting to explore further and I think you're on to something. It would still deterministic that someone (person A), being able to evaluate and reprogram their wants, does while person B (someone without the function of reprogramming for any myriad of reasons), does not (and hence are stuck in their ways). Correct? Again, thanks for the thoughts!
Crown Kira - and what makes you think that I am not someone who thinks and ponders a lot? I have been doing there for over 60 years - thank you for your advice!
What is free will: The ability to have acted differently 1. You can't control your wants: - Try to think about so thing you want - now try not wanting it. - Try to think of something you don't want - now try to want it. - This is not possible. 2. You will only do anything because you either want to or because you're forced to. Everything is controlled by your wants. 3. Everybody feels like they have free will / control over their actions 4. Consceptional vs. Personal free will. "Yes, you can do anything you want but you can't, you just can't choose WHAT you want - and where's the freedom in that?" Free will is based on your wants, which you can't control. Acknowledge this and you will be more calm with your choices.
Really? Did you want to write that comment and were not able to not write that comment? No choice made on your part? Free will is based on our choices, which we can control. Acknowledge this and you will be more responsible with your choices.
@@jpt7955 if they chose not to write the comment it would still be based on a want the have whether it be they don't want people to respond or they want to spend their energy on something else etc
Your not forced to do anything. For instance. People with drug addictions who are trying to detox from alcohol or heroin may want to drink alcohol or do heroin but they have the decision (chose) to deny thereselves and say NO! I WILL NOT SHOOT UP HEROIN! No Matter how bad you might want something you can (free willingly) Choose what you want to do. Free will exist
"it just is" - not a very convincing argument. A mind made of flesh 8:58 ? interesting, I don't think that assertion has, as yet, been confirmed (and this is 5 yrs on from when you posted this). "Yes, you can do whatever you want, you just can't choose what it is that you want." If this statement is an axiom, then why should anything you have said in this video (that you didn't choose to want to make) be accepted as a true statement on reality? After all, you had no control what-so-ever over what you just said, its all merely the result of an ancient chain of causation that stretches all the way back to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. By your logic you could not be "forced" to do anything either. Whether you did or did not take a particular course of action is entirely out of your (or anyone else's) control. To imply that predetermined actions can be forced, would be a logical fallacy. It's all just a pantomime of which we are each the unwitting actors. For whose entertainment?
youre not confused, your want to understand is outmatched by your want for a more simple explanation or your want for free will. dont worry though, my want to judge you for not understanding is outmatched by my want to understand your lack of understanding is controlled by something that is not your free will, as your free will is non-existent.
Akryloth yes it will . If anything it will make your more unlikely to have kids, when you realise humans are just slaves of conscious and unconscious desires. There is no point to life. And pain and suffering is inevitable
@@lepetitchat123 This kind of realisation don't change anything about our lives we just keep living the way we always did because that's how humans are
Actually you don't know whether the (non) existence of free will changes anything or a lot about daily life. Predetermined or not, you don't know the future. The fact that it seems not to have had much of an impact in the past, makes you think that way but it does not allow you to say anything about changes in the future and even about changes about the past that could had been.
I think "forced to" and "want to" are the same thing in this context. Being forced to do something is still a WANT. You WANT to continue living (if you're forced at a gun point for example). Or if your parents give you and ultimatum to do something or they'll kick you out of the house, you're just WANTING to preserve your well being by doing that thing seemingly forcefully. If you WANT to NOT do the thing you're being forced to more than the consequences (known to you) that will follow, then you'll just not do it and vice versa.
Oh... now I get what you mean by forced, literally and physically. But then if you're pushed off the stage you're just a physical object being influenced by another one(another person) no thought involved. This video is perfect.
You express things well Alex, and it is great that you have chosen this path to discuss so many philosophical ideas. I hope, and indeed, believe, that most of your videas will prompt serious thought and great discussions. I don't think you succeed in what you attempt on this one, but it was for sure a very big ask!
You know you sound like that one guy from Metal Gear Revenge. And I quote: " free will is a myth, religion is a joke, we are pawn, controlled by something far greater than us. MEME, the DNA of our soul, etc." Moonsoon
I've been thinking about the illusion of free will every day for the last 2 years or so to the point were I couldn't even listen in class and had an existential crisis. Thinking about prisons, and the validity of the judiciary and stuff like that. And in all that time, I've never thought about the question of wanting and not wanting like you did in this video. Thank you for this, it's very helpful.
Prisons are not entirely unjustified tho. They influence your wants in a direction compatible with society ie. you have an incentive not to want to hurt people.
You still have to lock dangerous people away (so they stop hurting others), but the judicary system would still change into something that focuses more on rehabilitation rather than punishment if the vast majority actually understood that free will is an illusion. Punishment doesn't do very much when people are aware they're not ultimately responsible for their actions. Of course people still wouldn't want to go to prison, but the effect would still differ.
My issue with this comes down to the very definition of free will that you chose. I think the whole free will debate is a clumsy semantical bungle. You define free will as the ability to have acted differently, but I define free will as simply the ability to choose to do what you want to do. To me, it makes no difference why we want to do things in the first place. The fact that we want to do them makes it our will, and if we indeed have control over our bodies, then we have the power to enact the designs of our will. It's as simple as that. Free will simply exists. It really isn't that complicated.
we can control what we want though. i cant make myself want something and if i could that would be free will. this guy perfectly explained why we dont have free will in the most logical way possible no matter how you define free will.
@@m3ganshea What if I define free will as the ability to do what you want to do, rather than want what you want to want? Sure, you can't do everything you want to do, but it's not like your body is enslaved to a different mind than the one you inhabit.
I seen the title of the video, (in this moment i had a choice) to click on it, or not.......Do i want to watch it? or do i not want to watch it? I wanted to watch it, i clicked on the video. your right, on one level i had a choice, to click or not to click. its here the (want) or(desire) how ever you want to put it, has to be their. We just do the things we want to do, and not the things we don't want to do. subscribe or not subscribe is not a choice, do i want to or do i not want to. Which ever one i do, i am doing it because i want to..... having said all that, i can see how you feel that is a choice, if you think a little deeper you may discover your always doing what you want and their is no free will. its just always doing what you want. lol @@m3ganshea
As a philosopher i have a deep problem with the "wants just are" idea. You didn't pursue that and it makes me have no reason to believe your argument. Where do wants come from? Why do wants change, often outside of our own consciousness? Why is a new want to change your want a pre determined factor and not an instance of me introducing something out of free will? I just feel that this is a bad argument.
True, it's not exactly that he 'just wants it.' The way I interpreted that is that due to a variety of biological, neurochemical, as well as his lived experiences that create positive and negative associations for him, he prefers one thing over the other. But, is he truly completely free in having this preference, or was it in a way predetermined by all of these factors that he's mostly not even aware of?
No, you're not. Sam Harris is an even more dramatic example of someone who tells people what they SHOULD think and believe while telling them they can't choose.
@@KingoftheJuice18 To be fair he's just making his case, not telling you that you should agree with him, you can disagree and think or believe something else.
@@alguno1010101 You're completely right that we can disagree and believe differently, but Sam himself argues for what he thinks is true for everyone. Sam certainly does not feel it's all a matter of personal opinion. That would be so unSam-like!
@Forever Forward Nah, just because I have no free will doesn't mean I listen to everybody or believe anything someone tells me. I actually feel better knowing free will is bs. Also your arguments are useless, whatever will happen will happen, its not that it can be controlled at all. lol
Well, he has no other choice than to make that recommendation, so that doesn't contradict that there is no free will. Anybody interested might chekc the book out, anybody that isn't won't. Whatevs
This is something I've been thinking about given some of my psychonautical experiences with dissociatives and psychedelics. When under the effects of LSD and nitrous oxide I've repeatedly had the strong sense that I wasn't in control of my actions. It literally felt like my body was just moving without me willing it to. At first I was terrified and convinced myself that I was being mind controlled by aliens or something (give me a break, I was tripping), but as I experienced in multiple times after that I sort of came to expect it. Those experiences have brought me to hypthesize that free will is an illusion, and when under the effects of certain mind-altering hallucinogens it breaks that illusion as your consciousness dissociates from your mind. That's essentially what I was experiencing.
Or the mind-alrering substances literally temporarily altered the way your mind was working, and now you're just trying to rationalize the experience that is literally impossible to rationalize because your reality simulation organ wasn't working properly for that short time. Meaning maybe there was no grand revelation or purpose behind your experience. Maybe it was just you having an incoherent nonsensical experience because your brain was temporarily out of whack.
@@liarwithagun the op said that perhaps hallucinogenics disassociate your consciousness from your body, which basically is exactly what your saying. So what is your argument.
but even if you had the ability, you would never live any differently. You don't really have the ability to choose differently if you never would have chosen differently anyway
Apparently UA-cam doesn't always notify subscribers when people upload anymore. Please click the little bell to make sure you see when I do, or follow me on social media (@cosmicskeptic). Let me know what you think of all this.
CosmicSkeptic Love you 😘
I see CosmicSkeptic, I click. Freewill, notwithstanding.
Ok I mentioned this before in my other response, but I'll lay down another video to explain in full how free will is discussed and how it is necessary for you to have free will to do things like knowing truth, or knowing if what you say is true.
I actually foudn it a bit cheeky you glossed over the problem that it introduces of not have interllectual liberty my dude, nice try but I know very well the issue you have there.
Anyway I expect ya to address my points when I make the video. Overall, your points were good but the logic did not follow to it's conclusion, and there's a underlying self defeating idea in your entire argument.
I got notified without the bell. I will click it anyway.
The problem with your idea of free will is that you're starting with the ending. Deliberation exists before the desire that leads to the action. The longer the time In deliberation, the less certain the outcome. In addition, you haven't discussed the absence of desire as an alternative.
Imagine those books are actually on the floor, and they're just really, really big.
That’s so weird
Husky McFluff
I can’t unsee that now
I can't unsee it
Up
Knowing him...Those books probably are that big lol
I was in a Subway's once and the girl asked my friend 'Do you want extra cheese?' to which he replied, 'I don't know' and for a brief moment the entire structure of the universe just stopped.
Kind of like how it takes time to process anything, even hand movement, the brain probably got a slow / unreachable receptor or something. Or maybe the brain decided "let them choose for me, as I trust their decision to be the best" + had an added fear of being wrong.
@@scottmcadam4509 I will make them our angels again.
Let's find out if I'm telling the truth. Won't we?
Take crack cocaine and meth much ? What has your comment got to do with anything ?
scott mcadam you can't just assume all women are shit at making decisions... What does your comment have to do with anything... They were talking about their friend at Subway. The friend was a HE.
Darwin replace Subway with "Dealers house " and Cheese with "Crack cocaine" then story makes perfect sense .
“Want” doesn’t seem like a real word anymore.
edit: guys i was making a joke about how many times Alex said “want”. Not trying to have a deep philosophical conversation about it.
Well maybe you should want for it to seem like a real word.
That would probably be due to semantic satiation.
Want seems like a desire. You still have desires without free will 🤷🏻♀️
@@rbst-dg8ji
Yes, but you can resist the desire therefore establishing a freedom of will over it.
@@JohnDoe-bt4ps why would you 'want' to resist desires?
I think it's even more simple, yet deeper than that. Any action is preceded by a thought. If you want to choose between vanilla and chocolate, you think the decision before you physically make it. So, free will would then require that you choose your thoughts, which is paradoxical. How can you choose to think something, without already thinking about it?
This comment makes me suddenly very distrustful of the voice in my head. Where does it really come from if I can’t control it? Is it really me?
@@moss_yass My hypothesis is that that voice is indeed not "you". I'd say that "you" are merely the passive experience of having those thoughts. I think the thought "where does that voice in my head come from" is proof of that. Clearly, you see the voice already as something that you "have", instead of something that you "are". So, what are you?
I feel bad that my comment made you feel distrustful though. I sincerely hope that you can approach the dilemma with positive curiosity, instead of with distrust. In everyday life, that voice feels like it's "you", and that works totally fine.
I think before thinking that you want vanilla rather than chocolate you think and evaluate you options, and during this process you make your choice wich then becomes your desire, no?
@@mallvalim That process of evaluation is done with a heirarchy of relative 'wants' though.
A fly flew into my eye and I blinked without thinking. I always prefer chocolate to vanilla so when offered a choice I automatically choose chocolate without thinking about it. When faced with a variety of foods I consider what I prefer and choose accordingly. What I like caused my preference but did not determine me to make that choice--next time I might choose vanilla, say, to win a bet or out of boredom. Every effect has a case, but doesn't necessarily destine us.
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Schopenhauer
It makes sense now
Thank you for sharing that phrasing, Cap'n. Seems rather more clear to me now.
I reckon compatibilists believe in free will simply because "Man can do what he wills'" regardless of the fact that "he cannot will what he wills."
>imagine believing freewill is an illusion based on retarded antiquated physics and darwinian evolution which has basically been mathematically disproven.
In a nutshell: “A man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants.” Schopenhauer
Thanks for saving me time.
Is this using want like choose?
