How Free Will Works
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2013
- To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Skeptics of free will tend to confuse what it means to have free will. They seem to think that the free choices of agents must just reduce to random events. But this is not the case and this video explains.
Sources:
arxiv.org/abs/quant--ph/0604079
arxiv.org/abs/1106.4481
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith - Stephen Barr
• From Einstein To Quant...
www.newscientist.com/article/d...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/koc...
The Ghost in the Atom - Paul Davies & J.R. Brown
Free Will and Luck - Alfred Mele
The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment - Alexander Pruss
Natural Agency - John Bishop
Free Will and Consciousness - Gregg D. Caruso
Music Credits:
Joseph Trapanese - Lightbike Battle
• Best Dubstep Ever - Jo...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn0Hq-...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
The worst part about free will, is all the wrong I have done, the time I have wasted, I have chosen to do. My shortcomings are all my fault. I used to be a more determinist thinker. I thought my actions/preference towards certain behaviors was inherited from my parents/genetics.
hey man it’s okay. at least now you know you CAN control your life. your past does not define you now, and especially who you want to become in the future :) cheers!
Determinism in a nutshell: claiming that free-will-ists make unsupported and unscientific claims but not realizing that determinists do the same.
How is that what determinism does?
@@Voivode.of.Hirsir Whoosh!
Yes, they are both wrong 😂
@@rotorblade9508 No?
@@rotorblade9508 Lmao no
I'm using my free will to give you a thumbs up and fav this video.
Great job!
you were predetermined to like this video.
it matched your preconceived notions of free will, so your brain responded by wanting to openly show your agreement with a like
Im determined to thumbs down the video based on the information my brain has processed in the past and my current understanding of the topic.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez No he had a desire to do so and as such he chose freely to act on said desire rather than to ignore it
@@freethoughtgreg6424 No you desired to do so and chose to act on said desire
Wow a channel with different views from the regular mainstream cancer, I thought i was the only one.
The cancer brought you here so its not so bad
No. His desire to seek outside the cancer brought him here.
To even have to make a video about this is frighting. Just shows how far one is willing to go in order deny the inevitable. Choices = Free Will. It's time to get over it and deal with the result.
TheHandHistoryVault You seem to not understand the argument.
lllULTIMATEMASTERlll do they have the choice to understand the argument cuz if not, then I don’t know why you try to convince them otherwise.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll His reply/comment, made perfect sense to me. I think you decided to...just make a hubris, statement. How does his comment, in any way, prove or show, he does not understand the argument? A little insight...it doesn't. Lol. Makes me wonder, how there can be such cognitive dissoance in this world. Lol.
I suppose 22 people were entrapped by chemical processes to dislike this video.
Hey man, I just want to say thank you for putting this wonderful argument together. I've always believed I've had free will intuitively, but it's been harder to maintain that belief with hard determinists arguing against free will at every turn. God only knows why they want to say that free will is an illusion, because it's a very dark philosophy with horrible implications. I plan on keeping this video on deck any time I feel doubt creeping in about free will. I wish you all the best man.
You've encapsulated my feelings exactly
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill ~ Rush
Great song.love it
Great video! You should debate "rationality rules", you would utterly destroy him...
I'd love to. I did a response to him last year: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/rationalityrules-does-not-understand-philosophy/
InspiringPhilosophy yea from what little I've seen of him, he seems to try and come up with a logical fallacy for the least little thing... I think he's even stated that the beginning of the universe or big bang as used in the The cosmological argument is begging the question LOL
@@InspiringPhilosophy This...is great stuff! I had no idea...there is someone out there...like you! It is amazing how well you understand all of these concepts. I would give anything to have the reasonable and rational brain, that you do. Very impressive.
Agreed!
Yeah, I like this idea of causal chains being repeatedly altered by free will decisions, thus creating new causal chains that progress more or less independently. That is, until the next free will decision alters them again - and so on and so on and so on. Sounds like a good representation of reality. Cheers.
There is a mistake in the logic of this argument: An agent's choice may cause some colapse in a quantum system, that seems correct, but as a physical structure that has consciousness, I cannot say that I "control" whenever a quantum state within my brain is going to colapse or not. I do not have conscious control over any quantum system decoherence, and therefore I do not control any action.
If I were able to control when to perform an action and the nature of that action (a thought, a movement of the arm, a smile, etc...) then I would have to be able to control when quantum systems within my brain cells colapses, and, at least for me, I can say that I am not aware of having that capacity. I cannot make a choice if I am not aware that I am making that choice.
+Pepe Jordão Who says you are only physical: ua-cam.com/video/oBsI_ay8K70/v-deo.html
Plus, I deal with the decoherence issue here: ua-cam.com/video/qB7d5V71vUE/v-deo.html
Both vídeos are similar to this, and have not explained why the mind can be a metaphysical concept, rather than a physical one. It seems more that researchers have some more research to do, and not that they have already concluded that anything is metaphysical. Until proof of the opposite, one should understand one could be wrong. But Thank You for trying.
+Pepe Jordão my sincere opinion is that before we dive to the bottom of things... free will is not fucking possible at the macro, classical level. consciousness may be (who knows?) some metaphysical substance, but the mind inhabited by that consciousness definitely acts by classical rules of determinacy. there's a definite correlation between brain states and mind states, seen through endless medical experiments. so, at least, mind behaves in synchronicity with the underlying physical events of the physical brain... and the brain is a macro system that evolved in a macro environment, with evolutionary pressures to react to classical interactions in that environment, as faithfully as possible! < if i push a ten meter rod by one end, i don't need to watch every quantum aspect of it's inner structure to know that the other end would move in accordance. classical logic! > brain is a machine that does everything in it's possibility to eliminate randomness from it's behaviour, because in the course of evolution, billions of organisms (from the first nervous system) in their countless interactions with a classical environment, the brains that didn't interpret things in the deterministic logic were not fit to pass their genes. so the brain-mind, both(!) act and react in the classical logic of things (attention, this doesn't mean we are logical in reasoning. because we live in a very complex society, with expectations, biases, feelings, traumas, etc/ and it doesn't mean that consciousness is classic physics). for example: i'm the clone of my father, it's incredible how we look alike, cough alike, we sneeze alike (always twice), sleep alike, we have similar traits of character... but we think so fucking different! the former, i think are traits that have to do in considerable amount to genes, and the latter has to do with the environment. my brain and his, were programmed by different environments, and as i sed above, brains are machines that grow faithful to their environments! i'm just what the environment did to me, and what's done stays securely done in a way that only another classical interaction could possibly change my behaviour. free will is clearly an illusion. and anyone who tries to imply that "those classical events that made 'me' are influenced in their turn by my mind in a quantum way" is getting nowhere fast, because if i influence my environment, i do it "unconsciously"... where's free will in that?
+Pepe Jordão Yes, you are absolutely correct.
It's not random! It's Agents outside for reality....
What determines the agents outcome... Are the outcomes determined or random... You just push the question back
"Are the outcomes determined or random" the agents choices are not random but determined.
(by the agent)
cool, are you going to be uploading more than just once a month now?
You make some excellent points.
One point that would help your case is the fact that there is no scientific or empirical evidence for anything supposedly "random," and nothing "random" actually exists anywhere in reality.
Another point to consider is that we can perform actions unconsciously, such as breathing, or such as driving or walking along a familiar route to a place to which we have been many times in the past.
In such cases, our actions are determined by previous events, IE, having breathed before, or having driven or walked that route before. In some cases, when driving or walking somewhere, a person will end up in the wrong place, usually to a place that he goes to often, when he had intended to go to a different place. This is because he drove or walked there unconsciously, put his actions on a sort of "auto-pilot," if you will.
