William James: A man walking down a road sees two churches on opposite sides of road. One is church of Determination, the other the Church of Free Will. He goes into the Church of Determination, and is asked why he wants to join? He answers, because I choose to, and is thrown out. He then goes into the Church of Free Will, and is asked why he wants to join? He answers, because I have to, and is thrown out.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 The debate goes back to Greece I.E. Democritus and Epicurus As to Epicurus and his garden But this community of pleasure was surprisingly austere: instead of being lavished with fine things, visitors to the Garden would be more likely to be met with a glass of water, some simple loaves or biscuits, and a hunk of cheese. Because, Epicurus argued, this kind of simple fare is all you need for true luxury." looking for Wisdom Blog
I personally believe in determinism because it simply makes sense and there isn't really anything to disprove it. I don't think it's a depressing thought because ultimately determinism changes nothing. Yes, all things are the only only possible outcome of the things that came before... And ? Based on that doesn't really change the way we live our lives, the fact that our behavior doesn't break the rules of the universe doesn't mean that life isn't worth living. Of course that really depends on what makes you enjoy life. It might change depending on who you are. But for me personally life remains interesting.
@@solus1021 Well... I ? I determine my actions based on what I know, my prior experiences, my beliefs, my environment, the chemicals in my brain. All of this and more combines into what I do. There is no other world where I make a different choice because for me to act differently would mean that something in the chain of events leading up to here would need to be different. Determinism isn't the belief in some divine fate, it's the belief that there's only one outcome: the logical outcome. Now of course that's my personal understanding of determinism.
@@Kiwi-fl8te I agree with you Kiwi. I always think of choice as the 'deterministic process through which we experience reality'. So essentially we experience the perception of 'choice' when in reality that 'choice' is the deterministic process through which any action we are experiencing is being achieved. Despite our perceptions, the underlying mechanisms don't give us the options we think we have.
@@DrakeWatson I think a thing that maintains the illusion of "choice" (not in the way you define it but it the way it is popularly defined) is the fact that, as humans, we can imagine doing things differently. While we will take the logical course of action, we will also think about other fictional courses of action both before, during and after our "choice". The very process of reasoning requires considering multiple possibilities.
It's impossible to prove that free will exists because it intuitively doesn't make sense. If humans act non-deterministically then the universe itself must not operate on cause-effect relationships, which goes against everything we know about the universe. As humans we can never understand all of the variables which lead to an outcome, so the fact that the universe is deterministic really doesn't matter on an individual level; living without free will and living as if you have no free will are two very different things. Still, it's disingenuous to imply that free will is actually real just because it makes us feel better.
@@theuncomfortabletruth3928 he didn't break the rules of the game to choose it though. Can you choose to make a river flow backwards? Can you choose the next thing you're going to think about? Can you choose to move your hand and fingers? But wait, did you choose to do it or did you just react to me telling you to? Is ANY of your actions NOT a reaction? Then can you choose your tastes? How about your moral values? This freedom sure looks limited if there's any ... Well, as far as we know, every choice could be just like a rock rolling down a hill. The mere fact that it started rolling doesn't say anything about an alleged free will of rocks. It's instead a hint to how the whole universe works, a place where objects seemingly follow all sorts of strict physical laws but where randomness is also fundamental (or at least that's where we're at with quantum physics). There are many factors, and keeping track of them all is confusing for sure, but maybe every choice you made was just the result of said factors with quite a few rolls of dice added to the mix.
I really didn't find any of the arguments put forth as proving free will exists. James even says that it's really unprovable in the sense that it is empirically proven or disproven. It's not quantifiable in the same way. But once you start thinking about where your thoughts come from to begin with, you start realizing that the consciousness that "you" reside in, is just a method of interpreting data that your brain collects.
It's almost unfortunate, but it's relatively easy to show to yourself that free will doesn't truly exist, at least for your self. Were a human to have free will, one would expect the process of thinking to be like being given the option of all possible thoughts you could experience about a certain situation, and to then pick one. Instead, thoughts seem to arrive without ceremony, typically being either partially or entirely predicated upon immediate previous thoughts. To a being with free will, being "reminded" should make no sense. Making different decisions based on "mood" should be impossible. In all areas where we can come to a conclusion, our will is unquestionably a slave. Good news is that has nothing to do with traditional determinism. You can easily disprove that by just playing around with photons.
The truth is that it's somewhere in the middle. There is so much out of your control, but you're free to care for the things you CAN control. That's the important part.
Im dumb, so feel free to respond to me. but i think it has to do with the epistemological approach (what we use to "prove" something exists). Ill argue we pretty much are only absolutely sure of one's existence (for me even the existence of the world is a little fuzzy to be proven with just one's existence since causality and such concepts are really just funded on the world {therere no a priori statements]). Then i think what a pragmatic asks is "why should truth be more valuable than lies?". i mean if we were to live happy on a lie rather than sad on a truth i think that'd be a really good deal. Then truth rather than being defined by what the world shows us to be, is what its more convenient for us to be. James in this sense says that believing in human freedom allows for a life of meaning. Of course, i dont think this really works "the man that seeks truth only to do the good might not find anything"
Right. So working outside of systemic response is inevitable. We have fated interactions with our psychology. Of course these responses lie on a spectrum and it’s not just black or white.
Pragmatism is a surprisingly powerful philosophical school because it’s theory of truth is basically a philosophical expansion of a certain way of thinking about the sciences: If theories are favored and considered to have more truth value because they have more utility and predictive power, then why not apply this across life? And this ends up with delightfully weird consequences. If it turns out to be true that a thoroughgoing scientific image of the world requires some kind of determinism and rejection of free will, but that rejection destroys us psychologically and makes us impotent towards moral progress, then a pragmatist can argue that we just have to accept the reality of free will and indeterminism to exist successfully in the world. And why not? If someone that believes in free will tends to have a more successful and more moral existence because of that belief, why should that not count towards evidence for that truth? It certainly shows the *utility* of that belief. And perhaps the *utility* of beliefs is all we really have to point towards the truth of our beliefs. The epistemological habits of scientists tends to support this. That is, they tend to reject or accept theories based on their utility and predictive power. So, now you’ve reached this point where you reject the scientific image of the world in the domain of your own concious existence. But here’s the intriguing thing: you’ve reached this point precisely by embracing an attitude inspired by that very science. Personally, I find that very interesting.
It's a paradox for sure. But I think it comes down to a Newtonian view of science. One event causes another which causes another. A more Darwinian view of reality leads towards this way of thinking - the most truthful ideas are those ideas which enable the organisms that adopt them to survive. The idea of free will vs determinism is really only a question at the human level of reality. We don't currently believe that it's possible for atoms to express free will, nor do we really believe it's possible for animals to express free will. So whatever free will is, it's tied to consciousness. And we don't really understand that either, except that it's an awareness of our own morality and an ability to sacrifice our present for the future, even to the point of potentially sacrificing our own lives for the sake of others' existence.
Regarding your argument about the *utility* of belief in free will, I disagree here. Determinism offers far more predictive power as this is the basis of any social science, that humans are, for the most part, predictable. If we assume that every person possesses individual agent causation, then we would expect that studying human sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc would be wildly different. This is not the case, while there are always outliers, there are plenty of things that people do that we can reliably predict given certain circumstances. And I don’t agree with the notion that free will results in more moral people either A few examples: 1) Statistics has shown that poor people commit more crime than affluent people. Assuming free will exists, we may start with the assumption that such poor people are just bad people intent on committing crime and that the problem is due to individual mental health. Assuming Determinism, we start with the assumption that it is because of their material conditions that they commit more crime. Determinism leads us to the conclusion that giving poor people the resources they need to survive reduces crime rates. Studies have shown to be the case. 2) Studying why serial killers or pedophiles commit the crimes they do often results in discovering some unresolved childhood trauma. This is consistent and predictable with Determinism. The assumption that we have free will would lead us to believe that some people are just born evil and render us incapable of providing solutions. I could come up with more examples if you like, but I think I’ve illustrated my point. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend reading Sam Harris’ book “Free Will”. He provides a solid and well-researched case for Causal Determinism.
@@wintermint77 Your (1) may be flawed. The affluent also commit crimes but they do so in different ways which allow them to put on a facade of righteousness.
@acdude5266 I think you missed his point. The thing is no human behavior comes out of nowhere, there's always socioenvironmental and biological factors influencing it.
There is no determinism, there is no free-will. These are concepts and have no concrete reality backing them up. They are useful lenses at looking at the world however. Take your pick as to which is the most useful to you. That usefulness determines the ‘truth’ of either determinism or free will for the individual. The use of “truth” above is being used in the pragmatic view as discussed by William James in his books on pragmatism. Pretty neat stuff, paraphrased as I took the material, “for what we cannot know or prove, what is the actual difference for the individual in believing free will or determinism? Positives and negatives can be listed for both. Free will bolsters a sense of agency and responsibility. Determinism can be freeing and anxiety reducing in that we can accept what is and still put forth effort to change ourselves and our surroundings despite the apparent lack of free will. Free will can make us blame others when they seemingly didn’t have a choice or know any better, or knowing we are responsible for ourselves making us feel guilty about how our lives have turned out (in the case of being damaged by some unforeseen force like a car wreck, or being robbed by forces outside of ourselves). Determinism can make us feel like we can’t help ourselves since it’s all deterministic anyways and people can give up and whither away, or have a feeling that they have no agency and lose their identity or purpose and fall into (negative) nihilism. So on and so forth. Use/believe that which is most useful to YOU. Whatever that might be, is true for you.
@@goldenbrettfx90Free will exists because we are practically the only species who can use abstract thinking to its fullest extents. Atleast in our universe. Meaning until the day everyone becomes Gods who live without any substance of free will and only exert their will on the universe through sheer reason with no wantings, and who can predict anything and anytime, people will do things for no reason inside of human nature and society. When we come to those examples, even if you know why you did a specific action, people will do things completely contrary to reason and find solace in human nature and “free will”. So really, all of our understanding of free will hinges on this future which makes it tangible, among other things.
Love the opening statement. I've always said that the reason I love psychology is because of this dual, Yin-Yang, juxtaposition. The name alone, 'psychology', means 'study of', or 'science of', 'the soul'. It seems like a contradiction but, I suppose that's the beauty of individualism, it's that there is no contradictions.
The thing about the lack of free will is that doesn’t actually change anything. It’s a logical conclusion that if everything is just following laws of physics and we are made of those things, then everything we do is predictable in a sense. Even if it isn’t perfectly calculable, reality will progress in a way that we have no control over because we simply *are* the progression of reality. To make a choice is for the future to simply unfold. In fact looking at it from just a psychological perspective, the very idea of choice is taking a path of action based on desires, and since those desires are preprogrammed into us, our choices are controlled by them. But the thing is that you can’t simulate yourself or any other human perfectly. You can’t calculate the exact strength of your or others’ desires and figure out what they’re gonna do. You can only exist moment to moment and make the best choices that you can. You only find out after you’ve made a choice that this was the way the universe was always gonna turn out. But we already know that we can’t change the past, so ultimately nothing changes in life. It’s a disturbing thought that free will doesn’t exist but ultimately, that’s all it is- a thought.
We create the past and the future from the present. To deny all responsibility is the true meaning of cowardice. You can always toss the blame somewhere else. You cannot run from responsibility forever. Sooner or later you will have to face it. If you do not believe that people have the ability to consciously make positive changes in there lives then you are free to do so and your life will reflect your belief.
@@besinb09 Can you give an example of a conscious choice? As far as i know all choises are made on the basis of wants or believes. And you can't choose not to want something that you want or not to believe something that you in fact believe. Like this post. You eather find my argument convincing or you don't. And you have no control over what that outcome will be. Edit: And yes people can make positive change in there life, but only if they want to. But like i already said, they just can't control what it is that they want. Maybe someone that does not see any meaning in life anymore experiences something that convinces him that there is meaning in his life. But he did not choose to be convinced by that, for some reason it just was convincing to him.
@@yannickm1396why does it have to be about desires and choices? Obviously the choice to want something cant be conscious , your consciousness doesn't want things and doesnt have desires, you're programmed to want those things on a subconscious level because without it the evolution would be impossible, but that doesnt mean that you're a bio robot with no free will.The fact that you exist and are aware of your existence is enough to prove that you have free will
That sounds like a large justification of your actions to avoid any kind of consequence. All of these so called thinkers spend their lives trying to disprove The Bible and only come out looking like fools. I sure hope that they understand as much about the soul as they think they do lmao
This intro hits home, the human mind can believe in a God yet the same mind can go on too discover the atom. It's truly the most beautiful yet terrifying thing
I highly recommend watching some of Robert sapolsky’s lectures on behavioral psychology if you haven’t, very nice stuff and it’s all on UA-cam for free 👌
haha yes, i watched his whole course on youtube last summer, and now i have an internship at a neuroscience lab. he was just such a fascinating teacher that it inspired me
It seems like if James had a little more sociology and anthropology under his belt he could have come up with an all-encompassing, psychological framework for Pragmatism not only as a study but also as a socioeconomic method for society.