? A higher conciousness wants nothing though.. You are not your thoughts.. Why is it that no one is talking about levels of consciousness? This comment does not apply to all of the population.
devzkii I would not say that it is using want like choose. We want what we want. I want chocolate rather than vanilla. But did I choose to want vanilla? No. I just want vanilla, i can’t help wanting what I want. It just arises as such. And I can then have the vanilla, as I want. But I didn’t actually choose to want it.
surrender & survive I can relate to not wanting anything, what you call higher consciousness. There are moments of such utter peace and fulfillment that there is no wanting. If you’re sitting in bliss and don’t eventually want to eat you’ll die, however. We and the other animals have want built into our DNA. if we didn’t it would be the end of life. It seems evolutionary drive in life to want: to find warmth when you’re freezing, shade when you’re hot, food when hungry, and then there are those damn hormones that make us want to mate. All of it designed to sustain and perpetuate life.
I just finished watching hentai. This video told me I didn't watch it with free will.
I will now go back to watching hentai so that I can test this hypothesis.
For science.
And the people that illustrated that hentai did not do it of free will, either.
And you can...Out of NOT free will..share links so we can validate your research
I second this
This person deserves to go in the history books for this comment.
lloydagola I won't give you the link, but I can tell you I was watching Koi Maguwai.
I would actually say that the reasons we do anything is actually singular - it is because we want to. Even if we are forced to do something at gunpoint, we still do it because we want something - that something is to survive and continue living.
I wouldn’t agree with that premise. Imagine you were very sick or broke your legs or had a mental illness and you were bound to your bed temporarily. You would want to get up and be productive more than you wanted to be in bed but you physically couldn’t get out of bed no matter how bad you wanted to because you are forced to be there.
@@corndude4172 You want to stay in bed because you didn't want to mess up your injury or make yourself feel worse.
no, youre physically restrained meaning that youre being forced to not get up
why don't you teleport to the other side of the world? you might want to, but you physically can't.
That's what I thought
I've never been so confused by understanding something in my entire life
Cus we don’t want to understand ☠️😂I’m just as confused 😮💨 but I want to understand
He's a perfect definition of a narcissist. When he said "we've already concluded.." blah blah blah, no, "we" haven't concluded anything. We are in control of our lives, period.
@@tyemaddog Do you know what the word narcissist means?
@@tyemaddog but we actually are not because what ever is going to happen or what ever ever happened...happened and there's no changing that ever....everything is technically predestined wether you believe it or not.
@@tyemaddog Point me to a single logical mistake in this video, please. Because as it stands, it just seems like you are stubbornly refusing to listen to what was said, not because you actually have any argument to make against the stance (which is, just by the way, utterly impossible, as the logic is completely obviously clear and sound).
It appears many individuals are misunderstanding the message. Changing your mind on something isn't changing what you want, but simply following a greater want that moves in a different direction. We are endlessly following wants and what we want changes based on the environment and past experiences.
Precisely
following a ''greater want that moves in a different direction'' is changing what you want ;-;
+Mr. King Kong I can't believe all these months later you're still this stupid.
But i'm changing what ME AS A PERSON want, choosing between your "greater want" and a "smaller want"..
*note*
I thoroughly believe I can make myself want something I despice, given enough time and thought..
In other words, choosing to want what i hate
ugseth2 but isn't changing that want, even if it's to something you hate, is satisfying your want to change ? no matter what you do, you want to do it, it's all a choice of wants evolves through time based on your experiences. :)
Take a shot every time he says “want”
Anika Martinez I'd get alchohol poisoning. And i dont want that.
Im dead now thanks
Fuck
I have crippling depression and have killed myself after that challenge I am now a dead rabbit who cant do nothing but think and I have wifi somehow I think this is hell
Gabriel Marbordo Kosta well then
From a psychoanalytic point of view you are not free about your decisions, desires, etc., but that doesn't mean psychoanalysis didn't believe in freedom. From a Hegel, Marx and Freud point of view the more you are aware of the forces (external and internal) you are attached to the more free you become.
My OCD already taught me long ago that I don't have free will
What do you mean by this, if you don't mind me asking? (No, I am not asking you to clarify OCD, I'm asking you to elaborate on what you mean by it making you realize you don't have free will.)
@@shinmoda I’m pretty sure they meant it as a joke, but Obsessive Compulsive disorder is based on the experience of compulsions, basically like your brain acting like an annoying younger siblings like “do it. You have to” to the extreme
@@p11_studios Again, I wasn't asking then to tell me what OCD was, I was asking them to clarify how they mean it taught them they didn't have free will, but I guess based on the compulsions it's like your own brain forcing you rather than others. I found, though, that as time gets going and it's been longer since my original diagnosis, I tend to fend off the sudden episodes with rational thought; but originally, I always felt like if I didn't do when I felt I needed to do them, then something will happen (negative). Or the flip side, sometimes I felt that if I do something then something will happen (positive). I still respond to these thoughts due to it making me feel satisfied but it's not as bad as it once was. It got tough when, being someone interested in spirituality, this realm of thought crossed into that realm. That's when stuff got tough.
Thank you! :)
true but you can also get help for it.
I have this voice I my head that sometimes tells me to do things that I may not want to and if I do not bad things happen is this normal?
When free will is defined as "ability to have acted differently", then this is true. The reason most of us feel we have free will is because we subconsciously define free will as "ability to do what you want/desire". Most people are not that concerned that they don't have the ability to choose what they want, or your wants are beyond your control. As long as we can act on those wants we feel that we have free will.
Then I would say that the term is wrong and it's implications still equivocated. If your will is determined by your "wants" which you aren't in control of, then it's not free, why bother with reusing the term to say something completely different? Specially if we don't redefine it's implications, like moral responsability. If we aren't in control of the desires that motivate our actions, how can we hold people accountable? It would radically change the framework in which we base or social systems, which people seem not so eager to do, which I think is what makes them clinge so hard to using the same term.
What you're describing sounds like "will", not "free will".
what gives us a taste in music, did the universe choose my favorite color, if the universe can choose my favorite color than god can create a soul and if god can't create a soul than the universe can not choose my favorite color and im liberty to do as i wish to do constant battle with the universe
This sounds to be very true so although we don't have complete free will the will is still in our character/traits to (choose the things we want)
So i think in a given moment we definitely have will/free will (based on our character traits) I mean I didn't have to comment here though i did so based on an inner impulse to do so
Ohh yeah when I say choose the things we want I didn't mean we choose our wants but I meant we have the choice or decision to act on it
@@sensibleone3268 Before you had the impulse to write a comment,that was already set in motion.Then you had the thought I will write a comment.In reality the comment had to happen,you just claim authorship for doing so.There simply is no doer.
This is pretty close to how I felt leaving Christianity.
My family kept talking about my "choice" to stop believing in their God, but I never made any choice regarding that. It simply didn't make sense to me so I didn't believe it. The only "choice" I made was to stop suppressing my own doubtful thoughts which really were becoming extremely overwhelming and upsetting to keep down.
Same here. Very similar and I got to the point where my whole “faith” felt fake.
I feel the same, but the opposite way. I believe in god. I don’t know why, I can’t explain it. I just do. Was never bought up religiously or anything either.
You can't choose to believe something you don't actually believe.
@@celtictarotreadings333 You're the kind of religious person I like. I personally find myself wanting there to be a god who suits my preference for what I want god to be but I don't want to believe something without knowing it to be true. Since evidence is a matter of demonstrating something through immutable natural laws which produce the same result of the same causes under the same circumstances every time those causes are applied under the same circumstances and since the supernatural as a concept does not rely on immutable natural laws, I can only hope and can't believe since my belief of anything depends on knowing. Thus, I can't help not believing in a god and can't help hoping for a god I would like. I suppose a god could exist who I wouldn't like but I can't hope for that and I can't believe it either. This is why I can't hope for or believe in a god who would punish anyone for not believing in a god as believed by the kind of religious person I don't like... well, that might not be the best way to put it, I should call them the kind of religious person who's beliefs I don't like since their beliefs themselves cause them fear which forces them to believe the beliefs which cause the fear. Anyway, I'm always happy to come across someone like you who just believes in a god because they want to believe.
Ditto.
Well.. that’s genius. You definitely convinced me. I always asked people what the definition of “free will” ment to them. Now after watching this video and actually understand what you mean, i have a whole different perspective on it. Thankyou so much for this beautiful video ❤
Whats ur instagram
I feel like the dangerous implication here is that, if there is no free will, criminals are innately evil, because they could have never chosen the right thing. Logically that creates a category of good people who are righteous and self-improving and evil people that are beyond help.
@@skeleton1765but that also brings into question whether or not we should hold criminals morally responsible to begin with. If they had no ability to do otherwise, why should we punish them for something out of their control? Of course the obvious question is what would we do instead and to be frank, I have no idea. It’s something I’ve been trying to grapple with
@@MoonlightMaggie Exactly, I do good because I want to do good, than I am part of the righteous class.
If I can’t help but be evil, or don’t want to do good, or prefer to do the evil thing than they are part of the deplorables. This is almost leading to a justification for genocide.
If it looks like free will, feels like free will, society and morals collapse without the assumption of free will, than why would it not be free will? How many senses/mechanisms have to positively support free will before we assume it’s true. Is it like a Schrödinger’s mechanic where we can observe what choice a person makes but only if we look at the decision matrix in their brain at a certain instance, or even after the decision has been made. Even if all the ‘decisions’ you made leading up to that one MAKE you ‘choose’ a certain outcome, does that disprove free will?
This seems like another instance of an atheist (I’m probably part of that category/agnostic) being infinitely and annoyingly reductive. If got so annoyed with myself doing this I had to stop. Clearly I have a low tolerance for this thing and was always destined to choose that choice as well. 🙄
@@MoonlightMaggie Yes but ask yourself, why does your reasoning stop there anyway? It's wrong to stop there and call it a day.
"Holding them accountable" or not doing so would be a "choice" i.e something you'd want (to want to..(etc recursively)) to do in itself, which in itself is already uninfluenceable, that line of reasoning goes on infinitely. It's not about "what would we do instead", it's that anything else we do instead, then that too, wasn't chosen or free will.
It's not about thinking of things in that macro/limited scale of people/society/the justice system etc, we're discussing the general concept of "free will" at its bare-bones, philosophical/logical root.
What I mean is, in your example about crime etc, it's not about just holding anyone accountable in that sense, it's about that if you do hold them accountable, then you were already always going to, same of the opposite. It's not "should" we or "can" we hold them accountable, because there is no choice there either, "choosing" to hold them accountable or not was inevitable.
Same with: If you jumped then you were already always going to jump, whether you "chose" to or not, if you were born then you were already always going to be born, etc etc etc, get what I mean? It doesn't even apply just to our experience of free will, but to causality itself.
The takeaway is pretty much that everything that happened so far was inevitable (and I don't mean in the woo-woo way "everything happens for a reason" because "God chose it"), and that "consequences"/the future/causality is as inevitable as the flow of time itself, you are stuck in your unique experience or "illusion" of the present, some will find great solace in that, some will find terrible distress. 😛 (Both are also inevitable, like everything else - and the illusion of a consequence/event being avoided arises from the fact that its avoidance was also inevitable, etc.)
So within the confines of this illusion you can "choose" to recognize that since this truth is inevitable, then there is no point worrying or thinking about it too much, because it doesn't change anything for you or your experience, whether it was "predetermined" or not.
It's just that if you do worry/not believe it,/do anything at all, then that too, was inevitable in its very nature 😅.. but just "choose" not to care, and for all practical purposes, live life the way you would have either way, even while knowing you didn't really choose. I know it feels like a paradox but they aren't mutually exclusive, because one of them is an illusion that arises from the other. The illusion of free will/choice arises from the fact itself there is no free will/choice, which personally doesn't bother me, it's just a logical fact, and a conclusion that you come to when you really think about it enough. I find this beautiful and awe-inspiring on its own.
So yes, continue to hold criminals accountable etc. not because they are "innately evil" (which is a conclusion you arrived to because you decided to stop there) etc.,
but because you don't justify "choosing" do something BECAUSE there is free will or not, it's just that it HAPPENS / HAPPENED / WILL HAPPEN *because* there is no free will, that doesn't mean you shouldn't still continue "choosing" just because it's an illusion when you look deep enough... for us it might as well not be an illusion because it's all we will ever experience, there is no need to "adjust" just because you learned this (it's just that if you did adjust, you didn't truly choose that either lol), it is logically and by nature impossible to truly choose, as it breaks all logic and the concept of time and causality itself.
It doesn't mean there is no beauty in that. To me there IS beauty in that this illusion of choice itself can be born from the fact that there is no choice, almost as an extension of it, and within it we can experience everything as if we all truly chose it, almost going full circle. There is no need to think of it as fake when it is a direct consequence of that initial truth.
Ironically, when I think about how I really have no free will, it makes me feel free.
It explains all my failures in life
@@Siegfried5846 Yea, because then you wouldn’t be accountable for anything you’ve done right or wrong, though that isn’t how societies live. They live as if we are all accountable for our actions and that’s why there are ethics. And why do we tell people you shouldn’t have done that or that wasn’t right when the person had no free will to do so? And why do we correct someone by saying, “No, this is how you do this.”
If we believe there is no free will and want to be consistent, we cannot complain when someone violates our human rights.
@@trustthetruth2779no.
@@satellitecannon9463 I most certainly can be consistent because right and wrong are objective according to God’s character and not my opinion or yours or anyone else’s. I just follow what He says whether I agree or not. He made the universe, so I’m not going to tell Him I know better
@@trustthetruth2779 that isn't how it works.
You were predetermined to see this video and make the comment you made, because of all the things that happened to you before, and all that you ate and consumed, all that you were taught.