Also, as yogis will tell their students, our breathing is largely accomplished unconsciously, but this is an unhealthy practice.
The interesting part comes in when we realize that we can choose to walk or drive unconsciously, or we can choose to walk or drive consciously instead. We may realize when the trip is halfway over that we've taken the wrong route unconsciously, out of habit, and we then make the decision to drive or walk consciously to the right place instead.
We can also make the decision to take our breathing off the unconscious control, and breathe consciously instead, such as during meditation, when we make the conscious decision to breathe slowly and steadily. Another good example would be when an actor breathes in a certain way according to the script of the play or movie -- he has freely chosen to control his breathing consciously, rather than allowing his breathing to take place in a pre-determined, unconscious fashion.
The fact that we can put these activities on a sort of pre-determined "auto-pilot" or we can decide to take them off the pre-determined unconscious control demonstrates the fact that there is more to our consciousness than 100% pre-determined actions:
Sure, we can choose to act in pre-determined ways, _but the fact that we can also opt out of those pre-determined actions proves that we do indeed have free will._ If we didn't, then we would always be in that unconscious, pre-determined mode of activity, but we are clearly not.
Determinists mean that free will can't exist because it is not free of the causes that create the need to exert will against those causes. But free will isn't supposed to be free of causes. We wouldn't exist without causation. So free will needs to be exerted against the logical ends of the causes, not against the prior causes themselves.
Thanks for the videos, IP, I appreciate the effort you put into them. I find it odd that some people want determinism to be true.
Brian Salzano exactly
That's very close to straddling the line on compatibilism though which is the view I take. Libertarianism stating that you could change the logical ends of causation is still changing the causal change and therefore denies the causal chain of cause and effect. Same problem.
I have a friend who says since we do not have the choice to exist we do not have free will
That's a major fallacy, the only things that can have a will are things that exist, and before you or I existed we had no will to act upon, so it can't be said that we have no free will by pointing to a time where we had no will at all! To claim if you or I have free will we have to look at the point in time where we have a will and then from there decide if it is free or not.
The choices of the mind I see as determined because an individual's history will always influence the choice. We only have free agency and not free will therefore. Is that correct?
On what basis would we choose though where to direct our consciousness to?
Hi InspiringPhilosophy were can I find christian channels like yours or can you link me to other christian channels like yours.
Yes, go to my channel and click on the "About" section. I've listed other great channels. God bless
Fortunately, i have the free will to reject dererminism
Is soo difficult to follow, when you have such a good beat in the background, what is that song? I will try to focus the in the next view :D
A link is in the info section.
The amount of pseudo-intellectual, self proclaimed philosophers arguing for Determinism in the comments is hilarious! Philosophical Libertarianism FTW!
Let me live my own reality. Maybe your reality sux
Curious Greg, if you are correct, your response is simply determined to be what it is, as is Albino Snowman's initial comment. So dialogue is little more than dominoes in a series set up to fall against one another. So why do you argue? I get it. You don't have a choice, so it's not a matter of presenting a rational argument that might persuade others to change their minds. That would require a choice. That seems rather pointless, don't you think? I am sorry. Teleology is not an essential feature of deterministic systems. They don't have to have a point. Consequently, your part in the dialogue is not only beyond your conscious control, you will have difficulty predicting where it is going. If that is your reality, welcomed to it. But let me urge you to set aside theoretical models in thinking about this problem. When models contradict our experience, the difficulty probably resides in our existing models.
"you will have difficulty predicting where it is going" the opposite is the case in a deterministic worldview, you moron.
I wish the back up music was less disruptive
Love these videos, although i have to play them a few times the understand them. Thanks for spending the time to make them, it is much appreciated.
ATHEIST: There is no free will.
ALSO ATHEIST:*expects us to FREELY agree to the claim*
JOSIAH nope
Expect you to DETERMINISTICALLY agree to the claim through reasoning (which is a deterministic process btw)
@Random Person as a matter of fact, I do not, but can you devellop why this is relevant to the discussion?
I do not think so. Everything is not relevant to everything. But I should have been so hasty, maybe you have a way to make your question relevant to the discussion. I am however not a big fan of this way of explaining things, it reminds me too much of the socratic method.
But anyway, I will try my best to hear your argument.
Yes, I was a child with parents. And, yes, I would say that my parents did discipline me mentally (not so physically sadly).
@Random Person Please excuse me for this, but I must split my answer in 3 (well, 4 with this comment), for lenght reasons.
@Random Person I would hold the opposite view. If our actions are not determined, punishment (except for the one only executed for mere vengeance, which i will exclude here, since it is very much useless and irrelevant to our point) is pointless. If I am determined, I feel like there are two problems with this lign of thinking. First, you seem to think (and excuse me if I am wrong) that predetermined and determined are words describing the same concept. They are not. Determinism says that everything is linked to prior events through causal links. Predetermination is saying that you can predict what will happen. Predetermination is based on determinism, not the other way around. I cannot predict (predetemine) on which side the dice will fall, even though it is already determined, based on the causal chain from which it comes.
What determinism says is that everything is linked through the process of cause and effect. It does not say that there is only one way for something to happen. This is why punishment (or discipline if you will) is effective even if determinism is true. Because nothing is pretermined before the action. It is useful for the parent to discipline their child : if they do, the child will behave in a certain way. If they do not, the child will behave in an other way. Your way of thinking about the problem reminds me of the « Lazy Reason » sophism, which basically says « if everything is predestined (or predetermined), whatever will be, will be. » In other words, « if I am predestined to catch this illness, then nothing I will do to not catch i twill be useful, ». This is a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy : it is because I do nothing to prevent my illness that I become ill. Had I done everything in my power to not catch the disease, I would have remained healthy. Determinism doesn’t say such a thing.
To continue with the exemple of the parents discipline, they have a choice. At the present, they must choose wether to punish or not their child of their bad behaviour. If they think deterministically, they will think « well, if I punish him, he will learn that what he has done is a bad thing, and won’t do it again. » A very deterministic process. However, if they think with the Lazy Reason sophism in mind, they will do nothing, because they think that whatever the child must do, they will do it. Which is wrong, because the child must not do anything.
If free will is our brain picking an option (choice)
Then what led to our brain making the choice? It made the choice for no reason? As a human being I understand I can do whatever I want on a surface level but how can that not be determined if I have no idea what has created my mind to make the choice?
Like I can either have an apple or an orange, I know I’m free to pick either one but do I really know why I picked? If I say I chose the apple because I like the color weren’t colors introduced to me at a young age? Isn’t it possible my mother wore red and it attracted me to the color? Even if not so and it’s not such a simple determinism formula and I have no idea why I picked the apple I just did what does the free will argument say about where that choice came from?
I can either pick the orange or the apple, if I had any reasoning at all to why I picked the apple wouldn’t that still be a form of determinism? If we were created as humans with a special ability inside us to make good decisions isn’t that already determined that I’m going to go throughout life making good decisions?
And if not and there is no reasoning and our mind just freely picked the apple then what are we as vessels if we have no reasoning?
I get that our choice can have an impact that leads to her results
Yep. Hammer meet nail.
Not only that, if we had free will, we would never consciously make a bad decision. Fornexamole, we would never over eat, sleep in too late, procrastinate on a chore, buy something we don't really need... etc
The issue is that I don't know what system you were talking about when you said, "An agent can determine events by introducing new information into the system". As you just mentioned, we were only talking about agency, thus we were not talking about any reducible entities, such as a system which an agent might introduce information to.
By the system, I mean the universe.
Isn't there an issue with the fact that we have a limited set of 'reasons' at our disposal, and we did not have a choice over inheriting those specific 'reasons'/ coming to the state whereby those specific 'reasons' are available? Even though we control the decision over which reason to act on, surely the problem becomes that certain things will be prohibited from our exacting/actualising because they were simply never part of the set of available 'reasons' which we drew from?