I believe in free will because I feel it's a better deal for my psyche. I'm bolder to try things and to reject what is said to be impossible (within scientific reason, of course). Whether or not one or the other is real...is not the point. Love your vids as always dude! Happy holidays
@@flansillon4586 In this case for me it's the lens, not what's underneath it. Or for another analogy, the true nature of the hardware of the world around us is important as an objective concept. But I believe software (how we interface with that world) is best left subjective when pursuing notions of truth and the Real.
I have a heavily deterministic world view and I would argue that it does my psyche way better, than believing in free will. If everything is a result of causality, including me and there is no distinction between 'me' and the rest of everything. Than I am just part of it, and compared to it a way too small one to do anything of notice, but so are all other things individually. So, as a conciouss being (that resulted out of physics), I only care about the things that I am aware have a big enough influence on me, everything else I literally dont notice. I can give things a meaning and marvel at the ingenious fact, that a meaningless process can create meaning. But ultimately I am nothing and there is nothing that matters to me. It makes me lose worry.
I never understood why free will and determinism were pitted against each other. Is my life outcome affected by the choices I make? Yes. Was I always going to make that choice? Yes. Am I making the choices? Yes. These terms seem to be relative to different universal discourses. Free will has to deal with the individual and our conscious thought and reality while determinism falls under the energy density map or "gods" domain. Because we only have a 3 dimensional conscious flow, we can't apply our experiences to the 4th dimensional destiny.
The narrative of his life and explanation of his ideas flows so smoothly. Glad I’m no the only one thinking about these ideas. Might give those books a read.
This video didn’t convince me of the existence of free will because it argues against a strawman of determinism. The dozen or so quantum particles that make up all of reality may not know any concept of morality or individuality, but there is randomness in quantum physics, and as such, there’s a degree of randomness in everything. Just because free will doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that fate does
I don’t mean to come off as pretentious or anything but I am actually ignorant and curious on the matter but what would the alternative be if the other two were not to exist?
You realize that you're essentially the Blinkist of philosophers? Thank you Sisyphus. I can't say for sure if free-will exists or not. It's simply one of those hard or impossible questions to ask.
I have two questions that might help you with the one: Do you agree that your decisions and therefore actions are determined by your thoughts? What is the next thing you're going to think about?
@@Illlium I'll try to give you a short, comprehensive reply, but I'm sure I'll miss lots of good content to share with you. It's very likely that most of my decisions are guided by the past & present: sensory input, perception, train of thought, personality & mood (which are both built of past & present behavior & experience), and other possible variables I can't imagine right now. I'm not a psychologist or a great philosopher. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I* (and most people like me) have free-will less than 10% of the time if at all. So many choices, decisions, actions, and behaviors are molded by the past & present that I don't think it's possible to have free-will beyond about 10% of the time. Do we have free-will? Probably. Especially compared with other animals. How much of tge time do we have it? Not all of that much: I'd say single digits percent of the time.
@@Paraselene_Tao I'm a free will contrarian - I'm of the opinion that the only influence you have over the course of your life is stopping yourself from things. Percentages may vary. I'd give animals about as much credit to be honest.
If I pick up a pen, I pick up a pen. There is an order to the universe, not in a karmic sense, but in a universally observable sense. Don’t overthink stupid things, it’s self evident “free will” exists. Yes, there are biological\chemical\environmental factors that influence selfhood. Some actions are uncontrollable in the normal sense we’d think of them (think people w turrets and their ticks). That doesn’t mean they are being puppeted. The kingdom of heaven is a democracy, not a monarchy, and that opens up the possibility for human error. People desperately want to find meaning in horrific things that happen to people, but say you’re a rape victim, if you manage to cope without breaking your mind, you’ll know there was no reason for your rape to happen. Fucked up things just happen. In much the same way, from my point of view, the multiverse just happens and there isn’t an alternative bc for anything to exist at all, everything must exist. Those are just my general thoughts, hope they help somebody find sense and meaning in the chaos.
9:50 Sabine Hossenfelder has made a video where she claims to prove the absence of free will, and recently made a video claiming that the universe is deterministic. It's weird how even quantum physics gets tangled up in this discussion
I wanted to comment something similar. I still don't understand this debate about free will and determinism. You can't really prove either. It's like proving god exists or not. Not gonna happen. So why not just say "I don't know"?
@@KrizaIid117 well actually it's not impossible to prove/disprove free will, since we know the apparatus by which we would supposedly have free will (the brain) and we also know its chemical and physical make-up. In the future, it is entirely possible for us to either discover or find no evidence for a system that produces free will in the brain. What Sabine Hossenfelder argues, however, is that there cannot be a way/system for the brain to produce free will simply because of the fundamental laws of physics... but whether you choose to believe Hossenfelder or not, it still holds logical importance to ask whether free will exists or not
9:56 Well, being a determinist means you must be a pessimist. But that sucks, so you've got to find a way to be an optimist under determinism. But some people find that too hard sometimes. So because those two options under determinism either suck or are too difficult, indeterminism is the only viable option. Flawless logic
I personally believe in free will and reject determinism. I think the chemicals in my mind are an influencing factor in the decisions I make... But... It's ultimately up to me. It seems to me that if we don't have free will then that would mean that a particular state of the brain would have a one-to-one correspondence with a particular thought. Which I don't buy. Ultimately I experience my life as if I do have free will and so, I kind of agree with William James here. So many times, So... Many... Times... I'll hear someone say "I don't believe we have free will ... But... I still think we should lock up murderes" Umm... I know you're saying that because it would be ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't... But you JUST SAID (and thus implied)... That if we don't have free will then they had no choice but to commit murder. Consequently, if free will doesn't exist then the foundational bedrock for how we understand and interpret all of ethics, morality and justice goes out the window. Now, having said that I am completely aware that doesn't prove free will and disprove determinism. Honestly, I know I said above that the chemicals in my brain are an influencing factor but, I don't deny that many times they are a decisive factor. Defining freedom is incredibly difficult but without going into a definition of the word I would say we are rarely free. Most of the time we are just going with the flow to fit in with our peers, to avoid being scrutinized, because it makes life easier. But there are those rare moments, when we do get back into ourselves and we go against the grain and do something totally illogical to others but that has tremendous meaning to ourselves. I've heard many a people say many a time something to the effect of "if we knew all the conditions/factors that were involved in the making of a decision we could foresee what someone would do. And just because we don't know all the conditions/factors doesn't mean they're not there." I agree with you. But I also think that to know all the conditions/factors that play into a "foreseeable" action is to place oneself *IN THE VERY LIVING MOMENT OF DOING THE ACT* and not to "foresee" it. Finally, I don't think that free will will ever be "proven" so to speak. I believe that any attempt at doing so will lead to determinism. It's like Zeno's paradox of the flying arrow. By cutting the movement of the arrow up into definite points he concludes that motion is impossible. It is the same with free will. Any attempt at cutting up all the points in time allows us to see the position of each point but in doing so we lose sight of mobility and therefore conclude immobility.
This idea of hard determinism seems to come down to the basic fact that a scientist can set up a lab experiment the same way every time and get the same result every time. This leads many to conclude that there is only one outcome to every event, hence, determinism. They never seem to notice that the scientist can change the proportion of ingredients slightly, or alter the heating time, and get a completely different result. The chemicals don't determine anything. They are passive objects that react as their nature demands. It is the knowledge and intention of the scientist that determines the outcome. Knowledge and intention do not exist anywhere in the universe outside of a mind, so this is the real seat of determinism, and it is not predestined since it does not exist until the moment of cognition. Of course, a determined determinist will just assert that you are also made of chemicals, so you are the experiment, not the scientist in this scenario. The problem is that the mindless particles are passive and react, while an organism is active and responds based on physical and mental criteria that are not directly in contact with the outcome, so there is no comparison. Living things harness reliable causation to reach goals, passive chemicals can't do this since they don't have knowledge, intention or goals. Your free will is not controlled by chemicals, but all of your mental activity is powered by the activity of your brain.
Do you author your thoughts? In order to author your thoughts you'd need thoughts to base them on. So then I'd have to ask did you author _those_ thoughts? In order to author those thoughts you'd need thoughts to base them on... Ad infinitum. Do you forget things on purpose, or is forgetting things something you cannot control? We all forget things here and there. We forget people's names, where we put something, etc. We're at the mercy of our memory. If it were up to us we'd never forget anything. Do we decide when things will occur to us, or do things simply occur to us (or they don't)? If it were up to us what occured to us (good ideas, etc) we'd all decide to have all great ideas occur to us very early on in life so we can become wealthy. We'd never make mistakes, and we'd always have the right answers occur to us... But this is not how things work... Instead - we're at the mercy of whatever occurs to us. I said all of that without invoking the phrase/term "free will"... Pay attention to these things I pointed out. You'll see things differently.
@gamma4524 Does there not have to be intent to make something a conscious choice? By definition something random is not a conscious choice than. So take your example of two things you want eaqually as much. You could pick one over the other by luck, chance or rendomness (choose the word you want to use). Or one of the two you must have wanted just that tiny bit more to tip the scale in its favour.
Willam James just became my favorite philosopher, his ideas align with mine so well and I’ve never known of him until now. Thanks again sis! Keep it coming.
Determinism is not pessimist. It just adopts realistic values to base it's ethics. It is from such basis that we can generate positive meaning in our lives, we don't need to be free for that.
Nature or nurture inserts/generates ideas into our minds. Fpr axample, by being exposed to this comment due to determinism, you gather enough information to get closer to understanding this topic a little bit more. By integrating every idea that's been insterted, your being can start working into ideals of what it means to be alive, why it's worth it, etc.
Didn’t even need to read the title to choose to watch this. Just had to see the thumbnail. Always a fan of your shit. You take an oftentimes cryptic field and translate it into terms the layman can easily understand, and in bite size pieces at that. Sometimes it feels as though it dilutes the work in some ways, but I don’t really think that matters. If a person finds themselves particularly interested in a certain video, they can always go investigate the original works of these philosophers and scientists on their own. I’m sure many people have been spurred to take a deeper and sometimes life-changing look into philosophy as a direct result of your videos. I know that’s what got me interested in the topic. I watched a video on Nietzsche and was convinced enough to use one of my audible tokens on beyond good and evil. While I couldn’t agree with all of his views, I was immediately enraptured. I spent roughly 200$ binge-reading philosophy over the following weeks. I have since experienced a richness of life which I never even deemed possible. Ever since I was a child I was interested in things such as epistemology and “the good life”, but I lacked the tools to properly process these thoughts. I had been left with a deep longing akin to one for meaning that I had no way of curing. A split second decision to watch a 15 minute video changed the course of my life. While I am still left with a certain and very specific longing which I am sure drives anyone in this field, I find it to be less painful than before. More of a simple curiosity and annoyance at being unable to find the answers to my questions. The refinement of my own beliefs had offered me a freedom I had not yet experienced, despite my increasingly painful circumstances. So please, keep up the good work. You are changing the world in ways the men and women you cover rarely could, especially in modern examples. Thanks for making life more enriching and enjoyable. Stay safe.
I personally derive my opinion that free will exists based on consciousness. I think that Free Will, a Soul, and a Consciousness are one and the same, or at least very closely connected; a Soul is the supernatural part of a person. The natural world moves in perfect order, mathematicity and predictability, even if convoluted. As such, a supernatural force is something truly random or above true prediction. Free will fits this definition perfectly as a human's ability to act above a calculator. A consciousness is the active input and outout of events coupled with the existence of a soul to experience those inputs and moderate outputs based on however that soul is currently feeling, so Consciousness requires a soul to exist. How does Human Nature come into play, then? If human nature is the predictability of man, and has come true time and time again, does free will exist? I think that due to the nature of the mechanical part of our consciousnesses running on our mind (I mean our literal, physical brain as a computer with a soul as an extension) there are limits, and rhe influence of these limits manifests itself in human nature. However, not all humans are the same, of course, allowing the existence of a soul to still be a possibility. Why do I think a soul exists, then? Well, according to the souls-aren't-real argument, a calculator has all the capacity to have a soul as a human being. It, too, is an input-output machine that acts on its surroundings. It's just that for a calculator, those surroundings are perceived as button inputs. More soul proof, when is a consciousness and soul created? Is it when one is born? I'd argue one is not sentient before they are born. That there is neural activity, but not sentience, before one is born, means that the consciousness and soul can exist separately. This seperation means that soul is not restricted to neural flashes, meaning that at least one supernatural component of a human being exists. This component is called a Soul. We are a sentient soul piloting a fleshy bag of neurons that grants us imperfection but also grants us influence over the world. As for how I can prove there's no prebirth sentience, there are some with a photographic memory who can remember everything since their birth, but none can remember from before they were born. And given that there's neural activity before birth, this would mean that the soul exists and can only start processing info after birth.