You couldn't help but make the choices you've made, but you still feel the suprise when someone appreciates your work, or you still feel the pain of bad choices.
You are the agent of change, but you had no other choice in the end as you look back on things that have happened.
Theists have this loophole that they pull out when the pain of bad decisions starts to haunt them, and they often just claim it was God's plan or God's Will, so you can forgive yourself and move on.
We live in a deterministic universe with an endless chain of causality, and there is a liberating freedom from excessive guilt, to some extent, but if someone murders another person in cold blood and they feel nothing, that isn't a normal person, and they go to prison no matter how they became broken.
We are still held accountable for actions, but even you have to admit you have an out, in regards to these problems of choice.
All normal people react to good and bad things and they make changes to remedy the situation, but sometimes it takes time and more input from the chain of causality, like friends telling someone they messed up.
I simply don't believe in a God that is supernatural and outside of the Universe, making things happen and intervening when he wants and letting you have your will, and then a little bit of his will, and then a bit more of your will, and a whopping amount of his will.
An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can't give you Freewill and also be all of those things.
lol this is something i struggled with when i was 15 and i didn’t get why no one else cared about this!! the lack of choice to want something is so important and figuring this out has made me a much less judgemental and empathetic person tbh
That’s really interesting to know. Cause it has happened to me also. I’d say that the exact same effect it was caused on you was really caused on me as well. It has made me reflect a lot more than usual about life in general after I started gravitating towards this possibility.
@@jes8253 yeah i'd say i used to feel scared about it but now i think it's quite a freeing mindset. i study sociology now which has helped me explore how unhelpful this belief in free will really is to almost everyone - means we think we can judge other people even when we can't relate to their situation at all because we think 'well I would never do that' without having any context. empathy is a great skill and i think we need to remember what it actually means to put yourself in someone else's shoes - it doesn't mean put yourself in their particular situation, it means put yourself in their particular situation within the whole context of their life. rugged individualism has meant we think that's not important somehow and i think without a radical shift in perspective in the very near future the world is going to be totally irreperably fucked soon
@@Jemmainadilemma I couldn’t agree more with your words. It’s really fulfilling to get to know there’s still people in the world that has this sort of insight to reflect upon it the way you do. It’s quite funny cause I couldn’t ever imagine I would definitely bump into someone right here on UA-cam who shares the same concept as I do and also as accurate as my concept is about this idea. It’s really gratifying! I do think the same, moreover, I still sense that the world unfortunately is more likely to be fucked up as soon as we can’t expect because of individualism.
@@Jemmainadilemma What isn't it a free choice that "I want to prove a point by regaining my free will"? Didn't I freely choose to want one over the other?
@@CuriosityGuy well you want to do something to prove a point, but you don't choose to want that, you just want that. The source of the want is the point here - you can't choose to want something. you could explore why you want that but i don't think that would affect what you want
Sir, this is a Wendys
Nice one, this cracked me up a little. Here, have a cookie 🍪
😂
Indeed, I laughed.. have this pizza 🍕 nigga
Lmao. Here's a baby 👶. Bon apetite.
@@brahimilyes681 Bro....
A really good example of what I have been feeling about free-will for a long time
*I had no choice but to like this video :)*
same
That's a very good point, despite the joke, because you didn't yourself decide what you like. Your genes and experiences did. You only decided to express that feeling of liking. And why am I writing this? The point is that we are incredibly advanced "machines", and whatever we think we decide is always within the framework of our genetic programming. Thus, free will only exists within certain limits. Another argument against free will is that people understanding the consequences make stupid or "wrong" choices that severely harm them. If they truly had complete free will, that wouldn't happen. One example is me writing this, despite being better off in health and freshness tomorrow if I were sleeping now.
Only stones and rocks and inanimate matter have no choice. You had the choice to not like this video but you have already been convinced that whatever Alex says is intelligent so let me like this video blindly without using your 10 brain cells to contemplate on what he says.
babbisp1 o h s h it
babbisp: Or, you chose to like it :) God bless you.
"Of course we have free will, we have no other choice but to have it" C. Hitchens
Brilliant ~Lord Hitchens
Of course the exact opposite could be said, “Of course we don’t have free will. We have no choice but not to have it”
Jo-Ash Scott Official I had will. I’m not convinced it was “free”
@Jo-Ash Scott Official You have will- your free will was based on the question regarding free will, which was freely chose to respond- if he didn't respond, you could just as well have asked, did you have free will to not write that comment.
James Walker I think you are missing the irony and true point of the quote. By saying we have free will and we have no choice but to have it is purposely contradictory.
Actually, the only reason you'll do anything is because you want to. Being forced to do something has a want of survival or the avoidance of punishment behind it, unless your hand is being moved by someone else physically.
But do you really "want" to in the sense that it's something you choose truly on your own behalf? For example, if you buy a soda or something at a store "because you want to", it could realistically be for a variety of factors. For one thing, you could be thirsty while also holding a disposition towards sweeter drinks. That would naturally cause you to gravitate towards the sugary drink. If you weren't thirsty, then it was probably a craving - something you don't necessarily choose to have that holds a significant amount of power over deciding what you buy. If you had a craving and instead got water since it was healthier, there were prior decisions already dictating that choice as well. Free will is essentially impossible to prove, in reality, since if you go back far enough and with enough detail, every single one of your actions could likely be telegraphed. Even without this consideration, the concept of free will in and of itself is so nebulous that it's genuinely hard for our brains to conceptualize. That's just my thought on it anyway
I was just thinking of this. You can’t be forced to do something unless whatever is forcing you has a consequence for you not doing it in which you do it because you want to avoid the consequence. I didn’t think of your hand being physically moved by something else though. Interesting point.
That's why I think there will be anarchy in a lawless society. Most people don't break the law simply because they don't want to be punished, not because they are well-intentioned and well-behaved citizens. Humans are not superior, civilised moral beings. We're worse than animals.
@@lepetitchat123 Would you murder someone if you couls?
@@Broctis If I could get away with it, yes. But perhaps I couldn't do it myself, I am too chicken. I will hire someone else to do it lol
I have always believed that free will wasnt real but i was never able to verbalize why and this really helped me so thank you.
I had to write an essay in high school about free will in the form of destiny. And my answer was basically "we can act like we have free will because we can't know the future so it doesn't matter."
Here's a brain twist. The decision after learning about free will not existing, and then deciding to make an expository video about it, is actually in itself an act of free will.
@@davidt8087 no because he wanted to. He doesn’t control his wants.
@@celtictarotreadings333you are your want so you always do what you want if we remove aĺl the wants are you still here?
It does tho, had you made the choices to set yourself up for success later. That’s free will
@@celtictarotreadings333 that’s free will lol. Because he wanted to, he could have chose not to even if wanting to
Whenever I see a video about free will, I have no choice but to watch it
Sorry you have that compulsion! 😂 When I see a video about free will, I have full range of choice. I watched about 4 minutes of this one, and then I quite watching! I'd heard enough of his nonsense! 🤣
@@rexlion4510
So your “want” wasn’t strong enough and you’ve made a choice based on you not wanting to continue - clearly proving the point of the video here! ^_^
I had no choice but to vote this comment up (and also make this reply.)
@@NousTrapper It might be the case the your reason for doing so is because determinism causes you discomfort, and so you act accordingly to minimise discomfort since we seem to be exclusively motivated to minimise suffering/maximise pleasure.
Even seeking pain is pretty much always done to minimise it or seek a future pleasure, such as in the experiment of people choose to shock themselves to relieve boredom (choosing a lesser pain to relieve a greater/worse pain)
Even seeking a meaningful life filled with meaningful experiences is only done to relieve the suffering of meaninglessness.
@@NousTrapper “Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do and well as determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong and on the other the chain of cause and effect are fastened to their throne. They govern us in everything we do, everything we think, everything we say. Every attempt we make to throw off our subjection will serve but to *demonstrate and confirm* it.”
- My boy Jeremy Bentham spitting straight facts
Well I'm terrified now, thank you Alex.
AlmostCanadian
It gets better with time
Lol
That fear only lasts for awhile. Once you get used to it, the bad occurances in life become quite alot easier to bear.
Why are you terrified? It is out of your control. You can either accept or reject it, but neither stance will affect the outcome in any predictable way. So why worry? if it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
This is also the same argument that renders faith pointless. Faith is belief without evidence, yet the only reason belief can be validated is if there is evidence. Thus, faith is a waste of time since without evidence, then it is equally likely that something will happen as it is that something will not happen. This is the problem of non-falsifiable claims. Either it _will_ or it will _not_. Belief nor faith can change this.
Dylan Wight Well that's completely off topic, but I agree. But just because something is true doesn't make it comforting. Just because something is out of my control doesn't stop me from finding it unsettling, no matter how much I would like to pretend it does
Like Alan watts says. There’s no such thing as a selfless man. Even when we give money to a stranger or poor man, we do it because we want to and it makes us feel good. Giving to the homeless does not only help the homeless, it also helps us as well
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”
~Stephen Hawking
Wait, does that mean they don’t actually believe it is pre-Destin?
@@choco1199 they are contradicting themselfes. if they look before they cross the road they have basically reduced their chances of getting hit by a car to 0% meaning they chose their own destiny
@@robertjusic9097 or it's just survival instict doing it's work. It's just like animals that try to avoid pain/danger. It has nothing to do with choice.
Peter Griffin I’m not being facetious I promise, I’m just curious about the topic. But what about a suicidal person who has those same instincts to avoid pain but walk out in front of a truck. It was there choice no?
@@carsonmcmanus9410 No. This completely ignores the fact that their "want" to walk in front of the truck overrides their "want" to do otherwise. Do you think a suicidal person would choose to want to be suicidal? This is actually a compelling case AGAINST free will.
I think you can actually combine "want to or have to" even further into just "want to"
Even if you have a gun to your head or you have a boss threatening to fire you, the pressure only works if you want to be alive or have whatever luxuries the job affords you more than you want to do whatever they're demanding.
Put someone suicidal or someone who has been on the fence about taking a vow of poverty into those situations and it's pretty obvious how those change the scales.
In effect "being forced to" is just adding one weight to one end of your scales deciding what to do, often an inordinately heavy one, but isn't necessarily a sole determinant.
This is fully correct, as far as I can tell
But In a physical matter, no.
@@actualwafflesenjoyer in judicial situations the distinction is never that clear-cut. E.g. self-defense and 'acting under duress' have to be proportionate in order to be legitimate. E.g. agreeing to kill a third party because someone threatens with releasing your naked baby pics hardly seems proportionate. It's up to a judge/jury to decide. But as long as questions of moral responsibility (which only exist on a societal-artificial level) are out of the way, both 'have to' and 'want to' seem to describe deliberate action under desires and constraints
I think "being forced to" would be more akin to someone physically forcing you, e.g. being pushed off a stage.
@@ashleystrout6651 I agree with Ashley, and I think the distinction is important for this reason. You did not "want to" be pushed off the stage (presumably), but you were. You did not "want to" shoot the man while you were sleeping, but someone moved your finger to the trigger of a gun they put in your hand.
After this video “want” doesn’t sound like a word anymore
sans I have the same issue with the verbs „believe“ and „hope“. Completely unnecessary in my world.🤗
Wϖt
jamais vu
Haha
My confusion is with Faith
I have been saying this exact thing for years. Its wonderful to see such a smart individual who thinks the same.
This reminds me of Eastern religious philosophy, specifically the concept of being enslaved by one's desires(wants) and the idea that true freedom comes from not having desires(wants). The Mahabharata depicts many ascetics living lifestyles free from desire. The desire to not desire is a desire itself. It is extremely difficult to achieve a desireless state of existence.
It's not difficult to achieve a desire-less state , it's called death.
@@dionysusnow based
@@dionysusnow This is likely why religions like Jainism have elaborate death rituals connected directly to shedding yourself of your connections to the material (and social) world.
Doesn't that simply mean that those ascetics are simply ruled by their desire to not want desires? Or maybe that's the ultimate state, where they've eliminated so much of their worldly desire, that the only desire left is to maintain the desire to not want any other desires.
Also Schopenhauer talks about this.
So 'Free Will' should really be termed 'Linear Choice', then?
Not necessarily since as he mentioned it is indeed possible for you to make different choices, but ultimately what lead to those choices isn't really in your control
So what would be a more appropriate term then?
@@brandonbaza1639 Maybe "influenced (by known and unknown factors) choice"
Veggies for Thought not really choice either. More like “Influenced Doing/Happening”
I agree that humans have labeled what IS happening with an insufficient term.
It's simple really, i believe in free will because i don't have a choice.
That's a really good one! And speaks a lot of truth as well. To the best of my knowledge I could say that the belief in free will or not is predetermined. Gazzaniga I believe his name is backs this up, as well as other Neurosciency people.
Oxymoronic, though.
That's a contradiction, you are not freely believing in free will if you don't have a choice. But the thing is you do have a choice
@@benj766 Sure, you have a choice, but it's always determined in the past. A choice is never made of anything but thoughts you already had. Any thoughts you think that are brand new, any responses you can imagine, and all reactions to everything are always old once they happen like the choices they help to make. We live in time like the crest of a wave you cannot ever pin down even if you snap a picture of it because it required time to take making it a wave from the light traveling in the past to build up enough photons collapsing from the quantum light wavelength to capture in the camera. Your brainwaves must behave by quantum physics too.
@@benj766 Some will argue that stating that there is a point where it supposed to be is pointless.