It is still unclear how agent causation fits in with the PSR. What is the sufficient reason that an agent makes a particular choice?
The agent is a creator.
Thanks for that explanation of free will (we "focus" on what we want); sometimes long speeches don't actually help me understand anything, but simple explanations like that do. I thought for the longest time that on molinism, we are still not free, since it would be possible to know what we would do in certain situations. But then I listened to the "Unbelievable!" podcast Craig was on, and he explained at the very end that we determine the truth of the counterfactuals, and then I understood how we are still free on molinism.
Love you and your videos, I study them, incredible. thankyou
So I have a couple questions for Determinists:
1. What Determines Determinism?
2. What Determines the factors that make up Determinism?
3. What Determines Determinism to be true?
+VikingPony
This will depend upon your definition of 'determine' and 'determinism' in each instance of its use.
The question of free-will is littered with tautology, self contradiction and other semantic dissonance.
Tread carefully and be sure to have a clear idea of 'freedom' before you attempt to decide whether we have it...
Couple = 2
Obviously I am going to go with the common belief of determinism and determine.
Determinism in and of itself is a contradiction.
As far as freedom goes, I am going to stick with Free will as described in this video series.
@@Soviet19171 So something that is determined is not determined so everything including our thoughts are random?
I agreed until the point of the definition of free will at 4:50. Yes, our mind controls our actions. It controls our body, it holds our consciousness but the way I see it is that everything in our past has lead to the decisions we are making. Even the mind itself can be thought of as physical, just a more complex machine of neurons. It's hard to imagine what free will actually is, it's not randomness because then there is no control yet at the same time we are conscious 'I think therefore I am' and we most definitely aren't robots. Our consciousness is just like free will, very hard for us to conceive how it works also we have seen through quantum physics that we effect what is real depending on our choice. And of course, God is love, love is something that can only be experienced to the conscious and its what gives us a meaning, but if love is meaningful and is not a social construct then in must have been willed by something (God) and cannot be arbitrary, I think that love can only be experienced by conscious, free willers themselves. These are the three reasons I am not a determanist but the problem I have with this video is the definition for free will given is can be true even if our actions are determined. Thanks InspiringPhilosophy, please keep making videos!
Determined through the will of the Most High {LOVE} by which all were set free, to reject or embrace GOD! ⚖🕳⬆️
If the mind is “outside of physical reality,” how does it have an effect on physical reality?
If physical reality is emergent from mind that would explain it: ua-cam.com/video/v2Xsp4FRgas/v-deo.html
This only moves the problem up a level (to wherever it is that the simulation is being run). The issues stay the same.
No, since matter would be emergent from mind and we interact in physical reality the same way an avatar can interact in a virtual world.
What I'm saying is: the beings that created the top-level simulation would have to find explanations of consciousness and free will (since they could not use "it's a simulation" to explain what was going on).
I never said they would, but that doesn't mean physical reality could not be affected by conscious beings.
Nice video, but is the free will that you’re talking about enable a conscious agent to have chosen otherwise? It’s hard to conceptually imagine that someone can do that as at least for me, I usually examine choices as a function of what was being mentally processed at the time based on mainly your environment but obviously your genes as well. Thanks for the content.
What if i choose not to accept this theory. Does it still exist? Or now that you delivered me this theory you its too late? But theres no past or future so im getting a little stuck with thought
This argument states that because systems change when we make an observation we have an effect on reality and so our choices change reality; however, determinists don't deny that choices affect reality but that either prior events determine these choices or they are determined by random or uncaused events. The argument states that super determinism is unjustified, however super determinism isn't required for the denial of free will. Either super determinism is true and our choices are determined or the negation is true and they are undetermined and neither option allows for the possibility of free will. Agent causation is a nonsensical concept and this is because it is claimed that the agent both determines the property of the causal chain and is undetermined itself because it is uncaused. If a choice is undetermined the properties of the choice and subsequent caused events are not caused by an agent but by the random or undetermined properties that belong to the uncaused choice.
Material Implication That is a false dichotomy, since advocates of free will advocate different models other than randomness or determinism: ua-cam.com/video/JwaDYS5XC9Y/v-deo.html
It is not a false dichotomy. The video linked states that events can be both determined and not determined at varying levels at the same time but determinacy and indeterminacy are not on a scale. Either an event is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs or an event is not the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs and due to the law of non contradiction neither can be true at the same time.
Material Implication Or different stages of both allow for agent causation. It is not all determined or all random. See this video, where I explain the minds determines things from a given amount of random alternatives.
***** Could you send me the link please.
Material Implication I am referring to the video you are commenting on.
Why do I read the comments here? *facedesk*
Thanks for the videos, IP. :)
Hey, you must have missed my last post. Don't bother with it; I have a different question.
In the metachronology we agreed on, suppose we omit A-type events, thus eliminating C-type events also. Under these conditions, may a substance that is aware be an agent?
Under B-type only? I don't see how that is possible...
*****
If not, then what would the introduction of A-type events accomplish in the way of the substance's obtaining the status of a free willing agent?
*****
Just in case you missed my last post, here's a repost:
"If not [under the conditions described may a substance that is aware be an agent] then what would the introduction of A-type events accomplish in the way of the substance's obtaining the status of a free willing agent?"
I am wondering if you, like Augustine, hold to free will as compatible with predestination in a soteriological context?
Fear limits freewill. Only the totally fearless have a free will.
And that fearlessness will have been determined by some other events.
asparwhite86 Actually, freewill is our natural state. Yet, can freewill be used to bind our will. Fear binds our will, yet fear is a choice. It sounds insane, but we have used our freewill to bid our will. Today, our only freedom is to eliminate the fears that bind our will. It's still up to us to free ourselves. No one else can free us against our will, because that's still our will! Freewill cannot be thwarted!
"Ye shall seek the truth, and the truth shall set you free" is not really true, because the truth is already true, and so what can the truth show us, but that we have always been free.
Our fears are not real, and so our loss of freewill is not real either.
Freedom and freewill are awesome goals even if we can't really lose them. They are fantastic studies, and in my experience....the most rewarding pursuits. I LOVE freedom! probably because I spent the first half of my life feeling rather enslaved.
It's a very deep and complicated study, but the lack of freedom is an illusion, and how can any illusion be so incredibly powerful unless it's incredibly complicated? And it is! The thing that seems to have us imprisoned is called the modern ego.
The ego is simply a device. It's a system of thoughts! All the thoughts of the ego are fear based. These fear based beliefs act like a software virus corrupting everything we experience, perceive, think about, etc. It's a mental disease that effects our entire life. Everyone has it. It ruins everyone's life.
The Good News is that there is a way to dissolve this internal demon.
Dealing with the ego is like dealing with the devil. You are gonna get burned. The only real pathway to freedom and peace is by dissolving the ego. To pull it's belief system from our mind like weeds from a garden.
The result of removing fearful beliefs from our mind is that our mind than can blossom with a garden filled with Love.
The opposite of fear is Love. There really are only two base emotions, and fear isn't really real. Fear is simply a man made concept that became popular because it enabled some to control others. This devilish tactic backfired and ended up ensnaring everyone. Fear is now such a deeply held concept that few people ever ponder to consider is fear is ever warranted. Luckily, there have been some. Buddha, Jesus and many others have seen that fear is a baseless emotion. It has no bases in reality. There is no real cause for fear. This is a very shocking thing to hear for most people, however, to those who dare to investigate it quickly becomes at least very clear that we are plagued with countless common fears that are completely unwarranted.
The fear of hell is completely unwarranted, yet the majority of the population still fear it.
The fear of rejection is practically universal, but if given any thought it too becomes clear to be completely unwarranted.