I’ve yet to hear a single good argument for the existence of free will I’m excited to see what this video holds in store for me I’ll edit later with an update Edit: I fundamentally disagree with the premise that we should believe something to be true or untrue simply on the principle of something is practical to belief Primarily because I don’t even think you CAN belief something simply because you think it is more practical For example if a spouse was to cheat on you but did so safely and never intended to actually leave you, would it not be better to believe they didn’t do this? As believing it will cause your life to become less well off and practically speaking would be bad because it would decay your ability to trust your partner (even though you know they’re being safe and will never leave you.) So on pragmatism as defined in this video it would not only be pragmatically better to not believe but it would be more rational to believe such a thing But not only do I think this is a terrible reason why you should believe something I don’t even think in such a situation you could even believe they weren’t cheating Keep in mind I’m not saying forgive them, or ignore them. But I’m saying actually not believing that they are cheating even if all evidence has shown that they are Good video but I’m not sure where the proof is that free will exists
All arguments against free will are bogus as well. Probability and influence is not a solid argument. Blows my mind that this argument is even being entertained. Not just entertained but being strongly pushed. Politics and religion for you...
@@themacocko6311 not really, I’ve heard many good arguments for determinism And even if their wasn’t any good arguments simply looking at all the scientific information we have at the moment, and using Occam’s razor you come to the conclusion that free will likely doesn’t exist
Avoid absolutes, and err on the side of fluidity. I could see a certain level of determinism. Such as dominoes are lined in such a way, they will fall in a certain pattern. Although, I reckon all this is quantum at a fundamental level. We exist within a field of potential ever fluctuating possible outcomes, that are affected by electrical impulses of our brains in the form of intentions and the writing of the fabric of reality based upon a collective hand shaking processes of observers. That observation leaves room for Determinism, Physical Universe, and Digital/Divine Simulation. Anyone who is Deterministic are just non-player characters running scripts in the background. While anyone who can affect the flow of reality are conscious thinking people.
@@solidcell6568 I disagree, even if the fundamental structure of the universe is random on a quantum level, that doesn’t make determinism false At least when it comes to free will, because if something is truly random you have no control over it regardless of if free will exists or not If you could influence it then it wouldn’t be random, and if it was influenced by things then you’re back to cause an effect witch is just determinism again
@@fossforever512 If you imagine the world as a fluid ocean. Things more close to you are liquid and moves by your interaction. Things more distant to you appear solid, and you can only interact with them by your waves interacting with other waves in a chain to affect a distant point. Past events would be akin dried concrete. A bottle floating past you has a great chance to come near you, the closer it is. You could attempt to increase the likelihood of it approaching you, by moving the water around you to draw it close, potentially. Depending on other people's waves. A large tanker heading in your direction would create large wakes. You may be in its path and be unable to do anything to avoid being sucked in or at least affected by its wake. Although, if you had enough foresight, you could have potentially moved to a less affected region of water. The larger the object moving to you, the longer it takes to avoid it. The closer it is, the more apparent it seems like nothing you could have done to avoid it. A significantly large enough object, may be unavoidable if it was already set in a path that wholly encompasses the total amount of movement you could have done. Such as a planetoid object rolling over the ocean you reside in.
well logically speaking to say that you have free will is to say that upon the moment in which you make that decision, that decision is not therefore caused by external things that caused you to make that decision in the first place, it could be just you personality as a whole like your views, beliefs, desires and preferences and these things you have absolutely no control of nor you're responsible for them and if you were to make a choice against those things, then there is something that caused you to do so.
The thought I always end up with here is that although what you are, how you came to be in the context in which you arose, were born, developed, etc., was all beyond your control, that is still you, that is what 'you' are. The 'you' there makes choices, as much as something else might have created the 'you'. If that wasn't so there wouldn't be any form to a 'you' to make any particular choices. It ends up that it is predetermined, but it is you, and your choice. It kind of becomes simply acccepting what the reality of 'free will' and of choice is. It has to be some kind of pattern of response in itself, something that was created, in order to have any power to make any choices, for any particular variant in a decision to have meaning either way to it, and that's even true if it is able to influence and change itself in the process, but that is still 'choice'. I'm just letting this flow, so I'm confusing myself, but somehow behind it is a flaw in our representation to ourselves of what 'free will' actually means, and that it can't possibly exist when absolutely any path is possible. Our freedom exists in our context, although it can be seen as 'determined' from a greater one, but that is the only way choice and freedom can ever exist, there is no other way. It fits into a value system, which is 'installled' into us without our control, but that predetermined, preset value system IS us, and has the 'freedom' to make the choices that it inevitably will. It's a seeming paradox, but somehow feels to me that deeper down it isn't. And I haven't read James' books, but I can see that an idea of 'pragmatism' is here too, that the meaning, and therefore the choice, stem only from a fact of utility to the subject. It may be a predetermined one, but it is the subject, and becomes its 'choice machine', its meaning, its 'free will'.
the distinction of environment and self ist completely constructed (because its useful) but not remotely actual. this becomes really obvious when you remove part of a body or brain. I lack the belief in free will, as I see that determinism governs the physical world and have no reason to believe there is something beyond the physical. However believing in your own predetermination is a completely useless model. however it can be applied to your environment including persons etc. dor things like moral desicions.
he didn't so much prove that free will exists so much as he proved how nice it would be if it did and how to convince yourself to believe in the illusion of it
What books should I buy to study up on psychology and philosophy? I only have surface level knowledge gained from Sisyphus and other ytubers similar to him.
i read a couple books last year from the same "Series" if you will and they were called why we think the things we think and why we do the things we do. got them at and indigo chapters and i loved them.
Ive understood everything as 'predetermined' for so long I really dont quite understand the alternative lol. They are really the same thing arent they? Do people think they are something completely separate and outside of the universe that they are not affected and effected by it?
Good video, thanks! I believe the fact that we're still debating free will proves James' assertion that it's unprovable. I sort of like the "31 flavors of ice cream" theory where we can't choose which 31 flavors are available, but we do get to choose our favorite among those flavors. Should we end up in a store that unfortunately serves 30 variations of poo and marshmallow raisin cream, we probably feel we're being forced to go with the only flavor that's not poo and have trouble accepting that we have free will. I also think addiction plays a huge role in this. Once one becomes an addict, they don't really get to choose to stop using the substance anymore. The nature of addiction itself is compelling an unwelcome behavior and the addict may need outside help to stop abusing the substances, usually in the form of forcibly removing their access from it even if it requires temporary imprisonment.
Disagree. You choose based an automatic heuristics in your brain, calculations that your brain makes based on external data that is then interpreted by your conciousness. Naturally you don't go with the ones filled with poo. But let's widen that analogy a bit. Let's say not all the flavors are a binary and you actually have a lot of choices. Well "you" don't make that choice. Your brain will compute what you choose without your input, and then deliver it to your consciousness which then interprets it as "your" decision. When you make a decision based on what flavor you want, you base it on what you know beforehand. There's a couple of good arguments against this line of thinking. The most compelling to me is thinking about how thoughts occur to you in the first place, where those thoughts come from. Eventually you realize that they just sort of emerge from the murky black pool that is your unconscious mind. The wiring on the back end that dictates what you do and what you like and how you make decisions. What occurs to you to choose isn't "chosen" by you.
Where I get lost in the "free will" discussion is when the idea crops up that for free will to exist we must be able to negate or transcend our human limits or place in time. So to me it's not really a matter of if we have "free will" at all, it's if we have free will as humans. I guess there is a context that this all takes place in, there are deterministic aspects of reality but also free will within that context. I'm thinking of how a finite line could have an infinite number of points along its length. The concept of infinity can't really exist outside of the finite. What is infinity without the limits of our senses? Is that not what our will is? Infinity within the finite? To me the question of free will wouldn't even be relevant without the limitations of being human.
I think you have determinism wrong, respectfully. It's not that it couldn't have been any other way. Regarding the motions of an object, there is a whole family of functions that could describe the paths of particles in, let's say a neuron, given initial conditions. The fact that a neuron acts a certain way under initial conditions and otherwise under others is the only way we can have a consistent 'will.' Imagine the contrary where we could get any configuration or signal from a neuron given any stimulus. You would have no way of knowing, even if you had answered what your favorite food is, that it is actually your favorite food, a dice roll could change that. Also, the prospect that ALL of the 86 billion neurons in a body multiplied by 7.8 billion people could behave randomly and still produce advanced and ubiquitous technologies such as the internet seems unlikely on the timescales we humans have been given. You could say that is not 'free will' but I have demonstrated how truly infinite free parameters could not, although it is 'free', constitute anything we would call a will. The best we can get is will, and it describes everything you want your life to contain, from what this video tells me. It seems like it bothers William James because at some point, our biology just breaks down or malfunctions to rob us from what we call our will. This is just he fear of death with extra steps, and an appeal to nonsense to justify it. Curious about your opinions.
The ability to determine ones own fate implies the creation of thoughts (electrical impulses in the brain) from nothing Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so free will cannot exist. There isn’t a debate here, people are just uncomfortable with reality
Personally I don't find not having a free will depressing. I don't get the notion of "being a slave to your own mind" what exactly is a slave? Consciousness doesn't do labour, it just experiences. It's like your deeper self is watching a movie about the experience of a human life. You may not have any input like in a video game, but a movie can still be just as profound, intense and beautiful even though the outcome is already determined
i think the definition of free will is weird, or wrong. why would my "free will" be the ability to change the rules of the universe by deciding on what the future will be, when i already have "free will" when deciding between two things? if that's all we can do then that's all the free will we need, right? :/
In order for free will to exist, our cognition would have to exist outside of causal reality. Alas, our processing capabilities run on a very physical substrate and are entirely dependent on stimuli from within causal reality.
You don't need to prove that free will exists, you simply have to show that the idea of determinism makes no sense. We experience free will every moment of every day, so it is the default position without a compelling reason to doubt it. Most people's concept of determinism is just the old religious idea of Fate, but with the will of the gods replaced by the laws of physics. There seems to be a deep psychological stickiness to this strange assertion that your choices aren't actually choices after all.
Although determinism isn't unsubstantiated, I agree that our phenomenological experience of free will should be given greater value than the conclusions we make based on our inevitably limited observations about reality. Living as if you have free will requires nothing: it is a base truth of existance. Denial of free will requires you to adopt conclusions about reality based on observations about reality, both contextualized by the limitations of our sense perceptions and language.
@@pug9431 Well if you want to say that "you couldn't have done differently" then this is definitely unsubstantiated. It is a metaphysical speculation at best. If you say that experiments will come out the same every time if done correctly, that is fine, but this presupposes that the experimenter set up the experiment. The chemicals don't determine anything since they just react passively. The experimenter can change the results since he is an active participant in the unfolding of the universe. We are active participants that have properties that are missing from the rest of the universe, like knowledge, intention and even feelings. It's a mystery how these things arise from matter, but it is perverse to ignore or negate them.
I love your boldness! Wholeheartedly agree. I fall in line with the non-dual Hindu position that "conciousness" (somewhat of a loaded term) is the underlying formless and infinite reality because of which finite and formful (empirical) reality exists. The name given to this underlying reality is "Brahman." Our mind is a pool of "conciousness" and our material bodies produce ripples in this pool known as "vrittis:" sense perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. Essentially, matter (form) arises from the differentiation of the undifferentiated "conciousness" (Brahman). Free will seems incoherent to the western mind because we put the cart before the horse; matter before "conciousness."
@@person8064 If you put the word "because" between those statements, it is a complete idea. No one needs to "prove" that Earth exists or that oceans exist since they are obvious and easily demonstrated. Free will does not need to be proved since it is an everyday part of our existence and experience. You may want to argue that it is an illusion, but it is such an obvious phenomenon that you need to delude yourself to believe that it is an illusion, as Sam Harris does. Of course, Harris also denies that he has a self, so delusion runs deep with that one.
Schopenhauer proved free will does not exist. Since your actions are determined by your motivations and desires, and you don't choose those, you don't have free will. And even if you do choose your current motivations, you didn't choose your motivation for choosing your current motivations. And so on ad infinitum. 5 minutes of meditation proves you do not control your mind; it controls you. I'm greatly simplifying of course, but that's the crux. William James didn't prove anything. His argument is basically, "I feel better believing indeterminism so that's what I believe." All he did was signal that he's unwilling to give up his notions around purpose in order to come to the truth. And what's funny about this is that this is exactly the sort of thing a Schopenhauerian would expect to see: the will unconsciously rank orders desires according to the context and chooses the actions and beliefs that are expected to create the outcome the desire wants. In this case, James wants to feel purpose more than he wants the truth, so he chooses a belief that helps him feel purpose.
Title: "The man who proved that free will exists". The same video at 9:25 - "James believes that belief under pragmatism follows under four postulates that to him are forever unknowable. (1) ... (2) ... (3) Free Will (4) ...". At 10:05: "If we are a determinist, someone who believes all is unchanging and fixed, then what has happened would have happened no matter what." Is this James saying this, or Sisyphus55 saying this? Either way it is two scoops of dung. Determinism doesn't say that the universe is unchanging. The second sentence is goofy as well, as it (a) suggests the precedents to the event could have been some other way, and (b) states the outcome was fated independent of the precedents, which again contradicts determinism. What he is describing is fatalism. Towards the end, the claim that determinists should be like Eeyore is a statement of James' mental state and is not a statement about determinism. We might as well claim that a Christian mother should celebrate when her child dies because they are in heaven now. Such myopic, first order thinking ignores all the other complications of human psychology.