I use this same argument against freewill. The only difference is i use the word impulse instead of want. There will always be an impulse to do one thing over another and those impulses simply arise.
You have made an astute observation. Perhaps freewill is our mind simply "managing impulses" to prioritize which to act on. I'd love to hear your answer if you have a few minutes, but if you choose to ignore me, that's ok too. ;-)
@@paultomori
I think there’s a deeper issue with the idea that freewill is simply about managing impulses. If our decisions are just a matter of prioritizing impulses, then we're not actually choosing freely, we're just responding to the strongest urge at a given moment. But it goes even further: the impulses themselves are beyond our control. They’re shaped by past experiences, genetics, and external influences, all of which we didn’t choose.
If our impulses arise from factors outside our control and all we're doing is selecting among them, where's the freedom in that? It seems like we're just following a predetermined path laid out by our past and biology, rather than exercising any real autonomy. If freewill is about making genuine choices, shouldn't it involve more than just reacting to whatever impulse happens to be most compelling? Your idea implies that our decisions are essentially pre-programmed, which seems to strip freewill of any meaningful substance. How can we claim to have freewill if we can't even control the impulses that supposedly drive our choices?
When I hear you say something along the lines of "you are completely controlled by your wants", it doesn't make sense to me. It seems to imply that "I" am somehow a separate entity from my desires, when in fact my desires are actually a large part of what I would define as "myself". What is a person if not a set of changing desires motivated by memories? I don't feel like a slave to my desires because I literally am my desires.
Yes, agreed, scrolled down to say this. If we confine the definition of self and the definition of free will to just the conscious component, as was discussed in the video, then the video is logically correct. However, that definition is a bit narrow. It may make more sense to redefine the argument presented above as "you don't have fully conscious free will." Part of us - our desires - are subconscious and driven by various environmental, historical, and genetic factors. That does not mean that those factors exclusively define what we are - and vice-versa, we cannot separate our conscious decisions from those factors. We are the sum of our consciousness and the above-mentioned factors.
To put it another way, CS could have two competing desires - the desire for chocolate or vanilla. Which one he selects is up to his conscious mind, based on various factors, including other desires, memory, knowledge, etc. If he went back in time and told himself that chocolate ice cream is bad, he could and likely would select vanilla, based on the updated knowledge.
@@elimgarak1617 I do stuff all of the time without even thinking about it at a conscious level. I'm pretty sure everyone does.
Exactly
Without desires we will be same as a dead thing than alive
We will be fucking stones without it
This reminds me of a weird thought that's popped into my head a couple times...
"It couldn't have turned out any differently, because if it could've it would've."
I'm no expert but I think it has nothing to do with free will but you're speaking of possibility of different outcomes (my expression, not a real term).
Let's take the ideas that pop up in your head be called made up ideas, as in comparison to reading that water is liquid and thinking of water as liquid (constructed, extracted by communication E.C., non-genuine) ideas.
I THINK we're speaking of EC ideas, the ones we, allegedly, consciously construct, not the made up ones, which I have no explanation for.
It really could’ve though. Due to the randomness of particles’ behavior, if the universe was rewinded to the beginning to play again, we’d get a vastly different result. Though there are likely some structures that are inevitable.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 I think, not authorized tho,
1- deep in the most minute scale, if there is a randomness in the process then the possibility of a different outcome than what we have now is definitely present. What I mean includes if particles popping behaviour in and out of nowhere is literally random, then that could very well indicate a random outcomes if the uni were to rewind again.
2- if the laws and contants (gravity, forces, electro, maybe even matter if there were other particles similar to electrons and protons) have behaved differently then we would have different outcomes.
Otherwise, I think, had the uni been rewinded and if the laws have been identical and the randomness is non-existent (which is something hard to prove by experimenting on every place, planet and black hole to test the validity of matter/space/fiber-stuff determinism and predicting every single instance with the properties of space, time and mass -excuse the metaphor- of the presence of matter there) until then, wait
I might sound religious there but objectively speaking, we couldn't yet prove the non-existence of consciousness, everything we know is based on the likely possibility of dependence on neural networks. Such inductive argument might not be true as, as far as I know, we know nothing about consciousness. All we know is brain activity.
I'm not saying there is a soul because consciouness is so mysterious that we can't explain yet. All I'm saying is we have no idea and we could base assumptions on this possibility.
I don't say I believe in free will certainly, what I'm saying is the arguments of free will non-existence are still not 100% conclusive.
I'm not sure if there is a part of us (allegedly that we are a distinct part of the world) that is not dependent entirely on the material interactions. I mean there is no reason for us to do good to each other and yet we do! We could be killing eachother over territories yet we feel the deep urge of loving each other.
I wanna hug every other person. I don't want to think of them as junk space-time-matter that magically surfs the space-time continuum. I wanna shake hands with aliens. I wanna see the last bit of conscious being enjoying his/her/whatever gender "they" call themselves to the last moment they live it. I wanna preach the morality of no-suffering to every conflicting conscious being. Because the other possibility of only material world (speaking of conscious beings, not dieties) is utterly terrifying. A sadistic authority could rise one day and have a grip over the whole humanity and in his thinking, there is no difference between life and death at all!
Reda Ali Personally, I believe the brain and the mind (consciousness) are related, but distinct things. I believe the brain is largely automated and runs our day to day lives on auto pilot, but the mind is the “quality control” of a decision, if that makes sense.
So the brain is like an automated assembly line. It does its thing when left to do so, but a line manager (the mind) can stop the process momentarily to check for quality and give their stamp of approval.
I think consciousness is present in the brain, but that it doesn’t rely on the brain to actually exist, I feel there’s more to it than that. To me, consciousness is more likely to be a quantum event and not necessarily a physical one (unless you consider quantum events to be physical phenomena).
We forget that our brain isn’t our entire nervous system. It runs around our whole body. It’s curious that sometimes when someone receives an organ donation, that recipient begins to show personality traits that were present in the donor, such as food preferences or general personality.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 you're right.
I share your opinion of modes of operation of 'mind' as auto-pilot and active decision making. I heard many arguments about controlling someone's arbitrary decision like moving a hand or pressing a button. While scientests have done some experiments of predicting when someone would do such arbitrary action, and also the presence of consciousness on actions, aka hypnosis, while still having the same brain activity, and the similar subconscious acts are very variant like preferring a food or flavor over the other. While genetics could, and very likely do, play a huge rule in dictating how sensitive I am towards anxiety and what category of games I enjoy, (which are once again subconscious; I don't choose to like a food. I have been pre-programmed to like this taste and would be, I expect, very difficult to change the physical part of me that changes my taste. I want to remind you of the 'subconscious' part of our actions that we are all aware of) that still doesn't explain how I find the urge (automatic response) of wanting to laugh when I hear a joke that I understand while still holding myself (2 wants. Which one do you prefer more?). Like I find the two wants, forces, speaking in Greek style, are present both at the same time, albeit that whichever weighed more to you, you would choose. And let me be clear about this: a conscious being could either have a reason to do so or not, and in either case it's a lost case due to 'you want to'.
The part where daily life free will means when you allegedly intentionally attempt to strike a pedestrian with your car instead of applying the brakes. Let's ignore the moral part while holding into the social aspect of it.
Assume you have 2 wants: to kill the pedestrian, and to steal him.
And you have 2 wants-not: social demeaning, and law prosecution. Assume also you have no moral restrictions as killing him is of no psychological downsides, only social ones.
Coincidentally, the wants on one side and the wants-not are on another; there could be option A with 2 wants and one want-not, option B with 3 wants ..., but atill the wants-not are inherently want by definition (want not to).
So, where my alleged free will comes into the picture is when I *evaluate* the options, in this case, only two options, run him over, or apply brakes. There could be a situation where I could talk with someone and have A) talk gently, B) use some offensive language, C) agitate a friend with a statement to catch their support into my argument, D) punch him in the face... So it's not like only black and white choice that I "could" choose. These options have the high likelihood of resulting the mentioned outcomes (2 wants for A and 2 wants-not for B). But remember that these outcomes are in many cases exclusive: you are unlikely to kill him, steal him while still escaping the police and social demeaning unless you're that Dostoevsky's novel character to get it all. So you are highly unlikely, let's assume the impossibility hence, of gathering different options' outcomes, aka options' outcomes' exclusivity.
The situation at hand is you could either choose A, B, C, ... or N. What do you do then? You simply *evaluate* the outcomes' (both benefits and downsides. And for simplicity let's assume the certainty of these outcomes benefits and downsides to eliminate the probablistic aspect of uncertainty). The question now becomes: do you value X and Y more than P and Q? These are your wants, true, but it comes down to what values weigh to you more than others. Money, knowledge, morality, social class, civil prosperity? I think here it could need some compromises regarding your wants against public good where we should draw the line between the want and freedom to take a decision. You could sacrifice you wants and leave them for something else, like future reward. Even though you don't want to leave this choice, you did have the capability to choose or not choose it (you could value the outcomes more than your wants and sacrifice your wants for unwanted outcomes). It could reach to a moral or public good standard where someone would only sacrifice their wants for others' benefits. The difference here is in the future case, the benefit would still reach you afterall; while in public good it would highly unlikely benefit you, at least in the short term, to leave your parking lot for someone else that needs to park closer. I'm not speaking about morality in specific, rather how we would sacrifice our benefits for others even when we know that the odds of benefitting are not on our favor. True, generally, we are acting for a better life of us all, stemming from a beneficiary prospective, but still based on basis of what you want more than the other. And if the better good requires sacrificing one for the whole then so be it. Evolutionarily or not, that gives my life its meaning. Is it free will? Yes because there are other wants. Unless someone considers any want to be decisive to one's decision then even choosing not to follow it stems from that. It's a lost cause anyway!
I can almost remember no argument regarding the 'conscious' (carefully using the non-scientific term of conscious as I 'm still not sure of my opinion) part but many arguments on the auto-pilot part. An aspect that is highly exploited by psychological biases and subsoncious manipulation in advertisements and giving people the imoression that "I feel I'm winning in the casino just because everything is suggesting that even tho I rationally know the odds are totally not in my favor and it's totally randomly-base rather than skill-based. Don't get me wrong, we don't need to embrace some facts as certainty of death or the possibility of my partner cheating on me but these tendancies should be given and informed to the agent rather than exploiting them against him/her.
Of course we have free will. We’ve no choice on the matter
No freewill. You don't choose your wants. It's that simple.
Alan Lloyd I was quoting hitchens. Don’t think he believed in it, but he did make a very apt way of debunking it.
I see what you unwilligly did there
William Esping: Absolutely William; we have no choice in possessing free will as a created member of the human race; the choice that we have is whether and when we will use it or not. God bless you.
Mario DiBlasio 🤣
I like this explanation, it's sort of a mirror of what I thought about in that free will as an absolute concept, meaning a total freedom to do all things at any time purely of your conscious mind (even if we include illogical things like flying at will), is impossible on the strict basis that the brain cannot create raw data, it can only observe it. So the three most general aspects dictating wants and forces are these: Genetic nature, parental nurture (or lack thereof), and environmental circumstances (like culture of origin).
I would say that the illusion exists because the brain handles all the options available and processes which is "best" for it based on the aforesaid parameters, which leaves it making a "choice", but that choice is made on factors outside of control.
Quick example of the brain not being able to create raw data would be: reliably speaking a language you've never heard, imagining a color that you haven't seen, describing a color such to confirm you see it the same as someone else, regret in light of hindsight, et cetera.
Conclusion, in order for any being to have free will, it must be infinitely knolwedgeable (and infinitely capable). A god, basically, which is silly to suggest as a possibility.
Now someone said to me once that this justified atrocities like pedophilia, because it isn't "their choice". No, it doesn't justify anything. It means that such a thought process as well as the parameters that caused it are best forceably changed or exterminated. This is where the conversation becomes dangerous, but just because it is dangerous does not mean it is false.
I was talking to my friends about we not having free will, i was immediatly in the 'evil person' category haha.
He was thinking freely to say what he said I just disprove and freewill still stands no way out of it
It’s not evil to be easily confused
Your friends do not believe their god is omnipotent.
Looks like inherent optimism bias and terror management theory always helps regardless of ideologies such as antinatalism based on consent.
Free will is in the realm of quantum mechanics so the Cosmic Skeptic is wrong. Since if you had no free will and were just an observer in your head and had no control of the rest of your brain, your brain is then like a computer doing things. And it is like you are just watching a movie play out. Your brain apparently gives you notification on how to feel, like when you want something. So why is this computer asking about free will ? It has no consciousness so would not ask this question. Therefore there must be free will and you and your brain are connected and you are conscious. A mechanical computer would not ask questions about free will and consciousness. So since we are really very complicated mechanical computers and we are asking about free will and consciousness, must mean these things are real. Somehow in quantum physics this happens. There are fields, electron, proton, light, everything has a field , even human beings.
This video made “want” stop sounding like a word.
Then you should try saying ''ought'' after watching his video on objective morality. ;-p
He is wrong , I have written the explanations elsewhere in the comments. If you analyze any word to death , it loses meaning and we live in a quantum world. He is stuck in the classical world. Quantum physics has observers and measurement and quantum states that are completely unknowable and uncontrollable.
@@jeffbguarino expand please
“You can only do what you want” is oddly empowering
Not really when he also adds that you have no control over what you want.
@@rl7012 but why would you control what you want? Why would you decide to want to jump onto a train track?