The list goes on and on. It's quit easy to see that every emotional fear is completely unwarranted. But then we have our physical fears. Those are much harder to overcome....or are they? The truth is that they are no harder in reality, but we simply make them harder, because we have so much faith in the physical.
Shall I continue?
Don't quit your day job.
asparwhite86 I retired when I was 40.
Remember...I love freedom. I worked hard to get it.
***** Of course it does. Are you stupid?
I was super-determined to use my free will to watch this video.
There is no conflict between determinism and free will. God's uncaused, uncreated will is superior to your caused, created wil, that's all.
Man proposes, God disposes. Make a plan, God will laugh. What you intend for evil, God may intend for good. The two phenomena are not mutually exclusive .
May I respectfully ask, if consciousness did not arise from physical processes, what do you posit that it arose from?
Nothing, it is fundamental: ua-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TX_4LthrdGqACsqIWKd2gs-.html
So basically assertions. That's cool. Here's the brunt of this whole debate: causal determinism seems to exist in our universe just like particle behavior. Saying that because brain functions are essentially enacted by quantum function, therefore determinism is false and people are actively causing the quantum collapse is like saying we can't certify the position of planets because fundamentally they are all quantum particles enacting with each other in different ways. What happens on the micro scale does not necessarily translate to our knowledge of the macro scale. So the truth is that WE DON'T KNOW how quantum behavior translates into functions in the empirical universe; many physicists are trying to reconcile the two, so to just disregard one is bull.
That doesn't affect what actually happens in the brain though: ua-cam.com/video/6_xEraQWvgM/v-deo.html
free will is a good belief system just like religion it doesn't actually existed outside of being a belief.
start the video at 4:04 for the most simplest explanation of free will...
gonna need to watch a few more times to fully understand but I think this makes a lot of sense.
I think that the basic concept of free will is circular reasoning.
I have free will(A) because I have the ability to choose(B).
I have the ability to choose(B) because I have free will(A).
But I also think that it's circular reasoning because we can't think beyond or outside of consciousness, or outside of our free will, so we therefore cannot find anything past it to break this circle.
Also, observation and belief are circular.
If someone only believes in what they can observe, that is also circular.
I observed(A) it because it exists(B).
It exists(B) because I observed(A) it.
I believe(A) it because it is true(B).
It is true(B) because I believe(A) it.
So the idea is that all consciousness is circular, but it is only circular because we cannot think or observe outside of our own consciousness.
lol if determinism is true, then we can't punish criminals.
You could lock them up to prevent them from doing further crimes though, not as a punishment obviously, but as a preventive measure...
Hussein Radi if determinism is true, then whether or not we punish criminals is not up to us. Punishments are just as inescapable as the crimes committed.
A common misconception. Determinism does not propose any specific outcome, it just proposes that the things which happen have causes which determine outcomes. The outcome of understanding determinism COULD mean that we react to crime in a more informed, less superstitious way and improve our response to criminality and learn how to reduce criminality.
Since the cause/effect of even simple transactions can be staggeringly complex there is no way to always know for sure how anything will turn out, but we can learn and obtain a better grasp of how things work which will lead to a more rational society. So your use of the word "inescapable" becomes irrelevant because we don't have future knowledge to determine any outcomes, and there's really nothing to be escaped from except existence itself (which is, by all we can determine, a causal existence).
An aversion to the implications of a premise being true is not a valid logical argument against it being true. This logical fallacy is called "appeal to consequences".
You punish criminals to deter other people from committing crime. Knowing that you will be punished can prevent someone from doing an action
You know, the single most powerful argument against a determined will would be that if we are determined, then we would all be programmed to say and believe what we do including a view of determinism and not because we independently believe it is actually true. In effect we cannot make any truth claims or know the truth about anything including determinism. Which means one cannot propose determinism as truth but all statements including that one become self-refuting because they are assumed to be true statements. Thus, we MUST have free will.
But I'm not sure how that is within a materialistic framework. Unless we have nonphysycal components of our beings...
Why can't we be determined to believe against determined will?
***** because truth cannot be known if we believe what we believe because we have no choice to choose what seems to be the truth (according to rationality, evidence etc). Including "knowing that we are determined to believe in free will."
The problem is, in MY SAYING "truth cannot be known" - I'm proposing that statement ("truth cannot be known") AS TRUTH thereby contradicting myself. But any further comments on that including this one leads to an ad infinitum of self contradiction.
In the case that what you meant when you spoke of an "argument against a determined will" to be that your argument is against compatibilism, then the argument that actually follows does not address this position. What you offer in following sounds like the argument from the absurdity of the affirmation of determinism against determinism in general. While I disagree with this argument, even if belief determinism were logically absurd, this would have nothing to do with its interference with free will. Once again, my post only responds to you in the case that I interpreted you correctly to be making an argument against compatibilism.
Seb it is not against compatibalism but against total determism (we are made of our own experiences etc etc).
I believe the two are compatible to some degree but that is another topic.
thebullybuffalo why can't the truth be known? What says there must be such a contradiction?
When in the pizza example, it is true that mind comes before matter at choosing but mind is not ultimate in the whole process, because the choosing one pizza over another is gonna be always for a reason, whatever it may be. So whatever made us reason to choose the one, determined our decision, which is free and determined at the same time, is free because is what we want, and is determined because we do not choose our reasons to decide.
IP, I know that it is a video about the philosophical idea of free will, but as you are a christian, i would like to know your opinion about this: at 3:42, you ask: ''determined by what?''. Many friends of mine are calvinists, and they would support that god, as a greater mind, would determine our actions, just like in Psalms139:16. Isn't that an argument for determinism in the theological vision?
It isn't.
who ever you are, i love you!!!
Thanks :)
cool video, it just goes against everything we've learned from neuroscience about how conscious decision making is produced by the brain - but who needs science though when you have theology
I can give plenty of science the brain is changed by consciousness:
Directed mental effort will produce systematic changes in the brain See:
Beauregard, M., Le ́vesque, J. & Bourgouin, P. 2001 Neural correlates of the conscious self-regulation of emotion. J. Neurosci. 21, 1-6.
Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J. & Gabrieli, J. D. E. 2002 Rethinking feelings: an fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14, 1215-1229.
Jeffery Schwartz says:
"Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003)"
***** If you identify consciousness with certain physical correlates in the brain, then of course the brain is changed by mental states - which is what those articles were talking about. However those physical states or mental states, however you want to describe them, were in turn caused by prior physical states in the brain - whether this process is completely deterministic or involves some quantum indermiancy is really irrelevant. Your video was proposing however some sort Cartesian mind completely outside spacetime and devoid of material influences that acts casually on the world at will. Contemporary neuroscience has proven this type of view of the mind to be false. For example studies have demonstrated that by electrically stimulating parts of the brain, you can create the desire in someone to talk or move certain parts of their body. This is completely in incompatible with the type of free will you were advocating, in which wills and actions are the result of nonphysical events. Just because you’re unaware of the underlying neurochemical states of your mental deliberations and desires doesn’t mean that they’re purely nonphysical in nature or are not caused by physical events, that’s complete bogus.
David King Of course they are, I am monistic idealist, not a dualist. I'm not proposing dualist, but idealism. And for idealism, the important thing to remember: is if idealism is true, then monism is true. So meddling with the brain is not a separate substance from the mind. Brain damage and alteration makes sense in idealism. There is mind and the experience of reality, which is information, and an information loss or alteration will affect how the mind processes and functions in the experience of reality. For example, if I see a car coming at me, I'll move. I won't say it is just information and will not affect me. The information is real to the mind and affects how we function in our experience. Think of that line from "The Matrix" when Neo is bleeding from his training:
Neo - “I thought it wasn't real.”