This idea never makes any sense to me. If you believe that no one is responsible for their actions, you are saying that this allows you to choose not to be mad at them? What's even worse is that you can always choose not to be mad at other people's foibles and stupidity, adding determinism to the mix brings nothing to the table.
Society teaches us to have a moral compass which gives a person who commits evil the knowledge that what they did was wrong even if the were predetermined to do it. In the mental sense they therefore have responsibility
"Desiring a promotion" isn't learned. It's simply a specific example of the more general and basal instinct. That instinct being "to gain social status". This instinct is seen in all social animals. It seems you've just not recognized this due to the complexity of human social systems. Try thinking in broader brush strokes and looking at humanity like a naturalist would study a separate species
one take i had was that, if there exist deterministic systems so complex that the only way to know their future is to let them evolve, then they are effectively free. The other idea was that if praise and blame are pointless in a deterministic universe, then why are we so compelled to praise and blame? Third but my best hope, a deterministic universe would be morally uninteresting.
We praise because we liked the action, we blame because we didn't like the action. The negative response to bad actions is an indication to the person who does the bad action that the action is undesirable.
For a think: Neither that which is determined nor unrelated to everything else can be considered freedom of will. If something cannot be any other way, it is determined; if something happens with no relation to anything else (pure chance), it has nothing to do with the will. If a choice is free, then it was decided on. For that decision itself to be free, it must have been decided on. In order for THAT decision to be free, it too mist have been decided on. Now, ask yourself honestly: does all this really happen in your experience, and if it does, how is it not an infinite regress?--that is, how do you get anything done if you must decide forever before deciding? Finally, if this were true, then you would be determined to decide in order for your decisions to be free--and how is that not a contradiction?
The funny thing about the determinism vs free will debate is that it's the greatest waste of time. Even if one side was right, it wouldn't change anything at all. It's an argument about nothing
I disagree, it has a huge ramification upon our ethical view on behavior. Does one put blame on the individual or upon the system for the creation of the individual. "The argument maintains that even if one is not convinced by the arguments against free will and basic desert moral responsibility, it remains unclear whether retributive punishment is justified. This is because the burden of proof lies on those who want to inflict intentional harm on others to provide good justification for such harm (see Pereboom 2001, 2014; Vilhauer 2009, 2012, 2015; Shaw 2014; Corrado 2017; Caruso 2020). This means that retributivists who want to justify legal punishment on the assumption that agents are free and morally responsible (and hence justly deserve to suffer for the wrongs they have done) must justify that assumption. And they must justify that assumption in a way that meets a high epistemic standard of proof since the harms caused in the case of legal punishment are often quite severe. It is not enough to simply point to the mere possibility that agents possess libertarian or compatibilist free will. Nor is it enough to say that the skeptical arguments against free will and basic desert moral responsibility fail to be conclusive." www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/rejecting-retributivism/epistemic-argument-against-retributivism/72E42A82BB88F6DD33A698D051CF5113?fbclid=IwAR3hKOI-tSlZ8lNHJC1VTPTb5Bd4m30my_vDQ3n0Dj7LFjITnFMVbGbm9nk
@@Zone2Out there's still a disconnection from reality. Whether or not someone's actions are free or determined bears no logical reason for why one ought to be punished. You could argue that because they freely made the decision they deserve to be punished, as they were fully aware and conscious of their actions. As a determinist you could say they deserve to be punished because they have to be punished, like it's god's will or for the greater good. There is no logical reason for why one deserves anything, it's all just subjective opinion. If you are going to punish someone, it's either because you think it benefits you in some way or you're just sadistic.
@@andrewgodly5739 I see you throwing Hume's Guillotine at it, and I agree you can't get an ought from an is. But when it comes to forms of governance, ought our governance be informed by what is? I'd argue that free will and determinism leads to different inductions into what is rationally justified. But under determinism 'punishment' is sadistic, as one is essentially blaming the victim of their happenstance. So the ethical framework shifts away punitive justice to rehabilitative justice. Whereas freewill is self justified in their punitive justice. While I agree its all just subjective opinion, one is built on better inference than the other.
@@Zone2Out they're both built on a foundation lacking in inference. Why is rehabilitative justice better? It assumes there's something wrong with the individual. It begs the question why does the incriminated need to rehabilitate, but not the justice system? What makes the justice system so right? What is this greater good and grand plan? By the way, rehabilitation is a punishment. At least in a justice system based on free will, I'm treated as an autonomous person that is fully aware of my actions. I may be sadistically abused for it. But at least I'm more than just an obstacle, to some grand plan, that needs to be corrected. My conclusion is that the justice system and punishment is sadistic, no matter if you have it with free will or determinism. The results the same either way. You could argue for rehabilitation under free will and sadistic torture under determinism. Free will and determinism once again provide nothing more than empty arguments that continue to go on indefinitely.
@@andrewgodly5739 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how rehabilitating anti-social behavior, so that individuals can continue flourishing in society is "sadistic torture", but you do you.
I understand that William James found the idea of free thought appealing because that is the only way his biological mind would make sense of the world ... Thus ... Absolute determinism ..and I don't find that depressing i think that way of thought comes from the disconnect one feels with what is one conditioned with ...
I think a balanced viewpoint is a pragmatic-deterministic philosophy. That free will is not real but society must act as if it does. Free will can be thought of as an illusion. In which believing in it effectively gives you the same thing as having it, based on your perspective. By the same virtue, not believing in it ultimately makes more sense, but presents the dilemma that you would not have had a choice to believe in free will or not in the first place. Because of that dilemma, and that paradox of believing in free will, you either live your life thinking you have something you might not. Or live your life thinking you don't have something but understand that you (along with everyone else) must pretend that you do. Either way it doesn't change (morally) whether or not you can be held accountable for crimes. So your choice, if you believe you have such a thing, is willingly believing in an illusion that may not exist or a well fleshed out, systematic lie.
I don't understand the "we must pretend as if we have free will" idea". Seems unnecessary. It's absolutely possible to live life without believing in free will and I'm willing to bet that we could have an entire society not believe in free will and it would be fine. Sure determinism requires a different moral framework but I'd argue that framework is healthier than one based on what I consider to be a lie.
@@primo4915 there's probably a way you could fit some form of determinism into your religious belief. But no, as far as I'm aware there is nothing in Catholicism or Islam that means you must believe in determinism, although there are some elements of fatalism with events being fated to happen like the return of Jesus Christ and the Apocalypse.
If freewill existed so many professions that rely on statistics and probability would be in trouble. Marketing wouldn't work, sociological studies would be pointless, and economics would be pointless to study. The proof against free will is overwhelming given that all of these professions appear to have some level of predictive power, and show strong correlative tendencies. The universe appears to obey cause and effect and the progress of human understanding has been the process of accepting piece by piece that we are just a small part of the universe without particular significance or extraplanar favor. We appear to obey cause and effect, its just that any sufficiently complex science appears as magic until understood.
Sounds like he was a pragmatically motivated compatibalist. I can definitely see where he is coming from, but I don't agree that incompatibalism leads us to viewing the world as lacking in meaning and purpose. I think most incompatibalistst would agree that disbelieving free will is not something you can keep up for very long, you simply can't maintain that state of mind, nor do I see it as being very practical to do so in daily life. But I do think it is a very useful tool in understanding human behavior and just works better when analyzing human psychology. I believe we can both assign a reasonable amount of blame on people for their actions to deter bad behavior, while still not having to close lines of inquiry by arbitrarily injecting free will and thus placing a disproportionate amount of blame on the individual. Its easier, and it's usually what we would rather do, but I believe that study into mental health and crime and punishment points strongly towards it being largely ineffective.
William James applied the practicality of utilitarianism to the philosophical realm. While pragmatism may have some benefits toward alleviating mental angst, it brings one no closer to the truth. James apparently espoused a skill that I'm incapable of, which is to adopt a belief simply because of its existential convenience. Perhaps my desire for my philosophical convictions to be true is just too great a demand.
Well, I suppose his approach hinges upon the falsifiability of free will. If it was the case that free will could not be disproved, which i do not believe, then I could see an argument for taking the view that serves the greatest utility.
I believe that agents have the free will to change what happens, and from there determine what happens, until another free agent causes change, call it free determinism if you will. But I do hold to free will, because even if not true, it is ultimately better to believe in free will
I really believe in determinism.. Our consciousness, whatever it is, is within our universe and everything in the universe can be predicted if you have enough data and processing power so your actions can be predicted and there's nothing you can do about it..
Isnt the universe within our consciousness.. so its the other way around. Theres a bunch of phenomenon happening and we try to categorize it into space, time, cause/effect, etc. to make sense of it, and if we cant we just say its random.
@@thotslayer9914 Did you pick the things you desire? Did you decide to prefer whichever people you're attracted to? Do you author your own thoughts? If so, did you author the thoughts you used to author that thought? Do you decide when you'll forget things? Do you decide when you'll have an idea occur to you? If so, why didn't you make it occur sooner?
The tender-minded / tough-minded approach dichotomy feels kinda forced. Like if I had to buy into that framing, I'd probably include the desire for understanding truth on either side. The tender-mind yearns to believe in and discover universal truth; the pragmatic mind understands that such a thing probably can't exist, yet is careful with its analysis of the world out of the same desire to arrive at a pragmatic truth.
At around 10:16 you say (or paraphrase) "If we are a determinist, then what has happened would have happened no matter what." I think that is wrong, or at best is technically correct but misses the entire point of determinism. Rather than determinism, that sounds more like a belief in destiny, or fatalism. A determinist typically basis their determinism in the idea of cause&effect, so had things been different then the result would be different. While it happens to be the case that the causes couldn't have been different, to throw up our hands and say "it would have happened no matter what" makes the mistake of feeling powerless despite having a foundational belief in the power of cause & effect.
I think that I'm an optimistic determinist, but not in the fashion you mentioned it. My idea of a person is a mixture of genetics and environment, neither of which we decide. We do not decide what we do as the person we declare as "us" isn't decided, chosen or crafted by us, its simply what came to be. But this is not to say that we don't have free will and that we are part of the universe's plan. Although I do believe that we don't have true free will, any action of us was simply what we would do based on our experiences( and how we judge them) and they can be against this "flow of universe". Its like doing the reverse-reverse psychology thing as a child. You are who you are because of the environment and genetics and you take your decisions based on your experiences. And that's something you have no control over.
I don't see how. The halting problem has a built in logical contradiction. This would be a problem for determinism if math exists. What am I missing? Does Determinism have to answer to any mathematical or logical paradoxes, and if so, why?
William James: A man walking down a road sees two churches on opposite sides of road. One is church of Determination, the other the Church of Free Will. He goes into the Church of Determination, and is asked why he wants to join? He answers, because I choose to, and is thrown out. He then goes into the Church of Free Will, and is asked why he wants to join? He answers, because I have to, and is thrown out.
He then continues down the road and comes to a Pub, he's asked why he wants to join. "I was rejected by god, I'm here to get drunk and celebrate!"
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 Non sequitur noted.
@@jamessheffield4173 After multiple rejections wouldn't you have a few drinks? lol
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 The debate goes back to Greece I.E. Democritus and Epicurus As to Epicurus and his garden But this community of pleasure was surprisingly austere: instead of being lavished with fine things, visitors to the Garden would be more likely to be met with a glass of water, some simple loaves or biscuits, and a hunk of cheese. Because, Epicurus argued, this kind of simple fare is all you need for true luxury." looking for Wisdom Blog
@@jamessheffield4173 sometimes you gotta shut up and just have a beer
Your videos are like what a coffee shop feels like.
It’s totally the muted jazz in the background
this is so accurate eveb though i never been in one
I personally believe in determinism because it simply makes sense and there isn't really anything to disprove it. I don't think it's a depressing thought because ultimately determinism changes nothing. Yes, all things are the only only possible outcome of the things that came before... And ? Based on that doesn't really change the way we live our lives, the fact that our behavior doesn't break the rules of the universe doesn't mean that life isn't worth living. Of course that really depends on what makes you enjoy life. It might change depending on who you are. But for me personally life remains interesting.
How does it make more sense than free will…? What, in your view, determines your actions if it’s not yourself?
@@solus1021 Well... I ? I determine my actions based on what I know, my prior experiences, my beliefs, my environment, the chemicals in my brain. All of this and more combines into what I do. There is no other world where I make a different choice because for me to act differently would mean that something in the chain of events leading up to here would need to be different. Determinism isn't the belief in some divine fate, it's the belief that there's only one outcome: the logical outcome. Now of course that's my personal understanding of determinism.
@@solus1021We have a will, that will just isn't really "free". And Freedom is a complex thing to define in the first place.