@@rl7012We don't have any control to what we want because there's a reason behind why we want this why we want that as long as reason exists we can't have absolute true free will free from everything.
@@antoniofarina716 You can't control what you want, you can only control what you do about it.
@@Sinnexc Without reason how could life and the universe exist?
Using the icecream scenario since that's what the video had -
What if one were to chose between two bowls of vanilla ice cream that had the exact same amount of icecream in it, in the exact same bowls, kept side by side.
Would that constitute free will since there isnt a 'want' of either one of it in particular?
But there is. For example, if you’re right-handed, that might make you more likely to grab the bowl on the right. This is an example of a puppet not seeing its strings and falsely concluding that the strings don’t exist.
Might not want ice cream.
@@Rio-zh2wb Wrong, these are assumptions (being right hand, etc). There is no proof against or for free will. We dont know. This was chewed since millenia. We dont even know how the brain works, or consciousness.
I always thought of free will as the ability to interrupt myself from impulsive action
Because you wanted to interrupt impulsive actions. And there are reasons why you wanted to. Character traits I guess.
I thank my attention deficit disorder for helping me to enunciate my lack of free will when I threw that rock hitting my bullying physical education teacher square between the eyes for teasing me about not being eligible to try out to be a baseball pitcher on that fateful day of 1990.
The principal didn't buy it, but I remembered ever after the truth that I have no free will, nor do any other of my fellow humans.
More precisely, free will is about the ability to interrupt from COMPULSIVE action. if you are aware, you can do it, free will goes together with awareness.
That definition of free will is literally the reason for living, even if its not truly free.
Actually when your “forced to do something” you aren’t. Even if severe punishment will follow not doing something you still “want” to not deal with punishment rather than doing the task. Only exception being prison where no matter what u will be physically forced in there
Agree. Other exceptions: blinking, breathing, and anything that you do automatically and unconsciously. You are "forced" to do this by your brain, then...
Was about to comment this. Very true. Now there truly is only 1 reason you ever do anything.
@@soybean3423 I would contest those. You blink because your eyes get dry, and you implicitly "want" to make it stop. It may be automatic, but there is still a choice to continue.
I was looking for an example of being forced to do something. It seems to me that all of those would still come down to a want. I'm not sure that even your example of being forced in prison works. You could fight the correctional officers & they might have to kill you. If they succeeded in transporting you to prison without killing you, I'm still not sure that it works. Once in prison, you could refuse to do whatever they told you, no matter what the consequences were. You still wouldn't be forced to do anything, at least not that I can think of. Being forced into a location seems different than doing something.
@@SpikeShroom @soybean blinking, breathing, those are involuntary actions. If you want to argue that you could not blink until you go blind, or hold your breath til death, consider your heartbeat, you cant choose for it to stop right now. These are involuntary processes. Alex carefully chose his free will definition because we do have voluntary choices, it's just that once they're made, they never would have been different.
Dear Alex, Free will is an overcomplicated concept because of all the religious and societal baggage that word got saddled with. The problem at its core is the ability to decide between, say, two choices A or B, and whether the choice made is predictable or not.
Let’s look at all constituents of that situation.
1. Input data.
2. A brain, that makes the decision.
3. Output choice: A or B.
Let’s start with the brain first. Our brains are probability calculating engines. The Brain is programmed from the very beginning of the formation of the first neural cell, until the brain’s death. The brain also comes with preprogrammed models to drive various functions and emotions, obtained through evolution and environment.
The brain contains a model of the world that is influenced by every input it receives through its various sensors. This model is shaped and reshaped throughout its life as the input data is received by the brain. Input data could take many forms
- From touch, vision, sound, taste, smell, etc.
- To chemicals such as hormones, whether from your own body, or your mother’s body during pregnancy, or environment, etc.
- There are also meta Input Data that could influence the model such as language, emotions, the experience of others, past experience, observations, learning, etc.
- Input Also could take the form of societal norms, rules and/or regulations, shame, love, hate, etc.
Let us assume that we have a system of Input data and a brain model such as:
- We can provide a very precise and perfectly known input data set.
- Also, we can provide a very precise and perfectly known brain and brain model starting point.
- Let’s also assume that system, if provided a choice between A or B, that A would have a higher probability to be selected by that system, hence that system will choose A.
Now, the people who would say that we have free will, argue that even though the system is predisposed to choosing A, that system could choose B instead.
People who would say that we don’t have free will, argue that the system will choose A no matter what. And we don’t have a choice.
For that system to choose B instead of A, would mean that there is an input data condition that we did not account for, hence the input data set is not perfect or complete, which violate the assumption. Hence, we don’t have free will.
In my opinion, the reason people get confused about this illusion of free will is that the probability calculating engine (our brains) is constantly and recursively being updated by the experiences we have on a second by second basis. Also, the set of input data into the brain is large and complex, not to mention the combinatorial factor of how all that data is processed in our brains. This is, as referred to it by Data Science as an AI-complete problem.
The decision tree is vast, but not infinite. If we have a big enough computer (let’s go crazy, the size of the sun) with “perfect” input data set and “perfect” model of that brain at that point, we can predict the outcome and choice.
So, if that is the case, then anyone who will commit a crime, could claim that she has no choice and it was predestined, yes?
No! one of the inputs in the input data set is societal norms, rules, regulation, etc. this is another variable that could shape our world model in the brain. So, if this probability calculating engine decided on B instead of A (where B happened to be illegal) they will suffer the consequences.
But more importantly for this discussion, there is an input condition in this brain’s life that made it set low priority or low weight to the legal and societal rules, and for that, it needs to be corrected. Having rule enforcement in our society ought to help shape the model for these probability calculating engines, toward the betterment of society.
The other aspect of this, is if the brain itself was deficient or broken in some way to allow it to choose B instead of A, No matter what the input data set is (training, or rules, regulation, or experience) then you can say this person is not responsible for their crime (choosing B) and should be treated differently (send to a mental institute, instead of jail).
I wish the atheist community stop using the “free will” terminology because it is awash with imprecision and theological baggage that misses representing reality. Whenever we try to explain it, we always get wrapped around the axel. The model above is derived directly from Neural Science and AI research.
Thank you for all your great work.
dude this comment was epic
......amazing
Solid mate but dont ever get it confused no matter what you are never truly responsible for your action, only held accountable.
I don't disagree with your comment, but you are ironically part of the problem why concept of free will (its nonexistence) is harder to grasp than it needs to be. You make it way too complicated. The fundamental mistake I think is to argue (firstly) from the point of brain science to debunk free will, when we have the logical killshot under our noses.
Choice is either:
1. predetermined
2. random
You could even have full reign over the universe and laws that govern it, but you wouldn't be able to make it as such, where you would escape choice being random or predetermined.
@@25hvghfgetr6 which is exactly why we are also in a simulation, acting out our roles. No universe can escape predictability, so reality means absolutely nothing anywhere.
A man isn't free to want what he wants but he is free to Think
Good luck on your exams! Amazing video like always!
I think the best statement would be " we Dont control what we want, "
Sam's Studio But there are ways to control what we want(think we want).
@@optionsstrategies7511 yes... Think we want? When we think we want something we actually want that thing..but.we cant control what we want...we cant control our choice of want.
Sam's Studio Certainly there are things in your life that you have wanted and no longer want. Or there are things you thought you wanted, but then decided you did not want. What is the force controlling this desire and these changes?
@@optionsstrategies7511 my thinking,my circumstances, my upbringing,and my genetics.
Sam's Studio So all of these factors are out of your control, but they control what you want?
Want doesn't even sound like a word anymore
This is *such* a fantastic mott and bailey. He claims he is going from the assumption that free will means "we could have acted differently" and then immediately defines it in an extremist form that no one supports: "We have free will if and only if we knew all the factors affecting us and were in complete control of them."
If you had partial knowledge of your influences, and partial control over them (for example, at least weighting some more than others), you still could have acted differently, and met his original definition of free will. Of course, since he cannot proof that we have no awareness and no influence, he immediately constructs a much more extreme and fragile argument.
Can you choose to want? Absolutely. People can and do change their desires. What you focus on shapes your desires. For example, smokers told to pay close attention to the sensory experience of smoking desire to smoke less than people not attending to it. So, if we can in fact change our desires based on what we attend to or focus on, we can change our desires and his entire argument fails.
Of course, he try to turn this into an infinite regress, saying that what we attend to is shaped by our wants. But that's an assumption on his part. It is just as likely, that our attention is, in fact, the location of our freed. And that is what we actually experience: that *sometimes* we choose where to put our focus, and that shapes both our outcomes and our desires. Now either could be true, one is clearly more supported by our experience, but Alex assumes the second without proof and bases his argument on it.
He offers a broken analogy: think of something you want, and try to not want it. That fails because it's patently not how the brain works. Try NOT thinking about a pink elephant, etc. However, you can absolutely intentionally focus on something else (or like the in the case of cigarettes, focus more on the thing itself and realize how unpleasant it is), and actually change your desire.
This is only an infinite regress for Alex because his thinking is a tautology. Things must be determined -> I have want -> therefore my wants must be determined -> therefore when I do what I want, I am not free. But if you remove the initial assumption: I have a want -> When a I do what I want I am -> ??? For example, in the case above, with focus / attention as the basis of a freedom, the reasoning is:
I have wants which are combination of external factors + my free attention -> I act on those factors -> my actions are partially free -> because there is freedom in my actions, I could have acted differently based on my attention -> because I could have acted differently is our definition of freedom, I am free.
Of course, you can choose which to assume at the beginning, determinism or freedom. But because one aligns so much more with our experience, and there's little to no evidence for the contrary (remember, all of Alex arguments rely on the assumption of determinism first)... I would say, go with the one that actually matches experience.
"What you focus on shapes your desires". Do we choose what we focus on? What we focus on is just what we want to focus on, and can we control our wants? You say yes, by deciding what to focus on, and we are now in a circular dilemma. What do you think of this?
@@AlejandroFernandez05 Funny observation: this is a conversation between Alec & Alejandro about Alex.
I think you missed the point of my statement above, so I will attempt to explain more clearly. The infinite regress (or what you call circular dilemma) is of your creation, because *you* are the one saying "we focus on what we want to focus on." I didn't say that, and so I don't have an infinite regress. In fact, I spent some time in the comment above highlight that Alex has this exact problem. He's creating an infinite regress because of his assumptions, but one does not have to accept his assumptions.
In my view, you can (and by default do) focus on what you want... but you are free to focus on anything you are aware of. So yes, you *can* behave in a a determined many, but you also can choose not to; much like how breathing can be reflexive or voluntary.
But, you ask, "What *determines* whether you focus on what you want or something else?" Because what you deliberately focus IS your free will (or at least, how you exercise it), this is as silly as asking "But what determines your free will?" Nothing determines whether you exercise your free will; it's free. That's the point. If I don't assume determinism, I don't have to have something to determine my free will.
===================
The arguments in detail
===================
Your argument boils down to 1) (Premise) everything must be determined and 2) (Premise) "want" means whatever we are internally motivated, therefore 3) (conclusion) our wants must be determined and cannot have behaved differently. #3 is logically correct based on your premises, but I would argue with both of your premises (#1 and #2)
Criticism of #1: Whether or not our wants are determined is actually part of what we're supposed to be proving, so we can't assume it.
Criticism of #2: Want is very poorly defined. According to you and Alex, want is whatever internally motivates you. This doesn't really reflect how the brain works, because the brain has multiple systems of motivation that behave in different ways as well as meta-processes that analyze or judge motivations. So "wanting" in this sense doesn't really refer to any biological or physical reality, it's just meant to describe the totality of what goes on in your head, which could be any number of processes free or determined, conscious or unconscious, etc. These processes do not have to be determined, unless you're assuming #1, but you can't assume number one because that's what you need to prove. That's why you're getting a circular dilemma when you try to examine free will while keeping your premises.
My argument is not circular:
1) (Premise) Desires (referring specifically to both short and long-term systems) and even thoughts can be determined in the sense that they are wholly "unfree, " or that all the influences upon them are completely beyond the reach of freedom. I don't assert that they are, and in fact there could easily also be randomness or freedom involved. But lets assume they are unfree for simplicity.
2) (Premise) Attention can operate either reflexively (outside our awareness and/or freedom) OR under free will. You can think of attention as a dual control system, like breathing. It can happen outside your awareness (and outside of your control), or it can be intentionally controlled. The deliberate movement of our attention not under our control; it *IS* our control. It is not our wants, it is operating on our wants. And it needs no cause beyond freedom
3) (Conclusion) The fact that we *can* exercise free will in our attentions means that, whether or not our behavior in a particular case was determined, it could have been partially free, so we always *could* have done something differently. Since that is Alex's definition of freedom (and I whole heartedly agree), we are free.
If you have difficulty with premise #2, it's because you're asking: "but what *determines* whether we intentionally shift our focus?" By using the word "determines," you are inserting your premise of determinism into my argument and creating an infinite regress / circular dilemma where there is none. You are basically asking: "But what determines free will?" It's a nonsense question. Things do not have to be determined in my argument. Because I don't assume determinism, I don't have to have a determinant for free will.
Perhaps underlying your assumption (your premise #1, everything must be determined), your full argument is more like: a) everything physical is be determined b) we are physical beings, therefore c) everything we do must be determined. Again, you can assume that for your argument, but I don't have to. Particularly with number #1, I don't have to assume that the physical universe is deterministic.