Morpheus - “Your mind makes it real."
Free will is saved, because mind is fundamental, not matter, so the causation goes backwards from materialistic views.
IP how do you respond to Harris arguments that we can measure in a brainscan our decisions before we’re aware of them?
ua-cam.com/video/GB5TNrtu9Pk/v-deo.html
I think random occurance is a part quantum mechanics, but it is the exception, not the rule,
it allows for random things to happen, but isn't primarily what is going on all day every day, is that right?
296 thumbs down. Makes one wonder...those who hit that button...what it is they are thinking. I highly doubt, anyone who hit that button, even understands what this video is teaching. Unfortunately...we will never know. Or...will we?
i think that we ultimately have a free will and choice.. this goes way back in Genesis where Adam and Eve committed their first sin against God. ever since then, mankind has been making choices to either obey or disobey God. Calvinism does make sense, although i don't know much about it.. and God did make the future road ahead of us. but whether or not we walk that road is entirely up to us. that's what i think. The Bible tells us what to do and what not to do. there's not much sense in telling us what to do if our actions are predetermined before we even make them. but then again, i might be wrong.. so feel free to criticize me if i'm wrong. i still have much to learn
"there's not much sense in telling us what to do if our actions are predetermined before we even make them."
Why not? Do human brains not take in information from the environment?
Jarlaxle Daerthe
There's a different idea underneath it all: is God who he says he is?
Claims of God: good, wise, just, *reliable* etc.
So he needs an antithesis to prove himself. We can't just take him at his word for it. We only know happiness from sadness, kind of idea.
The angel Lucifer could've been any angel.
So Adam and Eve could have trusted God or test God and find out whether he is who he says he is. If Adam and Eve trusted God, we could argue that God made us naive or yes-mans though if it were the case we wouldn't realize it? Anyways so if God just destroyed Adam and Eve, then it's a cover up.
Anyways so we also need to make sure God cannot possible go rogue, that is if God can swear against himself to always be good then we can trust him to never become an evil tyrant. Since he fulfills his promise to Abraham, it is argued God is reliable.
This guy matt just contradicted his own statement lol Apparently Adam and Eve were NOT free to choose ( hence their punishment of being banished from the garden lol) and that's the FIRST recorded instance of LIMITED ( false) free will lol If they would have been free to choose there wouldn't have been consequences lol You COULD choose to be a bird but when you jump off a ten story building and go splat you'll run into the SAME problem Adam and Eve had with free will lol People KNOW drugs are harmful,illegal, DEADLY yet they exercise their freedom of choice ( assumed free will) to continue in this realm until they are in trouble or dead but some actually hit rock bottom and get help to kick the habit but ALWAYS there are parameters of universal law that enforces the reality of this existence and it's these parameters we are imprisoned within and NOTHING within reason can change this fact because if it did that would be the instant it would become unreasonable and illogical lol complete chaos but finally FREE lol
Matt well genesis is actually a fairytale
One Man if a being is omnipotent cannot wouldnt be possible for him. So if someone is perfect in the biblical sence, meaning rightious they cannot be unrightious. So how could a being that is perfect be unrightious? If you say its due to a will of there own, then where actually dose that will come from? Keep in mind the Bible says, by God all things consist.
hello, how can free will be reconciled with biblical passages like proverbs 16: 4 where it says that God creates the wicked for the evil day, which implies that the entire life of the unbeliever is directed by God for destruction in hell?
I wish atheist would apply skepticism where it should be, the skeptic community is so biased.
I appreciate Skepticism, one thing I’m surely skeptic of, is the claim we don’t have free will.
*The claim that we can make decisions free of all prior causation is just hopeless anti-scientific nonsense. Sorry, I had to dislike this video, although I must say, I did find the background music quite soothing :)*
REALITY2point0 Since you say so, so be it.
Unbelievable , my thoughts exactly after watching Sam Harris and not quite agreeing fully with him, THANKS MUCH
I'm just curious: where does this conflation of Libertarianism and Free Will come from? Are you referring to the political ideology, or does that word mean something different in this context?
+Gregory House Libertarianism in philosophy of mind refers to the belief in free will.
Infinity is your best friend
What makes a choice then? What is the agent that makes choices and how does that translate to physical changes associated with that choice?
Naturalist Counterargument:
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
*BUT IT COULD BE NATURALISM!*
It is time to remind the armchair philosophers in the comment section that no one is saying naturalism is impossible.
I love the background music ^^
What about C. S. Lewis's distinction between cause and effect, and ground and consequent? In this distinction cause and effect explains why you have one thought after another, but only ground and consequent explains the rational reason for it.
Another repost, in case you missed the last one:
If so, is it A-type or B-type?
determinism put simply:
every atom in the universe obeys the laws of physics - our brains are no exception to this.
if you were to pause the universe, duplicate it exactly, and then press play on both universes, they would proceed in exactly the same way
+michael hayes Exactly! God's existence is in the same basket as Free Will. There is a burden of proof because all our evidence points to a Deterministic universe but "somehow" Free Will EVOLVED out of a deterministic animal (you know, us before big brains). We went from a deterministic animal to an amazing Free Will human that's apart from all of the universes rules... I want to see some damn solid evidence of this!
Well to be honest, according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, thag's not necessarily true. Although IP obviously has no understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever and so all he says is basically bullshit, but I wouldn't be so sure about your statement. On a large scale, yes, it's obviously true, but if you consider a particular electron, I'm not sure. I'm no expert but I've read articles (by actual physicists) that said randomness (in its purest form) does exist at the level of subatomic particles.
But what's also true is that quantum mechanics in no way supports free will, and that our brains do fall under the laws of physics.
+TheMaxtimax Well, by all means, please demonstrate your vast understanding of quantum mechanics and refute his claims instead of making claims without evidence then.
+VikingPony if you read my previous comment you'll see that I do not claim to understand quantum physics. I do however claim not to be mistaken when I recognize "quantum physics bullshit". If you look at a numberphile video (or maybe it's a sixty symbols video, check both channels they're pretty great) called "quantum physics woo", you'll understand my skepticism. My claim simply is : quantum physics has nothing to do (at least as far as scientists nowadays know) with what we call consciousness, and it has nothing to do with what a youtube "philosopher" (or myself, I'll admit) can understand.
To demonstrate my "vast knowledge" of quantum physics, here's what I can say that explains why this video is bullshit :
The fact that an observer impacts the outcome of the experiment has nothing to do with consciousness, it's simply that when we observe something, we use photons and/or various particles to do so, which interact with the experiment.
The fact that quantum mechanics has a part of randomness in it does not at all entail that it gives us free will : the scale at which randomness has an effect is so ridiculous, and the number of steps that are made for each "decision" that we make is so huge, that this basically has no effect at all.
That's about as far as I know, but if I remember the vide correctly, that's more than enough to call bullshit.
What is observation without consciousness?
Can you provide me evidence the outcome is impacted outside of conscious observation?
Also, have you seen IP's case for the soul series. I believe they answer your objections.
It is not clear to me what you mean by "agents outside physical reality and observers outside mathematical description"? Some sort of disembodies spirits moving on an astral plane?
Anyhow, I think the stumbling block for so many in QM is the metaphysical assumption that "randomness" is or could be an intrinsic property or quality of the natural world. What is after all randomness? It is a mere label with which we state our ignorance. And to advocate (or fear) it and draw metaphysical conclusions from it, is an unwarranted inference ALWAYS. For instance, starting a "causal chain that is not predetermined by the past" will look equally "random" as deterministic randomness of a dice, and which is only apparently causeless. Randomness is only a mental construct that can't help us in solving philosophical questions, like free will, purpose, intentionality, in the universe, etc.
"Some sort of disembodies spirits moving on an astral plane?