@@Kiwi-fl8te I agree with you Kiwi. I always think of choice as the 'deterministic process through which we experience reality'. So essentially we experience the perception of 'choice' when in reality that 'choice' is the deterministic process through which any action we are experiencing is being achieved. Despite our perceptions, the underlying mechanisms don't give us the options we think we have.
@@DrakeWatson I think a thing that maintains the illusion of "choice" (not in the way you define it but it the way it is popularly defined) is the fact that, as humans, we can imagine doing things differently. While we will take the logical course of action, we will also think about other fictional courses of action both before, during and after our "choice". The very process of reasoning requires considering multiple possibilities.
“The man who proved free will exists”
10 minutes into the video….
“He thought it impossible to prove”
Yep another good point lol. He definitely gets ahead of himself too often and is overwhelmed by his own cultural and intellectual assumptions
It's impossible to prove that free will exists because it intuitively doesn't make sense. If humans act non-deterministically then the universe itself must not operate on cause-effect relationships, which goes against everything we know about the universe.
As humans we can never understand all of the variables which lead to an outcome, so the fact that the universe is deterministic really doesn't matter on an individual level; living without free will and living as if you have no free will are two very different things. Still, it's disingenuous to imply that free will is actually real just because it makes us feel better.
@@spongegar The fact you wrote that answer already proves free will is real. You could have just as easily not write it. But you CHOSE to write it.
@@theuncomfortabletruth3928 no
@@theuncomfortabletruth3928 he didn't break the rules of the game to choose it though.
Can you choose to make a river flow backwards? Can you choose the next thing you're going to think about? Can you choose to move your hand and fingers? But wait, did you choose to do it or did you just react to me telling you to? Is ANY of your actions NOT a reaction?
Then can you choose your tastes? How about your moral values?
This freedom sure looks limited if there's any ...
Well, as far as we know, every choice could be just like a rock rolling down a hill. The mere fact that it started rolling doesn't say anything about an alleged free will of rocks. It's instead a hint to how the whole universe works, a place where objects seemingly follow all sorts of strict physical laws but where randomness is also fundamental (or at least that's where we're at with quantum physics).
There are many factors, and keeping track of them all is confusing for sure, but maybe every choice you made was just the result of said factors with quite a few rolls of dice added to the mix.
I really didn't find any of the arguments put forth as proving free will exists. James even says that it's really unprovable in the sense that it is empirically proven or disproven. It's not quantifiable in the same way. But once you start thinking about where your thoughts come from to begin with, you start realizing that the consciousness that "you" reside in, is just a method of interpreting data that your brain collects.
It's almost unfortunate, but it's relatively easy to show to yourself that free will doesn't truly exist, at least for your self. Were a human to have free will, one would expect the process of thinking to be like being given the option of all possible thoughts you could experience about a certain situation, and to then pick one. Instead, thoughts seem to arrive without ceremony, typically being either partially or entirely predicated upon immediate previous thoughts.
To a being with free will, being "reminded" should make no sense. Making different decisions based on "mood" should be impossible. In all areas where we can come to a conclusion, our will is unquestionably a slave.
Good news is that has nothing to do with traditional determinism. You can easily disprove that by just playing around with photons.
The truth is that it's somewhere in the middle. There is so much out of your control, but you're free to care for the things you CAN control.
That's the important part.
Im dumb, so feel free to respond to me.
but i think it has to do with the epistemological approach (what we use to "prove" something exists). Ill argue we pretty much are only absolutely sure of one's existence (for me even the existence of the world is a little fuzzy to be proven with just one's existence since causality and such concepts are really just funded on the world {therere no a priori statements]). Then i think what a pragmatic asks is "why should truth be more valuable than lies?". i mean if we were to live happy on a lie rather than sad on a truth i think that'd be a really good deal. Then truth rather than being defined by what the world shows us to be, is what its more convenient for us to be. James in this sense says that believing in human freedom allows for a life of meaning.
Of course, i dont think this really works "the man that seeks truth only to do the good might not find anything"
Right. So working outside of systemic response is inevitable. We have fated interactions with our psychology. Of course these responses lie on a spectrum and it’s not just black or white.
@@Awakenedmind333 Biology
My prayers have been answered. the perfect thing to fall asleep to
Sp0ns0rBlock
@@bigtupa5613 lmao
Fall asleep to this dude's voice most nights
Commenting because I want you to know that you’re amazing, my favorite UA-camr out there. Keep it up
Liking a video before watching out of respect and trust in a youtuber is not something I do often but you sir deserve it
i disliked it because of this comment ✌️😌
Pragmatism is a surprisingly powerful philosophical school because it’s theory of truth is basically a philosophical expansion of a certain way of thinking about the sciences: If theories are favored and considered to have more truth value because they have more utility and predictive power, then why not apply this across life?
And this ends up with delightfully weird consequences. If it turns out to be true that a thoroughgoing scientific image of the world requires some kind of determinism and rejection of free will, but that rejection destroys us psychologically and makes us impotent towards moral progress, then a pragmatist can argue that we just have to accept the reality of free will and indeterminism to exist successfully in the world. And why not? If someone that believes in free will tends to have a more successful and more moral existence because of that belief, why should that not count towards evidence for that truth? It certainly shows the *utility* of that belief. And perhaps the *utility* of beliefs is all we really have to point towards the truth of our beliefs. The epistemological habits of scientists tends to support this. That is, they tend to reject or accept theories based on their utility and predictive power.
So, now you’ve reached this point where you reject the scientific image of the world in the domain of your own concious existence. But here’s the intriguing thing: you’ve reached this point precisely by embracing an attitude inspired by that very science.
Personally, I find that very interesting.
It's a paradox for sure.
But I think it comes down to a Newtonian view of science. One event causes another which causes another. A more Darwinian view of reality leads towards this way of thinking - the most truthful ideas are those ideas which enable the organisms that adopt them to survive.
The idea of free will vs determinism is really only a question at the human level of reality. We don't currently believe that it's possible for atoms to express free will, nor do we really believe it's possible for animals to express free will. So whatever free will is, it's tied to consciousness. And we don't really understand that either, except that it's an awareness of our own morality and an ability to sacrifice our present for the future, even to the point of potentially sacrificing our own lives for the sake of others' existence.
Regarding your argument about the *utility* of belief in free will, I disagree here. Determinism offers far more predictive power as this is the basis of any social science, that humans are, for the most part, predictable. If we assume that every person possesses individual agent causation, then we would expect that studying human sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc would be wildly different. This is not the case, while there are always outliers, there are plenty of things that people do that we can reliably predict given certain circumstances. And I don’t agree with the notion that free will results in more moral people either
A few examples:
1) Statistics has shown that poor people commit more crime than affluent people. Assuming free will exists, we may start with the assumption that such poor people are just bad people intent on committing crime and that the problem is due to individual mental health.
Assuming Determinism, we start with the assumption that it is because of their material conditions that they commit more crime. Determinism leads us to the conclusion that giving poor people the resources they need to survive reduces crime rates. Studies have shown to be the case.
2) Studying why serial killers or pedophiles commit the crimes they do often results in discovering some unresolved childhood trauma. This is consistent and predictable with Determinism. The assumption that we have free will would lead us to believe that some people are just born evil and render us incapable of providing solutions.
I could come up with more examples if you like, but I think I’ve illustrated my point. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend reading Sam Harris’ book “Free Will”. He provides a solid and well-researched case for Causal Determinism.
@@wintermint77 Your (1) may be flawed. The affluent also commit crimes but they do so in different ways which allow them to put on a facade of righteousness.
@acdude5266 I think you missed his point. The thing is no human behavior comes out of nowhere, there's always socioenvironmental and biological factors influencing it.
There is no determinism, there is no free-will. These are concepts and have no concrete reality backing them up. They are useful lenses at looking at the world however. Take your pick as to which is the most useful to you. That usefulness determines the ‘truth’ of either determinism or free will for the individual.
The use of “truth” above is being used in the pragmatic view as discussed by William James in his books on pragmatism. Pretty neat stuff, paraphrased as I took the material, “for what we cannot know or prove, what is the actual difference for the individual in believing free will or determinism? Positives and negatives can be listed for both. Free will bolsters a sense of agency and responsibility. Determinism can be freeing and anxiety reducing in that we can accept what is and still put forth effort to change ourselves and our surroundings despite the apparent lack of free will. Free will can make us blame others when they seemingly didn’t have a choice or know any better, or knowing we are responsible for ourselves making us feel guilty about how our lives have turned out (in the case of being damaged by some unforeseen force like a car wreck, or being robbed by forces outside of ourselves). Determinism can make us feel like we can’t help ourselves since it’s all deterministic anyways and people can give up and whither away, or have a feeling that they have no agency and lose their identity or purpose and fall into (negative) nihilism. So on and so forth.
Use/believe that which is most useful to YOU. Whatever that might be, is true for you.
No, no, there's definitely determinism, because there's a structured reality based on laws.
@@goldenbrettfx90Free will exists because we are practically the only species who can use abstract thinking to its fullest extents. Atleast in our universe. Meaning until the day everyone becomes Gods who live without any substance of free will and only exert their will on the universe through sheer reason with no wantings, and who can predict anything and anytime, people will do things for no reason inside of human nature and society. When we come to those examples, even if you know why you did a specific action, people will do things completely contrary to reason and find solace in human nature and “free will”. So really, all of our understanding of free will hinges on this future which makes it tangible, among other things.
@@gloriousblobber9647Hoe does abstract thinking prove free will? And it’s impossible to do something for no reason
Love the opening statement. I've always said that the reason I love psychology is because of this dual, Yin-Yang, juxtaposition. The name alone, 'psychology', means 'study of', or 'science of', 'the soul'. It seems like a contradiction but, I suppose that's the beauty of individualism, it's that there is no contradictions.
"Oh you're a determinist? What convinced you that free will isn't a thing?"
The thing about the lack of free will is that doesn’t actually change anything.
It’s a logical conclusion that if everything is just following laws of physics and we are made of those things, then everything we do is predictable in a sense. Even if it isn’t perfectly calculable, reality will progress in a way that we have no control over because we simply *are* the progression of reality. To make a choice is for the future to simply unfold. In fact looking at it from just a psychological perspective, the very idea of choice is taking a path of action based on desires, and since those desires are preprogrammed into us, our choices are controlled by them.
But the thing is that you can’t simulate yourself or any other human perfectly. You can’t calculate the exact strength of your or others’ desires and figure out what they’re gonna do. You can only exist moment to moment and make the best choices that you can. You only find out after you’ve made a choice that this was the way the universe was always gonna turn out. But we already know that we can’t change the past, so ultimately nothing changes in life.
It’s a disturbing thought that free will doesn’t exist but ultimately, that’s all it is- a thought.
We create the past and the future from the present. To deny all responsibility is the true meaning of cowardice. You can always toss the blame somewhere else. You cannot run from responsibility forever. Sooner or later you will have to face it. If you do not believe that people have the ability to consciously make positive changes in there lives then you are free to do so and your life will reflect your belief.
@@besinb09
Can you give an example of a conscious choice? As far as i know all choises are made on the basis of wants or believes. And you can't choose not to want something that you want or not to believe something that you in fact believe. Like this post. You eather find my argument convincing or you don't. And you have no control over what that outcome will be.
Edit: And yes people can make positive change in there life, but only if they want to. But like i already said, they just can't control what it is that they want. Maybe someone that does not see any meaning in life anymore experiences something that convinces him that there is meaning in his life. But he did not choose to be convinced by that, for some reason it just was convincing to him.
@@yannickm1396why does it have to be about desires and choices? Obviously the choice to want something cant be conscious , your consciousness doesn't want things and doesnt have desires, you're programmed to want those things on a subconscious level because without it the evolution would be impossible, but that doesnt mean that you're a bio robot with no free will.The fact that you exist and are aware of your existence is enough to prove that you have free will
That sounds like a large justification of your actions to avoid any kind of consequence. All of these so called thinkers spend their lives trying to disprove The Bible and only come out looking like fools. I sure hope that they understand as much about the soul as they think they do lmao
This intro hits home, the human mind can believe in a God yet the same mind can go on too discover the atom. It's truly the most beautiful yet terrifying thing
Naive to think a theist cant accommodate atoms coherently into their world view
Or be freak out by its normal nature
@@Luke-lp9ff Not "accomodate", but cherry-pick.
@@JohnDoe-qm8ns explain to me how thats cherry picking. Explain to me how an omnipresent omnipotent God wouldnt be able to make atoms
both incredbile things
I highly recommend watching some of Robert sapolsky’s lectures on behavioral psychology if you haven’t, very nice stuff and it’s all on UA-cam for free 👌
haha yes, i watched his whole course on youtube last summer, and now i have an internship at a neuroscience lab.
he was just such a fascinating teacher that it inspired me
Sp0ns0rBlock
Sapolsky is great. Love his lectures and listening to him speak. He doesn't believe in free will either.