For example, does a rock fall when you drop it because the universe is determined or simply because it lacks the mechanisms of movement (the physical capability to do other wise, like wings) and awareness (the potential for freedom in choose what you focus on). Either could accurately describe why the rock always falls. So the universe could be determined or free.
Also helpful for my premise #2 is more of an Eastern / meditative view of the self. In the West, we strongly identify what we are with our thoughts and desires. But when you meditate, bringing awareness to your thoughts, you start to notice a few things. 1) Thoughts just pop up on their own, uncontrolled, and so what you think really isn't up to you 2) There is something observing those thoughts, so that "we" are more than the sum of our thoughts and desires 3) We can choose to focus on a thought or let it go. This is our freedom. You don't have to meditate to be free, but it is one of the purest experiences of freedom because we de-identify with our desires... but some amount of freedom could still be expressed while identifying with them.
When I was a little kid, I didn't have the illusion of free will. It seemed kind of unfair that my parents would punish me for something, when I didn't feel I had any control over whether I did it or not. It was when I was about 6 or 7 that I started to think I had control over my choices.
Well after all there's a distinction between 'free will' and 'free action'
Free will isn’t an illusion lol. You always have a choice to do things you don’t want to do
@@kennypowers1945 that's free action, not free will
It would seem that punishments/consequences for your childhood actions were designed to create a want strong enough to act against your current wants. Building up your Id, ego and superego in the design of your parents.
Why would you know it’s unfair if you don’t have free will😂
Drinking game: Take a shot every time he says 'want'.
I don't want to.
Whatdoyoo meaaan i turned out fiine! Nahtdruunk
Sounds more like a pass out party. 😏
You copy pasted a popular comment
You’re funny lol, I like you.
Oh my God, I've been thinking about this for almost my entire life and he summed up how I feel in a video!
THIS IS THE END TIMES🔥🔥🔥.ENOUGH WITH ATHEISM FOOLISHNESS. YOU ARE ALL STUCK IN PLATO'S CAVE AND SATAN 'S MATRIX OF LIES. THE SPIRITUAL REALM IS REAL. REPENT OF YOUR SINS AND TRUST THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. YOU WILL BE SAVED FROM HELL 🔥
ua-cam.com/video/bVlfo0KHlVc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/myaroler0wM/v-deo.html
Your soul is on the line. Jesus is coming soooon. Jesus loves you❤
Your free will and god's free will are awaiting clarification.
@@loocypher150 ooh! Burnnn. 🤣🤣🤣.
@@loocypher150🤣😅.But it's not certain yet. Heaven and Hell is like a quantum phenomenon in which 0 and 1 can coexist at the same time but your consciousness gets to decide/observe. We live in a quantum reality. Example the double slit experiment. The electrons are estimated to be moving in on the two paths simultaneously until the final observation is made. That's what heaven and Hell is like. If you are saved by Jesus, heaven is a certainty. But if you are not yet saved it's not yet certain where you are going. Until you finally take that jump. And since you are not allowed to see the end Until you reach the end. God sees your end. But it's you who is accountably walking towards that end.
Have you watched TeNeT? "What has happened happened" but until you see the end you will never know. But For us who are saved we certainly know.
The offer of forgiveness from God is offered to you NOW.
2 Corinthians 6:2
..Today is the day of salvation
Albert Einstein proved that time is a relative illusion in his theory of general relativity. The only time that truly exists is the NOW.
You can use it with your God given free will to reject or accept God's forgiveness. To reject or accept God's love. Heaven or Hell. The choice is ultimately your's..
@@keyboardevangelist you can’t just put quantum in front of a word to sound smart when it doesn’t make any sense
7:40 what about the case of people like david goggins who were initially lazy and fat then became insanely hard working men, how did they experience a sudden and completely drastic change in their priority of desires i.e how did the desire to go to gym stay fit get healthy triumph the desire to not go to the gym and stay fat in a very drastic sudden manner when the priority of desires was opposite just before? What causes the shift in priority of a desire about a matter? Why do we love chocolates as kids then not so much as adults ( some do obv)?
I sat there staring at the bonfire trying to imagine how differently it would've behaved if I had lit it from the opposite side.
@Gods Servant That means nothing. The initial choice was not dependent on the outcome. Temporally, it couldn't be.
Is this a line of your own creation? I find it profoundly beautiful
"You can't control the strengths or objects of your desire"
Buddhists: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?!
@Everstruggling If we give buddhists the merit of the doubt, they claim to be able to completely eradicate any form of desiring from the mind.
@@wezzuh2482 Why would they do that? Because they want to.
Everstruggling You are right that Buddhists don’t believe a human can fully rid themselves of any desire. They do however believe you can curb and temper those desires (The Middle Way). Therefore, a Buddhist would agree that our desires/wants have strong influence over our minds and our decisions and that there is no way to totally eradicate them. However, they would disagree (with the guy in this video) that it is impossible to want something and then decide not to want it. The more you practice not wanting something the more you don’t want it, and therefore, you choose what you want. It’s a long process that takes a crazy amount of willpower and focus, but it can be done. Once you curb one desire, another may pop up as you go through life and circumstances change, and you’ll have to start the process all over again. There’s really no difference from this belief and behavioral psychology. If you believe you can retrain your brain and change habits, then you should believe that we have control over our wants. They go hand in hand. But I can understand peoples’ confusion because westernized culture teaches us to do the opposite and blindly satisfy our desires from the time we’re born.
One could argue, following this video's logic, that the desire to curb your desire is in itself a want, and therefore, that desire must have been stronger (due to pre-determined circumstances) than the desire not to change one's behavior. But anyone that has suffered from any kind of addiction can tell you that they can be so chemically dependent on their object of desire that they seem to crave it with every fiber of their being. And yet, one will at some point face that inevitable and pivotal choice: whether to give in to their desire for temporary pleasure or fight back against it in order to reclaim their freedom. To me, this is evidence of another aspect of our brain that moves past our simple wants/desires. It's some kind of willpower/force science and classic logic fails to explain. Some may call this one's spirit or soul. And this goes back to the age old debate over whether man's mind is distinct from one's soul and vice versa. So, I guess you could say this video is only true if you don't believe in the existence of the soul. And neuroscience just hasn't gone far enough yet to be able to rule it out. And therefore, how can we say every choice is a product of our desire if we are yet to fully understand where that desire stems from?
As of yet, I'm not convinced one way or another that free will exists or doesn't exist. But if it doesn't exist, I don't think it's because of the reasons in this video. If anything, I find it more likely that our lives are already laid out before us due to forces beyond our comprehension. Whether that means we're just pawns in a simulation and our choices are a complete illusion; or our understanding of time is skewed and everything that will happen has already happened and will always be; or both; or something else entirely. Either way, humans always gravitate toward black and white answers. But the truth is rarely simple. My personal belief is that it's a little of both (a combination of fate/free will): that we are destined for some experiences and have choices over others. And this goes back to the Buddhist idea of the soul and reincarnation and the choice to either take the opportunity to temper our desires and free our spirit or let it pass us by and be born again...
@@greasergirrl People will gravitate towards black & white because it's comforting to feel they've resolved one of life's many questions.
Everstruggling You don’t need to want to become a monk to want to be a better person. I’m sorry if that is a difficult concept for you to grasp. And i find it funny you think I helped prove your point, because I feel like you helped prove mine with your question. I’ve never met one person that doesn’t want to be successful or grow as a person in some way, unless they have some kind of psychosis. The main thing that differentiates people who want to get better with those who choose complacency, is that the former takes responsibility for their actions. Really think about why the idea of there being no free will comforts you so much. It’s appealing for a reason. Also, people these days are always angry if you use “too many words.” God forbid they put effort and brainpower into understanding anything more complex than what can be depicted in a meme. And psychology is a lot more complicated than a simple saying. I’ve read countless books and taken courses and gone to psychologists myself, so I know plenty. Anyway, knowledge and what’s written in the textbooks isn’t everything. People can memorize every fact in the world and still know nothing. Just like everything else, the field of psychology relies a lot on one’s intuition since there is actually very little proven about the human brain. Until we understand more, I don’t see it as appropriate for some UA-camr (credentials unknown) to make blanket claims - in the name of “philosophizing” about free will and our desires - with no real evidence to support it. We don’t yet understand where our wants stem from, and therefore, I don’t see how anyone could make a statement like that with absolute certainty.
Free will and gods punishment was something I always struggled to believe too. What convinced me was imagining that I was a scientist who had the ability to create life and who could also see into the future. I can create a being and hardwire every single desire and thought process of this being. Not only that, but based on precisely where I raised this being and the exact people this being grew up around, I would know exactly their desires, beliefs, and life path. Now, this is even less than what god can do. My thought was, how can a god, who made me with the specific desires and thought processes that I have, and put me specifically in a home and surrounded by people where he knew exactly how they would affect me (i.e. god is in control of both nature and nurture), how could a god like this fault me for any of the decisions I 'choose' to make?
My thought is this:
if god is all knowing, he knows what i'm going to do before i do it
Well Christians will say God only created the first two humans. Other humans came through reproduction. Still God should not held us responsible. He knew it will happen and should have stop it. Then again if someone thought a wrong thought, that doesn’t excuse them to commit it.
@@polandball999
Right. That doesn’t mean he cause it, but allowing it is just as bad. Before you say God created us. He didn’t. Only the first two people who were said to be prefect until they are the fruit. Besides having a bad thought doesn’t mean you should act on it. Unless you was raise wrongly, you could have rebuke those thoughts.
@@Bunni504 but god made me uncapable of not getting the proof, he changes environmental facts, and hardwire my thought process, he knew i would do that, i can choose to not do it, but that is just an illusion since god created me knowing i wouldnt get the apple
this reminds me of what I used to think in the childhood. when ever an ant was passing, I'd think that if I kill the ant right now, that's the death the god has decided for the ant and if I don't do that but kill it after five minutes then that's also decided and if I don't do anything of them and just let it go then that is also decided by the god. I used to be very confused because of that.
You are free to do what you want, but not free to choose what you want.
Schopenhauer
Free will doesn't imply the supernatural ability to transcend your identity and instantiate a different set of desires than the ones you come hard wired with. Free will implies the mental capacity to exercise conscious choice within an available context. It is a psychological phenomenon, not a metaphysical power. By consciously choosing to reject free will, you are inescapably exercising it (in the psychological sense - the only sense in which free will can meaningfully apply).
Is exercising a conscious choice meaningful if you don't control the reasons behind that choice? I would argue that even if you think it is, the choice we make is still deterministic in nature. If we were to make an exact copy of you, with the exact same brain state and put you both into an identical room then all of your choices would be the exact same. You would both say the exact same things at the same time etc.
Libertarian Realist Right, that's a different definition, one that basically boils down to "we have free will because we feel like we have free will" which Alex mentioned.
Can an entity have no consciousness but still have free will? Can an entity have no free will but still be conscious? How would that work? If not, what's the difference between free will and consciousness? If there's no difference, free will is a redundant term.
michaelmath Puffy would agree with you..... :3 This whole "free will vs. determinism" thing is ridiculous by default..... :3 Can't Fight The Systemagic..... :3
Rational people do NOT choose what they believe.
By invoking the concept "you," you are presupposing the existence of a being with a particular identity. Yes, an exact copy of me would make the same choices given exactly the same circumstances. That doesn't mean the choices aren't real as mental processes. Would only the choices of a boundless, unlimited consciousness capable of transcending the law of identity count as "free"? I don't think that's the basis of the concept of free will or what proponents of it believe.
While true free will is nonexsistant due to physical, legal, or other limitations l like my little illusion of being able to make choices about personal expression.
So... ignorance?
Indeed, our brains evolved "fooling" themselves so as to make us convinced that we have free will. This is because (becasue) for a highly intelligent species the idea of free will not existing would be quite hard to swallow and therefore would prove to be PROBLEMATIC both socially as well as for individuals, hindering the ability to survive and reproduce, so this position of blissful ignorance is 100% logical.
you can like the illusion while being completely aware of it though. or are you telling me that since you got convinced about the lack of free will you don't feel like you make decisions anymore? ever?
well... no it also has interllectual and skeptical implication.
I absolutely understand, for all practical reasons we have free will, randomness exists, there may as well be a god, etc. What is true and what is practical are two different things.
I need to stop watching this kind of video giving me headaches
Yeah thinking is hard
🤦♂️
Cognitive dissonance can be hard to get through. Skeptics are really just intellectual masochists. We've grown fond of hurting ourselves in the pursuit of truth.
But it's not like you can help it. Once your brain has stopped resisting by forwarding confirmation bias, you'll most likely keep coming back until it has found a satisfactory solution.
Pure nonsense will do that to you
Not sure why it has no bearing on very at all really. Just stating the obvious really.
One day I went into dairy queen to order an oreo blizzard. Went up to the menu and I looked at the new blizzard of the month and was a red cake blizzard. I always preferred choc cookies in my ice cream before anything else and it didn't look so great but I decided ( I think anyway) to take a chance for once and get something different. Was that an exercise of free will or predetermined by an impulse?
The debate dissolves when you take an honest perspective of your opponents position (I have Free Will). This video will mean nothing to them, because of reasons you eluded to early. It's a problem of Symantecs. When you say you don't have the ability to pre-determine your wants. They say I don't need to. I know what I want and why. I could choose otherwise but I don't want to; hence I am exercising my free will by wanting this want rather than that.