-Then it wouldn't be outside of space-time.
I don't argue randomness equals free will though. I argue agent causality.
***** Yeah, but what is an "agent"? As far as I know, agents such as us humans are organism made out of material with our agency being the product of the mechanism in our brains. All we know of the workings of these brains is that they are natural, and obey the known physical laws - e.g. ultimately QM.
ttcmp0 Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
***** Well.. This does nothing to explain what an "actor" nor an "observer" is.. It seems like you are asking me to accept what the originator of this thread was asking about - i.e. that it is an ethereal "soul" of some kind, of which there is no proof. I think I'll apply Occam's Razor on this soul theory... Using QM to proof soul, to proof QM is circular reasoning anyway... It also seems only one of us studied QM at university level, and not the other :)
Now.. if you think nothing really happens unless there is an observer - how did life on earth even begin, if there was no observer there to look at it? Oh... God did it, rite? Now, let me see if I can find a big enough razor to apply to that suggestion...
So let me put a hole in Schrödingers box for you... You want to know who is the most logical observer there....?
*spoiler alert* ...... Well, the Geiger counter, of course! :)
Let me emphasize the quote by Zeilinger from the video you sent: "We have to give up the idea of realism to a _far greater extent_ than most physicist believe today". Note that he is not saying realism is false, only that most physicist should widen their horizon.
Anyway.. This was fun. Hey - you might be mostly right, but I'm pretty sure you are unfortunately just misunderstanding the research to some extent and/or that the research is not complete or not very well explained. That is far more likely to me than souls or gods existing. Now, I'll have to go and sharpen his razor again for later use..
***** Hey.. if you do think god exist, as you suggested in the video linked, I suppose he is the only observer needed, right? Is he not watching everything? Is he not watching all slits at all times, both before and after the particles enter..? Is he indeed not aware/"measuring" _all_ particles in the universe?
Nah.. I think you're better off without god, if you really want to apply science and logic in a consistent manner.
Well, at long last I know what you are. Thank you for answering all of my meticulously asked questions. Now that I am clear on your concept of free will, I find our thinking is indeed very similar. But having a clear picture of your idea, I am finally able to identify and isolate what I believe to be our one difference, so that I need ask no further questions, and may at last proceed to disagree with you.
I do not believe free will requires an open future.
What are some good books on indeterminism/free will, especially in regards to theology?
Micheal Egnor is ok I guess
Libertarians believe in "Agent causation -The idea that a self aware entity can start a new causal chain that is not predetermined by events in the past and the physical laws of nature," better known as magic.
Epiphenomenalism: the great Achilles' Heel of atheism.
Preferences must ultimately be given and not chosen. Why? Because if we could choose our own preferences, we would then have to ask "How did we come to chose those particular preferences and not others?" If it was by an act of choice, this only backs it up a step further: Wouldn't that choice itself have to be based upon preferences as well? And then wouldn't those preferences also have had to have been chosen? And wouldn't they have to have been chosen based upon other preferences? As you can see, this would result in us going back forever, without ever encountering a first cause. they are ultimately brought about by God by means of circumstances, our character, and other things. For example, I studied for a test a few weeks ago because it was more reasonable to me than not studying. Now, I did not make studying the most reasonable thing. Rather, I considered the situation and recognized that studying was the most appealing thing to my mind. As a result, I chose to study. Clearly, this was a genuine choice. Yet, it was also causally determined (and thus could not have been otherwise) because I necessarily chose the option that I found most reasonable. So both determinism and moral responsibility are therefore compatible. Matt Perman
We as human beings are conscious of ourselves, we can measure things and observe them and based on the information gathered make what we feel are the best possible outcomes for the decisions we make, it would seem to me if determinism were true then we wouldn't make choices based off of anything we would just somehow observe ourselves doing random pointless things in which we would not judge to be right or wrong or good or bad. Just from a common sense stand point it seems to me that we do have free will even if physical properties are involved by using and observing ourselves through our conscious energy which allows for us to make decisions.
Finally puresense explanation of freewill against hopeless reductionist materialist/bio-robot/mainstream view.
If God knows all our choices before we choose them, that implies superdeterminism.
Yes, I've thought about this too. I wish the content creator of this channel would respond to this.
with respect. God created everything with infinite knowledge of God. it means that regardless of time God knew ever thing that is gone happen by knowlege so human free will is included in God's knowlege so literally God says that I knew what you were going to do with your free will and so I created.
sory for my poor english and interfere.
I would be willing and loving to share my limited knowledge with anyone Interested.
Someone might have knowledge of what I have freely chosen to do in the past (or what I freely choose to do in the present) but this knowledge does not change the fact that I freely chose (or choose) to act. The same is true of someone who knows what I will freely choose to do in the future, though, I admit, it is strange and a little frightening to consider.
What wills the mind to make a decision?
In the concluding part it seemed to me you were exactly echoing my thoughts. Yes we feel free will in daily life so if some eccentric scientist like Sam Harris says that free will is an illusion, the burden of proof rests on him, not on us. Although Harris's friend Jerry Coyne says the burden falls on libertarians but I think he's either deluded or is just creating controversy to sell more books. I never thought these scientists would indulge in such absolute nonsense.
This video was quite nice as usual but I think you could have delved deeper in the two stage model of free will and explained in somewhat greater detail how supposedly free will works.
BTW I have some questions for you.
What's your name and education? And where do you get such awesome graphics and background music from? I ask because I too am a blogger and may create some videos myself.
Okay, there are several problems that came to mind watching your video, namely that it doesn't really seem to answer ANY major philosophical objection to free will, especially considering the absurd previous attempt you made. I mean come on man, you were quoting and using ideas from Ayn Rand of all people, a pseudo-intellectual, arrogant person with many half-baked ideas, including her 'focusing' idea...
First however, I should note I have no committment to either determinism or compatibilism, though I see them as quite plausible. Anyway, from end to beginning:
-The burden IS on libertarians... and compatibilists, and hard determinists, etc, to show why their philosophical theories are correct. To say that simply because something is, supposedly, intuitively obvious does not relieve the burden, it just ignores it and does what Dan Dennett calls Occam's Broom: sweeping away inconvenient facts and ideas that are not cindusive to your position.
And I very much doubt you'd argue powerful intuitive feeling = truth, given how often philosophy and science have shown that to be bunk much of the time.
Further, it is not only determinists and compatibilists who would think your arguments for libertariansim aa deeply confused, so too would many incompatibilists who reject free will in all senses.
And to go even further, I'l show why that line of reasoning is nonsensical. Do you think we 'see' reality, or experience a mental reconstruction of it? Intuitively, essentially EVERYONE would say the former, even though the evidence (as far as I can tell) suggests the latter, as does the philosophical argumentation, especially that of Kant and his distinction between the perception (the only thing we have) and reality in itself. The intuitiveness of some metaphysical postulate is impotent, and I find referring to it as any kind of real support is just metaphysical hand-waiving at its worst.
-Okay, you claim that if things are not determined by prior *physical* causes, then we have free will since there are no determined particles causing our actions. How does that follow (it doesn't)? Would you dispute that things do as their nature is? In other words, that what things do depends on what they are? After all, that's essentially the typical apologetic response to the Euthyphro dilemma: That God does good because HE is good. It could very well be the case that whatever reason an agent 'chooses' any particular action is beyond their control, whether because of determinism or indeterminism.
For example, you talk of an agent deliberating and considering reasons to start a particular causal chain. Well okay, WHY did said agent choose the particular reason to go by? If you're going to be coherent, I think you'd agree that it was her values. In your pizza or salad example (which wasn't a paradox by the way), her reason for choosing one over the other would be that it was in accordance with her values and desires. After all, you aren't going to get in shape unless you have the relevant values that incline you to do so more than the negation. And if this wasn't the case, then you could never be coerced, because the coercer has no values by which to conscript your cooperation.