What the attitude for meeeee
Sapolsky is solidly "free will doesn't exist" just so people know
honey wake up, new sisyphus 55 vid just dropped
Literally like 10 minutes after I woke up this video got posted lol
@@SidewalkSurferPhotography two lovers intertwined
It seems like if James had a little more sociology and anthropology under his belt he could have come up with an all-encompassing, psychological framework for Pragmatism not only as a study but also as a socioeconomic method for society.
do you care to elaborate what you mean by that?
Havent watched a second but i already know its a good video
Ok?
@@lking6705 Yes, you're right. It is okay. Thank you for asking
I believe in free will because I feel it's a better deal for my psyche. I'm bolder to try things and to reject what is said to be impossible (within scientific reason, of course).
Whether or not one or the other is real...is not the point.
Love your vids as always dude! Happy holidays
People are not ready to accept the truth
why would those decisions change if you believe free will exists or not?? you have the exact same knowledge of the world so what changes?
@@flansillon4586 In this case for me it's the lens, not what's underneath it. Or for another analogy, the true nature of the hardware of the world around us is important as an objective concept. But I believe software (how we interface with that world) is best left subjective when pursuing notions of truth and the Real.
you don't actually believe it, you just pretend to because it makes you feel good.
I have a heavily deterministic world view and I would argue that it does my psyche way better, than believing in free will.
If everything is a result of causality, including me and there is no distinction between 'me' and the rest of everything.
Than I am just part of it, and compared to it a way too small one to do anything of notice, but so are all other things individually.
So, as a conciouss being (that resulted out of physics), I only care about the things that I am aware have a big enough influence on me, everything else I literally dont notice.
I can give things a meaning and marvel at the ingenious fact, that a meaningless process can create meaning.
But ultimately I am nothing and there is nothing that matters to me.
It makes me lose worry.
I never understood why free will and determinism were pitted against each other. Is my life outcome affected by the choices I make? Yes. Was I always going to make that choice? Yes. Am I making the choices? Yes. These terms seem to be relative to different universal discourses. Free will has to deal with the individual and our conscious thought and reality while determinism falls under the energy density map or "gods" domain.
Because we only have a 3 dimensional conscious flow, we can't apply our experiences to the 4th dimensional destiny.
Exactly. That’s compatibilism
The narrative of his life and explanation of his ideas flows so smoothly. Glad I’m no the only one thinking about these ideas. Might give those books a read.
This video didn’t convince me of the existence of free will because it argues against a strawman of determinism.
The dozen or so quantum particles that make up all of reality may not know any concept of morality or individuality, but there is randomness in quantum physics, and as such, there’s a degree of randomness in everything.
Just because free will doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that fate does
I don’t mean to come off as pretentious or anything but I am actually ignorant and curious on the matter but what would the alternative be if the other two were not to exist?
Spitting straight facts.
Your pretty much free to do as you wish it's got nothing to do with atheism vs religion.
completely agreed I just said to myself "clickbait title"
@@Fidelio42 are you free to choose your parents and childhood experiences for example that shape every other action you take today?
4:23 I used to have that fear, but I now have much more tangible fears (alone)
You realize that you're essentially the Blinkist of philosophers? Thank you Sisyphus.
I can't say for sure if free-will exists or not. It's simply one of those hard or impossible questions to ask.
I have two questions that might help you with the one:
Do you agree that your decisions and therefore actions are determined by your thoughts?
What is the next thing you're going to think about?
@@Illlium I'll try to give you a short, comprehensive reply, but I'm sure I'll miss lots of good content to share with you.
It's very likely that most of my decisions are guided by the past & present: sensory input, perception, train of thought, personality & mood (which are both built of past & present behavior & experience), and other possible variables I can't imagine right now.
I'm not a psychologist or a great philosopher. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I* (and most people like me) have free-will less than 10% of the time if at all. So many choices, decisions, actions, and behaviors are molded by the past & present that I don't think it's possible to have free-will beyond about 10% of the time.
Do we have free-will? Probably. Especially compared with other animals. How much of tge time do we have it? Not all of that much: I'd say single digits percent of the time.
@@Paraselene_Tao I'm a free will contrarian - I'm of the opinion that the only influence you have over the course of your life is stopping yourself from things. Percentages may vary.
I'd give animals about as much credit to be honest.
If I pick up a pen, I pick up a pen. There is an order to the universe, not in a karmic sense, but in a universally observable sense. Don’t overthink stupid things, it’s self evident “free will” exists. Yes, there are biological\chemical\environmental factors that influence selfhood. Some actions are uncontrollable in the normal sense we’d think of them (think people w turrets and their ticks). That doesn’t mean they are being puppeted. The kingdom of heaven is a democracy, not a monarchy, and that opens up the possibility for human error. People desperately want to find meaning in horrific things that happen to people, but say you’re a rape victim, if you manage to cope without breaking your mind, you’ll know there was no reason for your rape to happen. Fucked up things just happen. In much the same way, from my point of view, the multiverse just happens and there isn’t an alternative bc for anything to exist at all, everything must exist.
Those are just my general thoughts, hope they help somebody find sense and meaning in the chaos.
Sp0ns0rBlock
I think the debate should be over. It's unreasonable to believe that modern humans are above determinism.
@@michaelenquist3728 why did you want to be unreasonable?
9:50 Sabine Hossenfelder has made a video where she claims to prove the absence of free will, and recently made a video claiming that the universe is deterministic. It's weird how even quantum physics gets tangled up in this discussion
You can believe all you want free will exists, but it still is incompatible with the physical world.
I wanted to comment something similar. I still don't understand this debate about free will and determinism. You can't really prove either. It's like proving god exists or not. Not gonna happen. So why not just say "I don't know"?
@@KrizaIid117 well actually it's not impossible to prove/disprove free will, since we know the apparatus by which we would supposedly have free will (the brain) and we also know its chemical and physical make-up. In the future, it is entirely possible for us to either discover or find no evidence for a system that produces free will in the brain. What Sabine Hossenfelder argues, however, is that there cannot be a way/system for the brain to produce free will simply because of the fundamental laws of physics... but whether you choose to believe Hossenfelder or not, it still holds logical importance to ask whether free will exists or not
@@Ragnarok540 or perhaps hardcore physicalism isn't compatible with reality ?
@@aqilshamil9633 if you want to believe that, sure.
I must have missed the part where he "proved" that free will exists
clickbait
I was wondering the same
william james even specifically believed that free will can't be proven. i usually love sisyphus but this one fell flat for me
Pretty disappointing
9:56 Well, being a determinist means you must be a pessimist. But that sucks, so you've got to find a way to be an optimist under determinism. But some people find that too hard sometimes. So because those two options under determinism either suck or are too difficult, indeterminism is the only viable option. Flawless logic
I have no choice but to be free.
. . . so you´re NOT married, huh . . .
I personally believe in free will and reject determinism. I think the chemicals in my mind are an influencing factor in the decisions I make... But... It's ultimately up to me. It seems to me that if we don't have free will then that would mean that a particular state of the brain would have a one-to-one correspondence with a particular thought. Which I don't buy. Ultimately I experience my life as if I do have free will and so, I kind of agree with William James here. So many times, So... Many... Times... I'll hear someone say "I don't believe we have free will ... But... I still think we should lock up murderes"
Umm... I know you're saying that because it would be ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't... But you JUST SAID (and thus implied)... That if we don't have free will then they had no choice but to commit murder. Consequently, if free will doesn't exist then the foundational bedrock for how we understand and interpret all of ethics, morality and justice goes out the window. Now, having said that I am completely aware that doesn't prove free will and disprove determinism.
Honestly, I know I said above that the chemicals in my brain are an influencing factor but, I don't deny that many times they are a decisive factor. Defining freedom is incredibly difficult but without going into a definition of the word I would say we are rarely free. Most of the time we are just going with the flow to fit in with our peers, to avoid being scrutinized, because it makes life easier. But there are those rare moments, when we do get back into ourselves and we go against the grain and do something totally illogical to others but that has tremendous meaning to ourselves.
I've heard many a people say many a time something to the effect of "if we knew all the conditions/factors that were involved in the making of a decision we could foresee what someone would do. And just because we don't know all the conditions/factors doesn't mean they're not there."
I agree with you. But I also think that to know all the conditions/factors that play into a "foreseeable" action is to place oneself *IN THE VERY LIVING MOMENT OF DOING THE ACT* and not to "foresee" it.
Finally, I don't think that free will will ever be "proven" so to speak. I believe that any attempt at doing so will lead to determinism. It's like Zeno's paradox of the flying arrow. By cutting the movement of the arrow up into definite points he concludes that motion is impossible. It is the same with free will. Any attempt at cutting up all the points in time allows us to see the position of each point but in doing so we lose sight of mobility and therefore conclude immobility.
This idea of hard determinism seems to come down to the basic fact that a scientist can set up a lab experiment the same way every time and get the same result every time. This leads many to conclude that there is only one outcome to every event, hence, determinism. They never seem to notice that the scientist can change the proportion of ingredients slightly, or alter the heating time, and get a completely different result. The chemicals don't determine anything. They are passive objects that react as their nature demands. It is the knowledge and intention of the scientist that determines the outcome. Knowledge and intention do not exist anywhere in the universe outside of a mind, so this is the real seat of determinism, and it is not predestined since it does not exist until the moment of cognition.
Of course, a determined determinist will just assert that you are also made of chemicals, so you are the experiment, not the scientist in this scenario. The problem is that the mindless particles are passive and react, while an organism is active and responds based on physical and mental criteria that are not directly in contact with the outcome, so there is no comparison. Living things harness reliable causation to reach goals, passive chemicals can't do this since they don't have knowledge, intention or goals. Your free will is not controlled by chemicals, but all of your mental activity is powered by the activity of your brain.
Do you author your thoughts? In order to author your thoughts you'd need thoughts to base them on. So then I'd have to ask did you author _those_ thoughts? In order to author those thoughts you'd need thoughts to base them on... Ad infinitum.
Do you forget things on purpose, or is forgetting things something you cannot control? We all forget things here and there. We forget people's names, where we put something, etc. We're at the mercy of our memory. If it were up to us we'd never forget anything.
Do we decide when things will occur to us, or do things simply occur to us (or they don't)? If it were up to us what occured to us (good ideas, etc) we'd all decide to have all great ideas occur to us very early on in life so we can become wealthy. We'd never make mistakes, and we'd always have the right answers occur to us... But this is not how things work... Instead - we're at the mercy of whatever occurs to us.
I said all of that without invoking the phrase/term "free will"...
Pay attention to these things I pointed out. You'll see things differently.
@gamma4524
Does there not have to be intent to make something a conscious choice? By definition something random is not a conscious choice than.
So take your example of two things you want eaqually as much. You could pick one over the other by luck, chance or rendomness (choose the word you want to use). Or one of the two you must have wanted just that tiny bit more to tip the scale in its favour.
Willam James just became my favorite philosopher, his ideas align with mine so well and I’ve never known of him until now. Thanks again sis! Keep it coming.
Determinism is not pessimist. It just adopts realistic values to base it's ethics. It is from such basis that we can generate positive meaning in our lives, we don't need to be free for that.
Nature or nurture inserts/generates ideas into our minds. Fpr axample, by being exposed to this comment due to determinism, you gather enough information to get closer to understanding this topic a little bit more.
By integrating every idea that's been insterted, your being can start working into ideals of what it means to be alive, why it's worth it, etc.
@@michaelenquist3728 the same way we always do, it just happens it was always meant to be.
Didn’t even need to read the title to choose to watch this. Just had to see the thumbnail. Always a fan of your shit. You take an oftentimes cryptic field and translate it into terms the layman can easily understand, and in bite size pieces at that.
Sometimes it feels as though it dilutes the work in some ways, but I don’t really think that matters. If a person finds themselves particularly interested in a certain video, they can always go investigate the original works of these philosophers and scientists on their own. I’m sure many people have been spurred to take a deeper and sometimes life-changing look into philosophy as a direct result of your videos.
I know that’s what got me interested in the topic. I watched a video on Nietzsche and was convinced enough to use one of my audible tokens on beyond good and evil. While I couldn’t agree with all of his views, I was immediately enraptured. I spent roughly 200$ binge-reading philosophy over the following weeks.
I have since experienced a richness of life which I never even deemed possible. Ever since I was a child I was interested in things such as epistemology and “the good life”, but I lacked the tools to properly process these thoughts. I had been left with a deep longing akin to one for meaning that I had no way of curing. A split second decision to watch a 15 minute video changed the course of my life.
While I am still left with a certain and very specific longing which I am sure drives anyone in this field, I find it to be less painful than before. More of a simple curiosity and annoyance at being unable to find the answers to my questions. The refinement of my own beliefs had offered me a freedom I had not yet experienced, despite my increasingly painful circumstances.
So please, keep up the good work. You are changing the world in ways the men and women you cover rarely could, especially in modern examples. Thanks for making life more enriching and enjoyable. Stay safe.
Same here!!