They are unable to see the fallacious nature of this logic. It's circlular reasoning with a dash of ad absurdum. Couple your arguments against free will with some critical thinking lessons for a complete demolishion of their delusion. :) Great vid btw
I always at the end of this debate give an uplifting. "Don't worry too much over what you never had, you got this far without it ;)
Makeshift Altruist
Agreed, mostly.
There are simply some tragic horrors that befall us due to some of these kinds of delusions.
I don't know how to present the information to people in a way that convinces them of the need to stop retributive responses, to have more forgiveness and compassion.
It's true, we got this far with no free will while thinking it was coherent, that we had it. But it seems to me we could do far better facing the facts - no matter how bleak they might seem - in the long run. The false positives have a way of coming back around and biting us.
I think there may be a fine distinction between 'free will' as in: the ability to choose, and autonomy as in: the ability to choose free of influence.
BTW I love your videos, your ability to think critically and logically is incredible and something I strive to achieve as well.
ALL actions are influenced by something though, so I can’t even grant your definition of autonomy as something that actually exists.
We are the sum of our senses, the society we live in, our culture, and the people around us. It is impossible to have free will (free of influence). Just take a look at how hormones control what we think and do.
Free will would require that decisions are made consciously. But decisions are made at a subconscious level, well before we are even aware of them.
Are you saying you are aware of, and exert conscious control of the cascade of electrical and chemical reactions that happen in your brain continuously?
Unique.
@@TesterAnimal1 I am not saying that, we are not in control of the chemical reactions in our brain. I'm basically saying that the chemicals and hormones in our brain control us.
Looks like the Calvinists were right all along.
Yes this cosmic person unwittingly is deterministic in the way reformed theology teaches. I wonder if he is familiar with infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism. I don't think so however. He reads Richard Dawkins books.
So ironic that determinist atheists and Calvinists make a great team.
Calvanists might be right about free will, but they are pretty wrong about everything else... especially what it implies.
Free will (or not) isn't a problem unless you posit the existence of a being which can actually predict everything. For us mortals, free will is just a very practical illusion. There's no more use worrying/arguing about free will than there is in trying to prove the statement "This is not a sentence." is true or false.
Calvinism doesn't teach free will doesn't exist. Hypercalvinism does. Mainly, the Calvinist would say free will is overpowered for soteriological purposes.
Yeshua = Truth, ofc we have free will. There are people who willingly choose evil, because they love the energy it produces
I would argue, that to a certain degree we can control the degrees or intensity to which we desire what we “want” across multiple dimensions because we organize those “wants” into a hierarchy and inter connect them with one another. As we change different areas in our lives, we rearrange the hierarchy, and shift multiple items based on the initial change. For instance, the decision to go to the gym is not only a shift in want, it is a shift in value structure, and therefore you’ll shift multiple other “wants” within your hierarchy of wants in order to align yourself with the new value. I do agree that changes like this are rare and take conscious effort, but we are most definitely capable of shifting our wants. I think a better argument for free will would be that the future is already predetermined, and therefore we will always fall prey to the future.
I agree that you can change your "wants" by changing your cognitive value structure. But you will change this structure because you want to do it. And then you will try very hard and think about it and question it, because you want to do so. In the end you have changed your "wants" by using your wants or being forced to by a therapist or someone/something else. In no point you are free of your "wants". At least according to Alex ;)
This is what I am currently doing: diving deep into this topic and changing my wants and desires. My desire to sit on the couch or be on the computer is stronger than my desire to go to the gym. As soon as the thought of going to the gym arises in my mind, I ask myself why my desire to work out and improve my appearance and well-being is less compelling. Clearly, one option involves more effort but offers long-term benefits, while the other requires less effort and provides immediate gratification.
Without delving too deeply into our reward system, I aim to make my desire to work out stronger than my inclination to sit idle. The desire to desire something is potent, whether we believe in free will or not. This shift in priorities is the most powerful step I've taken to accomplish more.
I think the comments are struggling with defintion problems XD
Spelling too apparently.
Oh I know I do...his definitions are terrible and I don't agree with them XD It's the cult problem all over again where depending on your definition the impact of it loses all meaning.
the real question is "who is this you?" that has free will. "Or what is this you?"
exactly, the ego is the real illusion here
If we define free will as "the ability to have acted differently" then it is defined in past tense, and can't be applied to the present. Nothing has ability (present) to have done (past) differently. Present can't change past.
What is true though, is that hypothetically, IF things were different in the past, we could have acted differently in the past. But the current definition is a no-brainer, because we know that things were as they were, therefore we did as we did. Or the other way around, we did as we did, therfore things were as they were. It has nothing to do with consciousness really, cause your consciousness is always here and now, not there and then. The definition is in some weird hypothetical way referring to "a changing of the past" which can't be done. Nor can we say it could be otherwise, because it was simply not otherwise. So it's useless to define free will by reflecting on the past. The definition in and of itself is merely hypothetical, and we know that this hypothesis is in fact false. So the definition directly contradicts the intended purpose of the words. It can in some sense be translated to "free will is the ability to change the past," but we know for a fact that we can't.
But if we set aside the past for a moment, it does not eliminate the possibility of us having some kind of free will here and now. Even though we in the future can't prove that our will in this moment was free, because we can't prove that we could have done differently. In reality, we can't really scientifically prove subjective experiences. And free will is exactly that, a subjective experience. I wonder, is everything determined, or does it become determined the very same instance it happens? 'Cause as soon as something happens, it is in the past. And the past is unchangeable, therefore it couldn't be otherwise ie determined. Can anyone else see this?
Maybe the best argument ive read so far.
I'm still confused on all of this. But, I do agree that since the past is unchangeable, a thing becomes determined at an infinitesimally small measurement of time after it happens. But that does not get rid of free will unless I do some more thinking to get that conclusion.
I see your point more now. Since we cannot know how other people experience in the present i.e. get in their head while still being yourself in the present, you cannot know if they have free will. To experience what they experience is to be them. Free will is a purely subjective experience by definition since it is based on a subject. And you can only be one subject: yourself. Right or no?
@@hellothere-hx5by Yes, that's a nice way of putting it! Free will can only exists in the present moment as a subjective experience, therefore it's not for science (or a youtuber) to prove/disprove it. But we can conclude that if free will is merely an illusion, then all subjective experience is an illusion, hence the whole universe (including science) is nothing but an illusion. And some people do actually believe that to be the case. But at the end of the day, people can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change our subjective experience of existing here and now. Even science can't deny this, as scientists themselves use their subjective experience in their observations.
@@jedfelicilda7677 I'm glad to hear! So thank you for taking the time to respond.
the fact that we are beings capable of producing an infinite number of desires and that we can consciously pick one desire over another, is enough evidence of free will for me.
The whole premise of the video of we can’t control what we want is just untrue. To a large degree, we can start choosing differently by focusing on the positives of the things we want to choose. It is so common we call it rationalization. The video maker seems smart enough, I wonder how did he miss the point … or did he just went straight to absolutism to be able to make a video.
@@scoobydoo9579I don't share your opinion, if you rationalize, it is because you want to, and you didn't chose to want it, for everything you do, or think, there was something which motivated you to do so, otherwise you wouldn't do it
@@gregvanb Interesting. In your view, when we are "motivated" to do something -- what do you call that motivation if it is not rationalization? Or are you suggesting human should operate purely on impulse -- the same way a sea cucumber would?
@@scoobydoo9579 what I'm saying is that if you rationalize, it is because you have the ability to do so (which you have no control on), and the will to do it the moment you do it. For example if you're in a moment when you are too emotional, you won't be able to rationalize immediately but then you'll do it once you realize that to just follow your emotions might not be the best way to deal with your actual situation (so there is one or many reasons that leads to rationalize, but you don't choose to do so from nowhere, if you do something you have reason(s) to do it, otherwise you wouldn't do it). So every decision, thoughts, change of opinion, action etc. you make is actually the consequence of a lot of different things that happened before you make it. An idea doesn't come from nowhere, your brain doesn't generate ideas from nowhere, and if it did it would mean that we all are gods at our own level
@@gregvanb You lost me there. Is your view that our every decision is the "natural" results of trillions of factors we can't control, and therefore we don't have free will? And why must we be "gods" just because we can create an idea out of nothing -- can't God create us to be able to create an idea out of nothing -- especially if that's what giving us "free will" means?
I'm gonna have lots of sleepless nights now thinking about this. Thanks bro
Don't worry, a completely different person will wake up tomorrow with your memories.
Even if you can’t control what you want, the precise outcome of your actions in doing what you want are not known to you. Also, a chain of wants that leads to the final want gives the feeling of free will, as you have no memory on a conscious level of every experience that led you to that point. It’s more of a feeling.
These is kinda good and deserves discussion
But why do you want your outcome to be doing what you want? If your outcome makes someone happy, then that is what you wanted. Whether you successfully made them happy or not doesn't matter, what matters is, that is what you wanted to achieve. So the outcome doesn't really matter. What matters is what made you chose the option that you did. Your want for something made you choose that option.
Even if you don't remember all experiences, it doesn't mean they don't influence your decisions. You don't have to remember precisely the time when you were 3 years old and you put your hand on hot plate and burn it to know that this will happen if you do it now. You experienced it and your brain remembers it, it remembers what it needs to remember for you to not make such a mistake again.
This makes no sense at all. What are you trying to argue? The more confident you are that you have free does absolutely nothing. You concede you can't control your wants, and the only driving force behind your actions are your wants. Self delusion does not grant you free will all of a sudden
That's getting pretty deep there! Wanna know what God told me free will is?
@@The_Jumpman I think they are answering the question why do we feel we have free will, they are not arguing/disagreeing with anything they are adding to what Alex is discussing.
7:36.... Now I'm curious how this relates to relationships. My 31yr old ex fiancé left for a 17yr old, leaving me homeless and having to take him to court to get my car back, and still he defended himself with, he's just trying to be happy. I just wanted my car to sleep in and get over what happened.
After 7 years with him, I knew he'd grown and changed over time, but couldn't see how he'd done it. I somewhat understand now how his insecurities about his age and sense of impending death had effected his wants over time.
I couldn't change what he wanted and I have to accept that if I want to move forward.
Sorry, this may be unrelated but I'm glad this video got me thinking.
This is a very rational and mature reaction, one that you no doubt did not feel at first, as we are dominated by our emotions, but understanding that we lack free will really ought to increase our empathy for others, even others who seem to have done us wrong. As you say, there are so many reasons behind what happened between you two, and it is impossible to work them all out, and even if you did it would not do anything to change it. He just did the sort of things that the type of person he is was going to do. You too. Men are cursed in some sense by our sexual attractions to younger women. We are biologically programmed (most of us, anyway, there are lots of exceptions) to want to spread our self as far as possible, and to go after what our programming tells us are the most healthy specimens. It's very cold and clinical, but it really does explian a lot of male behaviour. The veneer of civilisation and marriage and monogamy and all that cannot tamp this drive down. The sexual drive is the most powerful in animals.
My own story is somewhat similar, me being the bad guy. I never did it because I wanted to hurt anyone, in fact quite the opposite. Knowing I had hurt the mother of my daughter was very painful, but I was not in love with her any longer, and was in love with someone else (who ended up leaving me for someone younger, how's that for poetic justice!). Here I am, all philosophically minded and I still am reeling from this loss almost 4 years later. Knowing that we don't have free will does help with our empathy, but we still are deeply governed by irrational emotions.
people don't make choices, "choice" implies "free will"
Your atoms lead to you writing that....as my atoms lead me to type this...
But we must reduce things, for this it what science is supposed to do. We must be honest of what the science shows, otherwise we are constructing falsehoods to avoid the obvious uncomfortable facts. You are suggesting constructing some kind of religion, of made up ideas, over science to make things fit an old, religious world of "morals" and "ethics"
Morals and ethics have no scientific evidence proving they exist; they are as made up as religion, just stories to exert power and constrain freedom...
Because the ancient book clearly says worship me or i will punish you forever after your dead. Not freewill but forced will
But.. what does it mean to, "want" to do something?
*vsauce music plays*
DADANNNN
truely humorous... um i think it goes "ha. ha."
Hey, Vsauce! Michael here.
Love this
You think you are the doer.
I would also argue, from a sociological perspective, that we don’t have free will because we are inevitably influenced by external factors since birth. These factors influence our wants, and how we act and our ‘free will’. Great video
Well I guess it's impossible for us not to be influenced by external factors since day one of our life outside our mothers. It's a good question from you but think about it - animals, bears let's say, how could they possibly survive if their parents gave them free choice to eat or not to eat and what to eat. Do you think them being infants could possibly have the "free will", I mean "free will" to do EVERYTHING on even such basic level of existence? They'd die after few days. Few hours maybe? Parents provide house, provide food, warmth and make sure their offspring don't drown in their own excrements. If a one day old being was suppose to decide about himself from the day one, he would have to have any base of experience anyway. If you know what I mean. Cheers :P
mhhhhm... icecream
You want that ice cream hah? But does that ice cream want you too?
nobody wants me ;__;
Fun video!