-Why are you going with these lightweights? I'd thought that if anyone you'd have gone to the work of Robert Kane on libertarianism, especially since you're trying to run another of these horribly flawed two-stage models of free will. If you do so, just be warned that Kane's isn't convinced by his on model, and sustained heavy critiques from people like the philosopher of mind/cognitive scientists Daniel Dennett.
So if I had to conclude, I'd say your problems in this video (and the others on this topic) are numerous, don't address the actual problems with libertainism and why it's so unpopular these days in the philo. academia (except among theist philosophers, unsurprisingly) and seems to drop names and quotes for little reason other than light exposition. And I don't mean any of this as an insult (maybe my own critique is flawed), but it comes of as philosophical n00bness to some extent, seemingly coupled with the need to make pretensions of having actually shown a controversial and flawed position as if it were in better shape than it actually is.
That's odd. Those typoes weren't there when I was typing that comment...
since you mention Daniel Dennett I think Inspiring philosophy will respond easily
I have no clue what you mean by that. I haven't used any of Dennett's arguments or even claimed to accept them, so IP couldn't go that route with my post, i.e criticizing Dennett's arguments.
ok what ever
Well ... you're insufferably entertaining anyway
Omg I have to dislike this video because it is so unscientific. EVEN if you are an "agent" that does not follow the laws and is not the physical environment, and even if we are some "agents" as you said it outside of this world, that doesn't mean that those agents out there don't follow a certain law.
Like having a user on a computer. A computer in counterstrike could never know or reach its user outside of the PC since he is only getting the input information "randomly" However there is a whole new world out there where every movement of a user of a computer follows the laws. A PC could never be aware of that and can go ahead and call it random or free will. lol
BTw take a quantum mechanics books and if you find a word "agent outside of this world" I will pay you 1000 bucks in cash. I am out of this video, this is stupid.
Animated Anatomy "and even if we are some "agents" as you said it outside of this world, that doesn't mean that those agents out there don't follow a certain law."
-And that also doesn't mean agents are determined by laws. That is "superdeterminism" which is there is no evidence for. If the mind is deciding, then that is exactly what free will is. The mere ad hoc possibility of superdeterminism is not an argument. And you call my argument stupid, LOL! Do you have any evidence minds are determined if they lie outside of the mathematical descriptions of reality, or do you just assume that it must be so?
***** I did not realize I made decisions or actions without any cause whatsoever, ungoverned by any law. Interesting. Next time I kill a guy, I'll just explain to the court that my actions were simply those of a free agent. Since there is no cause for those action, it cannot be attributed to me. It was literally a random event. Nice, man. Thanks for the tip. Please feel free to explain how we are able to do, choose, or think anything without a single cause and therefor a law governing its existence. That'd be super interesting.
Thomas Barrow " Next time I kill a guy, I'll just explain to the court that my actions were simply those of a free agent."
-And that means the free agent (You) killed him and that would be pleading guilty. There is no external cause other than yourself…
What you are doing is assuming influence must equate to a determining cause, but that is a non sequitur.
Thomas Barrow I hope you enjoyed the answer to your question.
There was, of course, none.
But you were straw manned with an assumption of "influence" which was not at all part of your "random" act.
I love the content of your videos, but the house music in the background makes it really difficult to concentrate! Perhaps other people may struggle with that too. Thanks!
Amazing work here. I was tasked with finding the best argument for free will. This will be my submission.
Allow the following pushback though if you "will". There are a few major leaps made here. Most notably is that physics has proven that non conscious entities can collapse the wave function as well now. Restated, inanimate objects can make the "measurment for an event to happen"
Second major axiom error is that quantum events do not influence macro events. The randomness at the quantum level still allows for the emergence of non random events at the macro level. Biology operates at this determinable macro level.
Anyway, great argument for free will.
but the mind is immaterial so its not part of quantum mechanics
Your description of agent causation looks very acausal and that does nothing to prove free will.
In a causal universe all energy that exists started with the big bang and space time. We would not have free will in a causal universe because we would have no control over the preceding events which lead to our own existence and there for as with the past the future is entirely causal which leaves no room for free will and blame for that matter.
In an a-causal universe we would have no control over the a-causal event and the following causal events which it influenced and that leaves no room for free will either, neuroscience also supports that there's no free will and that decisions are made up to nearly 10 seconds before we become 'consciously' aware of them and decisions made subconsciously leave no room for free will at all.
Free will is on the way out and has no logical grounding in reality at all we are puppets on strings only we are aware of the strings.
The Libet experiments are by no means conclusive, and have different interpretations as to why what we call "Readiness Potential" proceeds will. Part of the problem is asking the patients to mark the beginning of when their will to act occurred by marking it on a clock which requires one to focus attention on the clock in order to prepare for action. The other part is understanding just what the hell we mean by Readiness Potential. We've declared that the emperor has no clothes before we even know just who the emperor is.
www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/neuroscience/
free will doesn't exist but that doesn't make us puppets. it is like when reading a story, the characters have personality and make choices that are determined by the universe and that fit the characters very well. we get to express ourselves by the will of the universe. the universe allows us to express ourselves even though it determines everything. we get no choice in anything at all except the illusion of choice which matches without beliefs, free will is a good valuable belief.
Tethloach1
I find it hilarious when people deny free will and then turn around and ascribe it to something devoid of personality like the material universe... New age spiritualist bullshit.
Without free will there isn't even something like belief at all, just wetware crunching out a software program.
We have inside information on what it is to be human. We know we act in the world based on belief and choose between action, even if an outsider can call it an illusion. But as an insider, to call the central experience of our lives an illusion, is to bring everything into question, including the idea that free will is an illusion. It is absurd and paradoxical.
Perhaps you can live with that absurdity, perhaps that is the nature of the universe, but to add the absurdity on top of it - to then ascribe what you would deny about yourself to something as impersonal as the material Universe, is to transform absurdity into foolishness and stupidity. It is sophistry plain and simple.
Jonathon Peterson you have about as much free will Darth Vader had in Star wars, none what's so ever, but did that stop you from enjoying the movie? A movie is determined but that doesn't stop us from the full experience does it now? heck the better understanding of a movie we have the more we get to enjoy it, free will doesn't exist and the benefits that come with knowing that are glorious. free is emergent from belies actually has no real power other than putting our personality into the context of bio-chemical behaviorism. knowledge helps us inform our beliefs leading to real benefits.
So many unscientific claims being made here.
He's got citations backing up his deductions, by unscientific you mean it's not supporting your physiological position?
Theres a few citations, yea. But hes adding lots of assertions and gluing it all together to support his pre-existing hypothesis of free will.
there arent a few citations there are many stop lowballing everything lil atheist dumbass and no no assertionse made proof of that pls???
Every philosophical claim is unscientific because philosophy is not science. Determinism too.
"Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"
Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a fucking flashlight."
www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/
I enjoyed your video; it is well presented. Here are the questions which remained with me after viewing it.
Why do the determinists have to prove this sense everyone has (which of the sort you speak I personally lack) is an illusion? A powerful intuition about something that doesn't exist doesn't mean the one who intuits it need not verify the truth of it. I think this is why it's called an illusion.
Why do determinists need to show that the mind is somehow determined even though it is outside of physical reality? Chance and neccesity are thus far the only posited chronological relationships involved in temporal change. Free-will appears nothing but an utterance (and text). It has no meaning I have ever heard described. It would be nice if determinists show the mind is determined, however, presently, they are hardly burdened by this task. What else is there to work from?