"choose"
"but instead of showing the proof, here is a summary of his life, which will be of no benefit to you"
When sisyphus uploads its just muscle memory at this point to automatically click it.
"If you wanna examine, what a free will is, go and get married !" (unknown wise woman)
I personally derive my opinion that free will exists based on consciousness. I think that Free Will, a Soul, and a Consciousness are one and the same, or at least very closely connected; a Soul is the supernatural part of a person. The natural world moves in perfect order, mathematicity and predictability, even if convoluted. As such, a supernatural force is something truly random or above true prediction. Free will fits this definition perfectly as a human's ability to act above a calculator. A consciousness is the active input and outout of events coupled with the existence of a soul to experience those inputs and moderate outputs based on however that soul is currently feeling, so Consciousness requires a soul to exist.
How does Human Nature come into play, then? If human nature is the predictability of man, and has come true time and time again, does free will exist? I think that due to the nature of the mechanical part of our consciousnesses running on our mind (I mean our literal, physical brain as a computer with a soul as an extension) there are limits, and rhe influence of these limits manifests itself in human nature. However, not all humans are the same, of course, allowing the existence of a soul to still be a possibility.
Why do I think a soul exists, then? Well, according to the souls-aren't-real argument, a calculator has all the capacity to have a soul as a human being. It, too, is an input-output machine that acts on its surroundings. It's just that for a calculator, those surroundings are perceived as button inputs.
More soul proof, when is a consciousness and soul created? Is it when one is born? I'd argue one is not sentient before they are born. That there is neural activity, but not sentience, before one is born, means that the consciousness and soul can exist separately. This seperation means that soul is not restricted to neural flashes, meaning that at least one supernatural component of a human being exists. This component is called a Soul. We are a sentient soul piloting a fleshy bag of neurons that grants us imperfection but also grants us influence over the world.
As for how I can prove there's no prebirth sentience, there are some with a photographic memory who can remember everything since their birth, but none can remember from before they were born. And given that there's neural activity before birth, this would mean that the soul exists and can only start processing info after birth.
Your videos help calm my anxiety. Thank you
If Sisyphus makes a video about you, you have succeeded in life.
babe, wake up sisyphus 55 has posted
"The father of psychology"
You've said that quite a few times.
How many dads does psychology have?
it takes a village
Psychologys mother was quite promiscuous, so pinpointing a father is quite hard
@@mathias9132 seems rather appropriate for the field of psychology, doesn't it
Proof of the existence of free-will:
1) Freeways exist.
2) Where there's a will, there's a way.
3) Therefore, free will exists.
However it is not stated that each way has a will.
I HAVE FREE WILL! I JUST DECIDED IT!!
Thanks u for this video!!! I love your content and i hope it brings you great joy!
I’ve yet to hear a single good argument for the existence of free will I’m excited to see what this video holds in store for me I’ll edit later with an update
Edit:
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that we should believe something to be true or untrue simply on the principle of something is practical to belief
Primarily because I don’t even think you CAN belief something simply because you think it is more practical
For example if a spouse was to cheat on you but did so safely and never intended to actually leave you, would it not be better to believe they didn’t do this? As believing it will cause your life to become less well off and practically speaking would be bad because it would decay your ability to trust your partner (even though you know they’re being safe and will never leave you.)
So on pragmatism as defined in this video it would not only be pragmatically better to not believe but it would be more rational to believe such a thing
But not only do I think this is a terrible reason why you should believe something I don’t even think in such a situation you could even believe they weren’t cheating
Keep in mind I’m not saying forgive them, or ignore them. But I’m saying actually not believing that they are cheating even if all evidence has shown that they are
Good video but I’m not sure where the proof is that free will exists
All arguments against free will are bogus as well. Probability and influence is not a solid argument. Blows my mind that this argument is even being entertained. Not just entertained but being strongly pushed. Politics and religion for you...
@@themacocko6311 not really, I’ve heard many good arguments for determinism
And even if their wasn’t any good arguments simply looking at all the scientific information we have at the moment, and using Occam’s razor you come to the conclusion that free will likely doesn’t exist
Avoid absolutes, and err on the side of fluidity.
I could see a certain level of determinism. Such as dominoes are lined in such a way, they will fall in a certain pattern. Although, I reckon all this is quantum at a fundamental level. We exist within a field of potential ever fluctuating possible outcomes, that are affected by electrical impulses of our brains in the form of intentions and the writing of the fabric of reality based upon a collective hand shaking processes of observers.
That observation leaves room for Determinism, Physical Universe, and Digital/Divine Simulation. Anyone who is Deterministic are just non-player characters running scripts in the background. While anyone who can affect the flow of reality are conscious thinking people.
@@solidcell6568 I disagree, even if the fundamental structure of the universe is random on a quantum level, that doesn’t make determinism false
At least when it comes to free will, because if something is truly random you have no control over it regardless of if free will exists or not
If you could influence it then it wouldn’t be random, and if it was influenced by things then you’re back to cause an effect witch is just determinism again
@@fossforever512 If you imagine the world as a fluid ocean. Things more close to you are liquid and moves by your interaction.
Things more distant to you appear solid, and you can only interact with them by your waves interacting with other waves in a chain to affect a distant point.
Past events would be akin dried concrete.
A bottle floating past you has a great chance to come near you, the closer it is.
You could attempt to increase the likelihood of it approaching you, by moving the water around you to draw it close, potentially. Depending on other people's waves.
A large tanker heading in your direction would create large wakes. You may be in its path and be unable to do anything to avoid being sucked in or at least affected by its wake.
Although, if you had enough foresight, you could have potentially moved to a less affected region of water.
The larger the object moving to you, the longer it takes to avoid it. The closer it is, the more apparent it seems like nothing you could have done to avoid it.
A significantly large enough object, may be unavoidable if it was already set in a path that wholly encompasses the total amount of movement you could have done. Such as a planetoid object rolling over the ocean you reside in.
This was great! You should do a vid on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance!
well logically speaking to say that you have free will is to say that upon the moment in which you make that decision, that decision is not therefore caused by external things that caused you to make that decision in the first place, it could be just you personality as a whole like your views, beliefs, desires and preferences and these things you have absolutely no control of nor you're responsible for them and if you were to make a choice against those things, then there is something that caused you to do so.
The thought I always end up with here is that although what you are, how you came to be in the context in which you arose, were born, developed, etc., was all beyond your control, that is still you, that is what 'you' are. The 'you' there makes choices, as much as something else might have created the 'you'. If that wasn't so there wouldn't be any form to a 'you' to make any particular choices. It ends up that it is predetermined, but it is you, and your choice. It kind of becomes simply acccepting what the reality of 'free will' and of choice is. It has to be some kind of pattern of response in itself, something that was created, in order to have any power to make any choices, for any particular variant in a decision to have meaning either way to it, and that's even true if it is able to influence and change itself in the process, but that is still 'choice'. I'm just letting this flow, so I'm confusing myself, but somehow behind it is a flaw in our representation to ourselves of what 'free will' actually means, and that it can't possibly exist when absolutely any path is possible. Our freedom exists in our context, although it can be seen as 'determined' from a greater one, but that is the only way choice and freedom can ever exist, there is no other way. It fits into a value system, which is 'installled' into us without our control, but that predetermined, preset value system IS us, and has the 'freedom' to make the choices that it inevitably will. It's a seeming paradox, but somehow feels to me that deeper down it isn't. And I haven't read James' books, but I can see that an idea of 'pragmatism' is here too, that the meaning, and therefore the choice, stem only from a fact of utility to the subject. It may be a predetermined one, but it is the subject, and becomes its 'choice machine', its meaning, its 'free will'.
the distinction of environment and self ist completely constructed (because its useful) but not remotely actual. this becomes really obvious when you remove part of a body or brain. I lack the belief in free will, as I see that determinism governs the physical world and have no reason to believe there is something beyond the physical. However believing in your own predetermination is a completely useless model. however it can be applied to your environment including persons etc. dor things like moral desicions.
he didn't so much prove that free will exists so much as he proved how nice it would be if it did and how to convince yourself to believe in the illusion of it
I missed the part where he proves free will exists.
Because no one was able to prove
Babe wake up Sisyphus posted
What books should I buy to study up on psychology and philosophy? I only have surface level knowledge gained from Sisyphus and other ytubers similar to him.
i read a couple books last year from the same "Series" if you will and they were called why we think the things we think and why we do the things we do. got them at and indigo chapters and i loved them.
Free will does not mean to do whatever one wants! What appeals to one's eyes may not be good to one's self!
Ive understood everything as 'predetermined' for so long I really dont quite understand the alternative lol. They are really the same thing arent they? Do people think they are something completely separate and outside of the universe that they are not affected and effected by it?
7:13 It’s more accurate to call our thinking beliefs rather than thoughts
Good video, thanks! I believe the fact that we're still debating free will proves James' assertion that it's unprovable. I sort of like the "31 flavors of ice cream" theory where we can't choose which 31 flavors are available, but we do get to choose our favorite among those flavors. Should we end up in a store that unfortunately serves 30 variations of poo and marshmallow raisin cream, we probably feel we're being forced to go with the only flavor that's not poo and have trouble accepting that we have free will. I also think addiction plays a huge role in this. Once one becomes an addict, they don't really get to choose to stop using the substance anymore. The nature of addiction itself is compelling an unwelcome behavior and the addict may need outside help to stop abusing the substances, usually in the form of forcibly removing their access from it even if it requires temporary imprisonment.
Disagree. You choose based an automatic heuristics in your brain, calculations that your brain makes based on external data that is then interpreted by your conciousness. Naturally you don't go with the ones filled with poo. But let's widen that analogy a bit. Let's say not all the flavors are a binary and you actually have a lot of choices. Well "you" don't make that choice. Your brain will compute what you choose without your input, and then deliver it to your consciousness which then interprets it as "your" decision. When you make a decision based on what flavor you want, you base it on what you know beforehand.
There's a couple of good arguments against this line of thinking. The most compelling to me is thinking about how thoughts occur to you in the first place, where those thoughts come from. Eventually you realize that they just sort of emerge from the murky black pool that is your unconscious mind. The wiring on the back end that dictates what you do and what you like and how you make decisions. What occurs to you to choose isn't "chosen" by you.
The will to believe is such an interesting text
Where I get lost in the "free will" discussion is when the idea crops up that for free will to exist we must be able to negate or transcend our human limits or place in time. So to me it's not really a matter of if we have "free will" at all, it's if we have free will as humans. I guess there is a context that this all takes place in, there are deterministic aspects of reality but also free will within that context. I'm thinking of how a finite line could have an infinite number of points along its length. The concept of infinity can't really exist outside of the finite. What is infinity without the limits of our senses? Is that not what our will is? Infinity within the finite? To me the question of free will wouldn't even be relevant without the limitations of being human.
You're complicated in your thought of something that you are in control of. But you are the puppet of your experience and your beliefs formed by them
@@HermeticallyHermeticThricGreat yep, its call existing.
thank you! love what youre doing
I think you have determinism wrong, respectfully. It's not that it couldn't have been any other way. Regarding the motions of an object, there is a whole family of functions that could describe the paths of particles in, let's say a neuron, given initial conditions. The fact that a neuron acts a certain way under initial conditions and otherwise under others is the only way we can have a consistent 'will.' Imagine the contrary where we could get any configuration or signal from a neuron given any stimulus. You would have no way of knowing, even if you had answered what your favorite food is, that it is actually your favorite food, a dice roll could change that. Also, the prospect that ALL of the 86 billion neurons in a body multiplied by 7.8 billion people could behave randomly and still produce advanced and ubiquitous technologies such as the internet seems unlikely on the timescales we humans have been given. You could say that is not 'free will' but I have demonstrated how truly infinite free parameters could not, although it is 'free', constitute anything we would call a will. The best we can get is will, and it describes everything you want your life to contain, from what this video tells me. It seems like it bothers William James because at some point, our biology just breaks down or malfunctions to rob us from what we call our will. This is just he fear of death with extra steps, and an appeal to nonsense to justify it. Curious about your opinions.
Happy Christmas
as a hardcore determinist if this video doesn't convince me I will dislike it multiple times, it only counts as one but whatever
Guess that's a dislike.
Determinist here, it didn’t convince me. The title is pretty clickbaity
@@shutdownexecute3936 yes, Sisyphus uses clickbaits but this one was too much, had to unsubscribe, it was a moral obligation. cya guys o7
there are tons of compatabilists that don't see any issue between free will and determinism, and I'm among them
@@PicaroPariah well then you clearly don't understand the tensions between the sides.
I really enjoy listening to your videos.
The ability to determine ones own fate implies the creation of thoughts (electrical impulses in the brain) from nothing
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so free will cannot exist. There isn’t a debate here, people are just uncomfortable with reality
10:17 That’s Fatalism, not Determinism.
Also, Sam Harris addresses many of the arguments that you brought up in his book “Free Will”.