On a small note, I would like to put in a small bit of info in relation to the chocolate vs vanilla ice cream bit. Beyond you not necessarily having the ability to freely choose for yourself and your choice being pre determined, you actually have even less controll over flavor profiles, given that a majority of our food based preferences are controlled by the micro biome inside of our stomach ("The Second Brain"). An uncountable number of tiny organisms; sometimes "large" ones as well 🤢, that release chemicals to sway you into eating what they want to eat rather than what you would like or need to eat. Hilariously, their dietary choices would fall victim to a biological sort of determinism as well! Make of that what you will! Never the less, just try to enjoy the ice 😅 cream!
There is a want behind all Force. Someone 'forces' you to do something can only happen if you want something. You want to stay alive so you do whatever the gunmen says. So 'force' seems to be an illusion as well.
Also, your example seems to assume you can't want two things equally. Can you want 2 things equally? Can you want 2 things close enough to go either way? Can free will be hidden in this grey area?
Steven King In the case of wanting two things equally, any action you take towards either option, if mutually exclusive, is due to what you did and wanted up to that point. If the two equal wants aren’t mutually exclusive, then any action you take towards either is based upon the wants and actions you’ve taken up to that point.
And if you want both equally, but don’t wind up taking any action towards either, then that lack of action is also dependent on the linear processes that brought you to that point.
@@aidenbusselman9442 Lets say that you could want two things absolutely equally down to every synapse. That is to say that you dont have preference in the matter. If you truly don't want one thing over another, it's truly indifferent to you.
But thing here to realize is that having no preference by definition, means that choice is random, it can't be caused by previous moments. Also libertarian free will cannot be behind the choice, because without preferences you run into the wall of randomness.
Did anyone noticed, that the number of views and subscribers are more or less same at this particular time
We are not able to 'control our wants' (choose what we want) at any given moment in time, but realising that we (don't) want one thing (and not another) is an essential first step in evaluating and eventually re-programming (neuroplasticity) those 'wants' (or reactions of rejection, for that matter).
Humans are basically empirically-learning (through imitation, initially) automates (relying largely on our (program routine) subconscious) with the added ability of (re-)programming themselves (critical thought)... but granted that much of the human population does not use this function, and are indeed 'stuck in their ways'.
This is not an argument 'for' free will, by the way: critical thought (self-analysis and re-programming) just makes our role in the universe's 'action-reaction' chain of events more complex, that's all... because even our re-programming abilities, choices, etc. are determined by past experiences, tastes, etc..
Sorry for all the brackets: trying to say a lot in a few words, here.
@J.M. Schomburg - I really appreciate your comments and ideas (how could I not?) as it was something I was wanting to explore further and I think you're on to something.
It would still deterministic that someone (person A), being able to evaluate and reprogram their wants, does while person B (someone without the function of reprogramming for any myriad of reasons), does not (and hence are stuck in their ways). Correct?
Again, thanks for the thoughts!
Brilliant video - best I've seen on this subject. Summed up succinctly 👌👍
This is the best? Guess my position is solidified then, free-will is the only logical option
I actually love this video. No one I ever speak to understands this concept!
Okak H2o - oh, only the chosen ones do? Like yourself?
@@kbeetles you wouldn't understand if you haven't actually sat down and thought about it.
Crown Kira - and what makes you think that I am not someone who thinks and ponders a lot? I have been doing there for over 60 years - thank you for your advice!
Let's be honest, no one truly understands this concept.
Ignore the bullshit guys, this video makes perfect, by human standards of logic, sense.
I thought it was kinda funny to see US bills displayed like it's a rarity, but then I save every foreign coin I come across lol.
inhalefarts Man... just in 3 wks.
This didn’t age well :(
What is free will:
The ability to have acted differently
1. You can't control your wants:
- Try to think about so thing you want - now try not wanting it.
- Try to think of something you don't want - now try to want it.
- This is not possible.
2. You will only do anything because you either want to or because you're forced to.
Everything is controlled by your wants.
3. Everybody feels like they have free will / control over their actions
4. Consceptional vs. Personal free will.
"Yes, you can do anything you want but you can't, you just can't choose WHAT you want - and where's the freedom in that?"
Free will is based on your wants, which you can't control. Acknowledge this and you will be more calm with your choices.
Really? Did you want to write that comment and were not able to not write that comment? No choice made on your part?
Free will is based on our choices, which we can control. Acknowledge this and you will be more responsible with your choices.
@@jpt7955 if they chose not to write the comment it would still be based on a want the have whether it be they don't want people to respond or they want to spend their energy on something else etc
Well not exactly because you can still do the things that you don't want to do
Your not forced to do anything. For instance. People with drug addictions who are trying to detox from alcohol or heroin may want to drink alcohol or do heroin but they have the decision (chose) to deny thereselves and say NO! I WILL NOT SHOOT UP HEROIN! No Matter how bad you might want something you can (free willingly) Choose what you want to do. Free will exist
And secondly your wrong. I thought about wanting a pancake. Now I decided I don't want a pancake. So no it's not impossible
"it just is" - not a very convincing argument. A mind made of flesh 8:58 ? interesting, I don't think that assertion has, as yet, been confirmed (and this is 5 yrs on from when you posted this). "Yes, you can do whatever you want, you just can't choose what it is that you want." If this statement is an axiom, then why should anything you have said in this video (that you didn't choose to want to make) be accepted as a true statement on reality? After all, you had no control what-so-ever over what you just said, its all merely the result of an ancient chain of causation that stretches all the way back to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. By your logic you could not be "forced" to do anything either. Whether you did or did not take a particular course of action is entirely out of your (or anyone else's) control. To imply that predetermined actions can be forced, would be a logical fallacy. It's all just a pantomime of which we are each the unwitting actors. For whose entertainment?
I am confusion
don't you just want to want to understand?
youre not confused, your want to understand is outmatched by your want for a more simple explanation or your want for free will. dont worry though, my want to judge you for not understanding is outmatched by my want to understand your lack of understanding is controlled by something that is not your free will, as your free will is non-existent.
Hey, you've taken away much of that rabbit's free will by placing him/her in the cage!
''Free will'' is such a semantic black hole that I have refrained from touching it again. Also it won't change anything about daily life.
Akryloth yes it will . If anything it will make your more unlikely to have kids, when you realise humans are just slaves of conscious and unconscious desires. There is no point to life. And pain and suffering is inevitable
@@lepetitchat123 This kind of realisation don't change anything about our lives we just keep living the way we always did because that's how humans are
jaf not really wanna change anything, but I would prefer a world where less people spew bullshit like life is what you make it
Akryloth: OR, it will change everything about YOUR daily life and may be, also, the people you love; it's up to you. God bless you.
Actually you don't know whether the (non) existence of free will changes anything or a lot about daily life. Predetermined or not, you don't know the future. The fact that it seems not to have had much of an impact in the past, makes you think that way but it does not allow you to say anything about changes in the future and even about changes about the past that could had been.
I think "forced to" and "want to" are the same thing in this context.
Being forced to do something is still a WANT. You WANT to continue living (if you're forced at a gun point for example).
Or if your parents give you and ultimatum to do something or they'll kick you out of the house, you're just WANTING to preserve your well being by doing that thing seemingly forcefully.
If you WANT to NOT do the thing you're being forced to more than the consequences (known to you) that will follow, then you'll just not do it and vice versa.
Oh... now I get what you mean by forced, literally and physically. But then if you're pushed off the stage you're just a physical object being influenced by another one(another person) no thought involved. This video is perfect.
Yeah, to force can either mean to change a circumstance so that a person wants to do something, or to make someone do something unconsciously.
Nicht von dieser Welt what he means is that if X tells Y to do Z, or be shot, Y technically wants to do Z at that point, in value of Y's life.
I think you are arguing semantics right now, not JDS_96
You express things well Alex, and it is great that you have chosen this path to discuss so many philosophical ideas. I hope, and indeed, believe, that most of your videas will prompt serious thought and great discussions. I don't think you succeed in what you attempt on this one, but it was for sure a very big ask!
He might not have had the choice to make this video or not. Free will is in itself a choice.
did you watch the vid?
You know you sound like that one guy from Metal Gear Revenge.
And I quote: " free will is a myth, religion is a joke, we are pawn, controlled by something far greater than us. MEME, the DNA of our soul, etc." Moonsoon
Metal gear rising revengence
I've been thinking about the illusion of free will every day for the last 2 years or so to the point were I couldn't even listen in class and had an existential crisis. Thinking about prisons, and the validity of the judiciary and stuff like that. And in all that time, I've never thought about the question of wanting and not wanting like you did in this video. Thank you for this, it's very helpful.
Prisons are not entirely unjustified tho. They influence your wants in a direction compatible with society ie. you have an incentive not to want to hurt people.
You still have to lock dangerous people away (so they stop hurting others), but the judicary system would still change into something that focuses more on rehabilitation rather than punishment if the vast majority actually understood that free will is an illusion.
Punishment doesn't do very much when people are aware they're not ultimately responsible for their actions. Of course people still wouldn't want to go to prison, but the effect would still differ.
Maybe you should consider the alternative then. I do believe that free will exists and I think it's somewhat absurd to suggest the contrary.
+Luciano Latouche Did you even watch the video ?
@@Usulcardo Alex's definition of free will is totally stupid.
My issue with this comes down to the very definition of free will that you chose. I think the whole free will debate is a clumsy semantical bungle. You define free will as the ability to have acted differently, but I define free will as simply the ability to choose to do what you want to do. To me, it makes no difference why we want to do things in the first place. The fact that we want to do them makes it our will, and if we indeed have control over our bodies, then we have the power to enact the designs of our will. It's as simple as that. Free will simply exists. It really isn't that complicated.
we can control what we want though. i cant make myself want something and if i could that would be free will. this guy perfectly explained why we dont have free will in the most logical way possible no matter how you define free will.
@@m3ganshea What if I define free will as the ability to do what you want to do, rather than want what you want to want? Sure, you can't do everything you want to do, but it's not like your body is enslaved to a different mind than the one you inhabit.
I seen the title of the video, (in this moment i had a choice) to click on it, or not.......Do i want to watch it? or do i not want to watch it?
I wanted to watch it, i clicked on the video. your right, on one level i had a choice, to click or not to click. its here the (want) or(desire) how ever you want to put it, has to be their. We just do the things we want to do, and not the things we don't want to do.
subscribe or not subscribe is not a choice, do i want to or do i not want to. Which ever one i do, i am doing it because i want to.....
having said all that, i can see how you feel that is a choice, if you think a little deeper you may discover your always doing what you want and their is no free will. its just always doing what you want. lol @@m3ganshea
@foreverdirt1615 in that case you simply have a different definition of free will.
@@mindfulness26 will, want, same idea.
As a philosopher i have a deep problem with the "wants just are" idea. You didn't pursue that and it makes me have no reason to believe your argument. Where do wants come from? Why do wants change, often outside of our own consciousness? Why is a new want to change your want a pre determined factor and not an instance of me introducing something out of free will? I just feel that this is a bad argument.
Neurochemically driven subconsciousness
True, it's not exactly that he 'just wants it.' The way I interpreted that is that due to a variety of biological, neurochemical, as well as his lived experiences that create positive and negative associations for him, he prefers one thing over the other. But, is he truly completely free in having this preference, or was it in a way predetermined by all of these factors that he's mostly not even aware of?
Three very interesting comments, thank you.
Am I the only one that sees the irony of someone make a book recommendation, in a video explaining why we dont have free will?
No, you're not. Sam Harris is an even more dramatic example of someone who tells people what they SHOULD think and believe while telling them they can't choose.
@@KingoftheJuice18 To be fair he's just making his case, not telling you that you should agree with him, you can disagree and think or believe something else.
@@alguno1010101 You're completely right that we can disagree and believe differently, but Sam himself argues for what he thinks is true for everyone. Sam certainly does not feel it's all a matter of personal opinion. That would be so unSam-like!
@Forever Forward Nah, just because I have no free will doesn't mean I listen to everybody or believe anything someone tells me. I actually feel better knowing free will is bs. Also your arguments are useless, whatever will happen will happen, its not that it can be controlled at all. lol
Well, he has no other choice than to make that recommendation, so that doesn't contradict that there is no free will.
Anybody interested might chekc the book out, anybody that isn't won't. Whatevs
This is something I've been thinking about given some of my psychonautical experiences with dissociatives and psychedelics. When under the effects of LSD and nitrous oxide I've repeatedly had the strong sense that I wasn't in control of my actions. It literally felt like my body was just moving without me willing it to. At first I was terrified and convinced myself that I was being mind controlled by aliens or something (give me a break, I was tripping), but as I experienced in multiple times after that I sort of came to expect it. Those experiences have brought me to hypthesize that free will is an illusion, and when under the effects of certain mind-altering hallucinogens it breaks that illusion as your consciousness dissociates from your mind. That's essentially what I was experiencing.
It's spychosis
that’s sounds like depersonalization
Or the mind-alrering substances literally temporarily altered the way your mind was working, and now you're just trying to rationalize the experience that is literally impossible to rationalize because your reality simulation organ wasn't working properly for that short time.
Meaning maybe there was no grand revelation or purpose behind your experience. Maybe it was just you having an incoherent nonsensical experience because your brain was temporarily out of whack.
@@liarwithagun the op said that perhaps hallucinogenics disassociate your consciousness from your body, which basically is exactly what your saying. So what is your argument.
Exactly! the job of consciousness is to tell a story about shit that happens.
you dont have to exercise free wil just with "want". it talks about you ability to BE ABLE to act differently regardless of your want.
but even if you had the ability, you would never live any differently. You don't really have the ability to choose differently if you never would have chosen differently anyway