Though this may sound ironic, I reject libertarian free-will on largely introspective grounds. I agree that the experience of freedom is obvious and very strong. However, I do not experience with such clarity the negation of determinism, and as a matter of fact, have since childhood struggled to understand how something could happen without having any relation to what came before it (this problem remains unresolved for me). The obvious reality of free-will and the explanatory availability of determinism (with perhaps a dash of chance) is what has made me a compatabilist.
Furthermore, I can admit that I personally don't like free-will in the libertarian sense. It robs our actions (and thus the very course of our lives) of any hope for an explanation that can be meaningfully understood. Far from improving the prospects for accountability, our actions are, on libertarianism, reduced to an ineffable force, which has something to do with the self, but which we do not understand at all, so that we do not really understand our own actions or intentions.
hello IP,
I follow your arguments and please adresss it here with neuro-psycologies studies / quantum mechanism . Feel free to post it also on their blog also.
I want to know your view/analysis against a standard argument against free will , like below explained:
"I realize a rock doesn't have intent, but if all our actions AND any intents behind those actions and the intents behind those intents ad infinitum...are chemical reactions ultimately determined by outside factors (which they must), can we be truly accused of "having" intent? Isn't that the illusion you were discussing? If it isn't free (whatever that can mean), it isn't really intent in the sense of having a free-willed intent to, say, do harm/good, any more than a rock rolling down the hill...following the laws of physics...can be accused of having intent.
And as a side thought, even assuming humans have a soul doesn't give the free will advocates an "out." The soul, whatever it is was inserted/created/assembled BY whatever made it. However it works, how it thinks and reasons, whatever innate morality it has was also put together by that "whatever." We had no say in anything about it...we "inherited it" just like our eye and hair color. Our "souls" would have no more freewill than the snowball I might pack and throw at a wall. No matter how many loops of decision making it might be said to have, it's still depending on input and parameters and thought processes that were/are outside our control."
www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/12/21/free-will-illusionism/
This is just assuming we are chemical reactions and not causing chemical reaction, or that that soul is created by the brain: ua-cam.com/video/oBsI_ay8K70/v-deo.html
Speaking about freewill. As I see it, the Bible states that those who will finally get to heaven will not rebel against God for the rest of eternity. A few question:
1) Does it mean that those people will be deprived of freewill and/or they will agree to be deprived of that just to be sure they will never abuse it?
2) If you say that they will not WANT to rebel against God for some reasons. What are those reasons? And why can't they be given to all the people now so they stop rebelling against God?
3) Lastly, if you say that no new radical reasons will be given and everyone has enough reasons given to him while on Earth, then everything boils down to that freewill thing. And if everyone is given enough reasons to belive then we have to look closer at the mechanics of how freewill works.
I believe God knows all the components making up freewill. And the question is why some people have right components and some don't? Why didn't God create people with the right components in their head/mind? That would help us all a lot :)
Thanks
1. No, there was a war in heaven. We will just have knowledge of sin and never do it again like we would never eat feces. We have freedom to do that, but know that would be stupid.
2. Love, salvation. Because others choose not to: Does God send people to Hell?
3. God judges based on the information they get (John 9:41; 15:22).
***** Thanks for the link to Tim Keller. I watched this one before and it literally saved my faith.
How do you know people are given information enough to consider all alternatives and make a right choice? I'm speaking about individuals here, not humanity in general.
Kolomeets Aleksandr That's really good to hear :)
Well, it is possible some are not given enough information, but who says they are lost? In John 9:41 and John 15:22 Jesus directly says we are guilty because we know better, we are not blind to the fact. Therefore if we didn't know better we would not be separated from God because we didn't know any better. Look at David's son. He died at birth, but David says he will see him again: 2 Samuel 12: 22-23.
David said he will go to him, yet his son never get a choice. The only people in hell are the people who want to be there. So unless we have a choice, we go to heaven, that is why I argue scripture says.
***** "The only people in hell are the people who want to be there."
Really?
ChaosTheory369
"Basically, most atheists go to Heaven" How is that?
It's very important WHY someone claims to be an atheist. Is it really because of the lack of evidence and good reasoning or it's because of "I don't like this to be true" attitude. I can't tell for the 1st group, but the 2nd category simply will not want Heaven.
If so, is it A-type or B-type?
Hello Mr. InspiringPhilosophy. Have watched a couple of your videos and enjoyed them. Perhaps you can help me with a couple of questions that I have.
First, if one claims by experimental data that it has been proven that reality does not exist objectively, and that the observer's choices determine the type of reality that is observed, then doesn't that mean that the experimental data that is used to prove this theory is merely a product of the observer as well? It is one thing to propose the theory, but to say that a theory that undermines the objectivity of experimental science being proven by experimental science seems logically inconsistent to me. What am I missing?
Also, I have a big problem with relativity theory, because it all rests on the axiom that the speed of light is constant even if it originates from a source that is in motion. Where did Einstein get that? How in the world could he test such a thing on the magnitude necessary to make experimental error improbable?
Also, what would it mean for quantum theory if relativity was false?
Thank you.
-Billy
then doesn't that mean that the experimental data that is used to prove this theory is merely a product of the observer as well?"
-Well it is not that we create reality wit our wills, but reality emerges from observation. Henry Stapp says we are necessary to put a Heisenberg choice into nature, but nature answers us back with a Dirac Choice. We do not form reality at will, "The observer in quantum theory does more than just read the recordings. He also chooses which question will be put to Nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer 'The Heisenberg Choice', to contrast it with the 'Dirac Choice', which is the random choice on the part of Nature that Dirac emphasized."
See, nature is fundamentally information not put in place by us, but by a greater mind and all we do is choose from the possibilities laid before us (wave or particle), but we do not create the initial possibilities.
I am not an expert on general relativity. But experts are working different theories of how to merge relativity with QM. One in which gravity emerges out of quantum mechanics as a macro-illusion, so to speak. But again, that is not my area.
Wow, all I know is I choose whether or not to eat pizza or ice cream or both anytime I want or never!
but the thing is, we are born with free will, but our destiny can be changed by other people if you insert other agents into our brain then we will be manipulated so how are we really able to tell if we have free will or not?
Love this video... However, I would have liked to see you talk about Benjamin Libbet's experiments and refuting that evidence that is used against free will.
Perhaps free will and compatibilism is a false dichotomy. After all, each of us is part of a working whole. Our decisions don't happen in a vacuum. All of our actions have a ripple effect.
Is there anything other than 'free will' that can reconcile the forces of gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak? I'd like to predict that 'the theory of everything' will include this term.
Taking that back to the beginning of the universe, we can get something from nothing if free will is given to a sole particle, that is massless and carries no force (ie nothing) A chain of events then take place that we have come to know as the big bang and the universe.
Free will is an intrinsic part of the universe, but is constrained by the matter and forces that itself created.
“A self aware entity can start a new causal chain that is not predetermined by events in the past”. Then where did the decision to do something that then starts a new causal chain come from? Did it just pop into existence out of nothing?
Does super-determinism somehow relate to the biblical concepts of predestination?
Ephesians 1.11 - In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being 'predestined' according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His 'will'
Repost:
If so, is it A-type or B-type?
I really appreciate all your effort in providing heavy duty information however your electronic trance music actually doesn’t allow one to concentrate on the information. Thanks
Suck it up buttercup. Lol. Someone...somewhere...always has to complain about something....anything...sheesh. "Mom! I cannot eat my ice cream cone underwater, in the pool! It ruins my ice cream! That is not fair! Whaaaaah!"
@@baberoot1998 buttercup yourself. I was trying to give constructive advice and started with thank you. You’re very rude.
The mind doesn’t will anything to become a thought or action. All thoughts or actions simply appear, it’s that simple. If you disagree, please explain to me what it means to “will” an action or thought into existence (I’m not claiming determinism is necessarily true, I’m just claiming freewill doesn’t exist).