Personally I don't find not having a free will depressing. I don't get the notion of "being a slave to your own mind" what exactly is a slave? Consciousness doesn't do labour, it just experiences. It's like your deeper self is watching a movie about the experience of a human life. You may not have any input like in a video game, but a movie can still be just as profound, intense and beautiful even though the outcome is already determined
i think the definition of free will is weird, or wrong. why would my "free will" be the ability to change the rules of the universe by deciding on what the future will be, when i already have "free will" when deciding between two things? if that's all we can do then that's all the free will we need, right? :/
In order for free will to exist, our cognition would have to exist outside of causal reality. Alas, our processing capabilities run on a very physical substrate and are entirely dependent on stimuli from within causal reality.
You don't need to prove that free will exists, you simply have to show that the idea of determinism makes no sense. We experience free will every moment of every day, so it is the default position without a compelling reason to doubt it. Most people's concept of determinism is just the old religious idea of Fate, but with the will of the gods replaced by the laws of physics. There seems to be a deep psychological stickiness to this strange assertion that your choices aren't actually choices after all.
Although determinism isn't unsubstantiated, I agree that our phenomenological experience of free will should be given greater value than the conclusions we make based on our inevitably limited observations about reality. Living as if you have free will requires nothing: it is a base truth of existance. Denial of free will requires you to adopt conclusions about reality based on observations about reality, both contextualized by the limitations of our sense perceptions and language.
@@pug9431 Well if you want to say that "you couldn't have done differently" then this is definitely unsubstantiated. It is a metaphysical speculation at best.
If you say that experiments will come out the same every time if done correctly, that is fine, but this presupposes that the experimenter set up the experiment. The chemicals don't determine anything since they just react passively. The experimenter can change the results since he is an active participant in the unfolding of the universe.
We are active participants that have properties that are missing from the rest of the universe, like knowledge, intention and even feelings. It's a mystery how these things arise from matter, but it is perverse to ignore or negate them.
I love your boldness! Wholeheartedly agree. I fall in line with the non-dual Hindu position that "conciousness" (somewhat of a loaded term) is the underlying formless and infinite reality because of which finite and formful (empirical) reality exists. The name given to this underlying reality is "Brahman." Our mind is a pool of "conciousness" and our material bodies produce ripples in this pool known as "vrittis:" sense perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. Essentially, matter (form) arises from the differentiation of the undifferentiated "conciousness" (Brahman). Free will seems incoherent to the western mind because we put the cart before the horse; matter before "conciousness."
"you don't need to prove that free will exists"
"we experience free will every moment of every day"
Pick one
@@person8064 If you put the word "because" between those statements, it is a complete idea. No one needs to "prove" that Earth exists or that oceans exist since they are obvious and easily demonstrated. Free will does not need to be proved since it is an everyday part of our existence and experience. You may want to argue that it is an illusion, but it is such an obvious phenomenon that you need to delude yourself to believe that it is an illusion, as Sam Harris does. Of course, Harris also denies that he has a self, so delusion runs deep with that one.
Wow! Great Video
Wait, did I hear "psychology informs biology"? I think you mean the other way around Charlie, must've been a slip.
Great videos btw!
Yeah, everything that falls under the field of psychology is just emergent phenomena of our evolution and biology. Probably a slip
Schopenhauer proved free will does not exist. Since your actions are determined by your motivations and desires, and you don't choose those, you don't have free will. And even if you do choose your current motivations, you didn't choose your motivation for choosing your current motivations. And so on ad infinitum. 5 minutes of meditation proves you do not control your mind; it controls you.
I'm greatly simplifying of course, but that's the crux.
William James didn't prove anything. His argument is basically, "I feel better believing indeterminism so that's what I believe." All he did was signal that he's unwilling to give up his notions around purpose in order to come to the truth. And what's funny about this is that this is exactly the sort of thing a Schopenhauerian would expect to see: the will unconsciously rank orders desires according to the context and chooses the actions and beliefs that are expected to create the outcome the desire wants. In this case, James wants to feel purpose more than he wants the truth, so he chooses a belief that helps him feel purpose.
Title: "The man who proved that free will exists". The same video at 9:25 - "James believes that belief under pragmatism follows under four postulates that to him are forever unknowable. (1) ... (2) ... (3) Free Will (4) ...".
At 10:05: "If we are a determinist, someone who believes all is unchanging and fixed, then what has happened would have happened no matter what." Is this James saying this, or Sisyphus55 saying this? Either way it is two scoops of dung. Determinism doesn't say that the universe is unchanging. The second sentence is goofy as well, as it (a) suggests the precedents to the event could have been some other way, and (b) states the outcome was fated independent of the precedents, which again contradicts determinism. What he is describing is fatalism.
Towards the end, the claim that determinists should be like Eeyore is a statement of James' mental state and is not a statement about determinism. We might as well claim that a Christian mother should celebrate when her child dies because they are in heaven now. Such myopic, first order thinking ignores all the other complications of human psychology.
I don’t think it matters if determinism is true. How do our lives change? If nobody is responsible for their actions then nobody can be mad at anyone.
This idea never makes any sense to me. If you believe that no one is responsible for their actions, you are saying that this allows you to choose not to be mad at them? What's even worse is that you can always choose not to be mad at other people's foibles and stupidity, adding determinism to the mix brings nothing to the table.
Society teaches us to have a moral compass which gives a person who commits evil the knowledge that what they did was wrong even if the were predetermined to do it. In the mental sense they therefore have responsibility
"Desiring a promotion" isn't learned. It's simply a specific example of the more general and basal instinct. That instinct being "to gain social status".
This instinct is seen in all social animals. It seems you've just not recognized this due to the complexity of human social systems. Try thinking in broader brush strokes and looking at humanity like a naturalist would study a separate species
one take i had was that, if there exist deterministic systems so complex that the only way to know their future is to let them evolve, then they are effectively free. The other idea was that if praise and blame are pointless in a deterministic universe, then why are we so compelled to praise and blame? Third but my best hope, a deterministic universe would be morally uninteresting.
We praise because we liked the action, we blame because we didn't like the action. The negative response to bad actions is an indication to the person who does the bad action that the action is undesirable.
For a think:
Neither that which is determined nor unrelated to everything else can be considered freedom of will. If something cannot be any other way, it is determined; if something happens with no relation to anything else (pure chance), it has nothing to do with the will.
If a choice is free, then it was decided on. For that decision itself to be free, it must have been decided on. In order for THAT decision to be free, it too mist have been decided on. Now, ask yourself honestly: does all this really happen in your experience, and if it does, how is it not an infinite regress?--that is, how do you get anything done if you must decide forever before deciding? Finally, if this were true, then you would be determined to decide in order for your decisions to be free--and how is that not a contradiction?
The funny thing about the determinism vs free will debate is that it's the greatest waste of time. Even if one side was right, it wouldn't change anything at all. It's an argument about nothing
I disagree, it has a huge ramification upon our ethical view on behavior.
Does one put blame on the individual or upon the system for the creation of the individual.
"The argument maintains that even if one is not convinced by the arguments against free will and basic desert moral responsibility, it remains unclear whether retributive punishment is justified. This is because the burden of proof lies on those who want to inflict intentional harm on others to provide good justification for such harm (see Pereboom 2001, 2014; Vilhauer 2009, 2012, 2015; Shaw 2014; Corrado 2017; Caruso 2020). This means that retributivists who want to justify legal punishment on the assumption that agents are free and morally responsible (and hence justly deserve to suffer for the wrongs they have done) must justify that assumption. And they must justify that assumption in a way that meets a high epistemic standard of proof since the harms caused in the case of legal punishment are often quite severe. It is not enough to simply point to the mere possibility that agents possess libertarian or compatibilist free will. Nor is it enough to say that the skeptical arguments against free will and basic desert moral responsibility fail to be conclusive."
www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/rejecting-retributivism/epistemic-argument-against-retributivism/72E42A82BB88F6DD33A698D051CF5113?fbclid=IwAR3hKOI-tSlZ8lNHJC1VTPTb5Bd4m30my_vDQ3n0Dj7LFjITnFMVbGbm9nk
@@Zone2Out there's still a disconnection from reality. Whether or not someone's actions are free or determined bears no logical reason for why one ought to be punished. You could argue that because they freely made the decision they deserve to be punished, as they were fully aware and conscious of their actions. As a determinist you could say they deserve to be punished because they have to be punished, like it's god's will or for the greater good. There is no logical reason for why one deserves anything, it's all just subjective opinion. If you are going to punish someone, it's either because you think it benefits you in some way or you're just sadistic.
@@andrewgodly5739 I see you throwing Hume's Guillotine at it, and I agree you can't get an ought from an is. But when it comes to forms of governance, ought our governance be informed by what is? I'd argue that free will and determinism leads to different inductions into what is rationally justified.
But under determinism 'punishment' is sadistic, as one is essentially blaming the victim of their happenstance. So the ethical framework shifts away punitive justice to rehabilitative justice. Whereas freewill is self justified in their punitive justice.
While I agree its all just subjective opinion, one is built on better inference than the other.
@@Zone2Out they're both built on a foundation lacking in inference. Why is rehabilitative justice better? It assumes there's something wrong with the individual. It begs the question why does the incriminated need to rehabilitate, but not the justice system? What makes the justice system so right? What is this greater good and grand plan? By the way, rehabilitation is a punishment.
At least in a justice system based on free will, I'm treated as an autonomous person that is fully aware of my actions. I may be sadistically abused for it. But at least I'm more than just an obstacle, to some grand plan, that needs to be corrected.
My conclusion is that the justice system and punishment is sadistic, no matter if you have it with free will or determinism. The results the same either way. You could argue for rehabilitation under free will and sadistic torture under determinism. Free will and determinism once again provide nothing more than empty arguments that continue to go on indefinitely.
@@andrewgodly5739 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how rehabilitating anti-social behavior, so that individuals can continue flourishing in society is "sadistic torture", but you do you.
Replace the word depression with hopelessness every time he says it and it works perfectly. Isn't that weird and yet, accurate?
David Hawkins?
I really enjoy your videos.
I understand that William James found the idea of free thought appealing because that is the only way his biological mind would make sense of the world ... Thus ... Absolute determinism ..and I don't find that depressing i think that way of thought comes from the disconnect one feels with what is one conditioned with ...
I think a balanced viewpoint is a pragmatic-deterministic philosophy. That free will is not real but society must act as if it does.
Free will can be thought of as an illusion. In which believing in it effectively gives you the same thing as having it, based on your perspective. By the same virtue, not believing in it ultimately makes more sense, but presents the dilemma that you would not have had a choice to believe in free will or not in the first place. Because of that dilemma, and that paradox of believing in free will, you either live your life thinking you have something you might not. Or live your life thinking you don't have something but understand that you (along with everyone else) must pretend that you do.
Either way it doesn't change (morally) whether or not you can be held accountable for crimes. So your choice, if you believe you have such a thing, is willingly believing in an illusion that may not exist or a well fleshed out, systematic lie.
I don't understand the "we must pretend as if we have free will" idea". Seems unnecessary. It's absolutely possible to live life without believing in free will and I'm willing to bet that we could have an entire society not believe in free will and it would be fine. Sure determinism requires a different moral framework but I'd argue that framework is healthier than one based on what I consider to be a lie.
don't christians and muslims believe in determinism?
@@primo4915 there's probably a way you could fit some form of determinism into your religious belief. But no, as far as I'm aware there is nothing in Catholicism or Islam that means you must believe in determinism, although there are some elements of fatalism with events being fated to happen like the return of Jesus Christ and the Apocalypse.
@@Kiwi-fl8te if God is all knowing he knows the future of everybody right? Therefore everybody has a destiny.
@@primo4915 Yes, although again this falls more under fatalism than under determinism
So he uses knee-jerk emotionalism to argue we "should" believe in free will. I don't think so.
If freewill existed so many professions that rely on statistics and probability would be in trouble. Marketing wouldn't work, sociological studies would be pointless, and economics would be pointless to study. The proof against free will is overwhelming given that all of these professions appear to have some level of predictive power, and show strong correlative tendencies. The universe appears to obey cause and effect and the progress of human understanding has been the process of accepting piece by piece that we are just a small part of the universe without particular significance or extraplanar favor. We appear to obey cause and effect, its just that any sufficiently complex science appears as magic until understood.
of course free will exists!
Sounds like he was a pragmatically motivated compatibalist.
I can definitely see where he is coming from, but I don't agree that incompatibalism leads us to viewing the world as lacking in meaning and purpose.
I think most incompatibalistst would agree that disbelieving free will is not something you can keep up for very long, you simply can't maintain that state of mind, nor do I see it as being very practical to do so in daily life.
But I do think it is a very useful tool in understanding human behavior and just works better when analyzing human psychology.
I believe we can both assign a reasonable amount of blame on people for their actions to deter bad behavior, while still not having to close lines of inquiry by arbitrarily injecting free will and thus placing a disproportionate amount of blame on the individual.
Its easier, and it's usually what we would rather do, but I believe that study into mental health and crime and punishment points strongly towards it being largely ineffective.
William James applied the practicality of utilitarianism to the philosophical realm. While pragmatism may have some benefits toward alleviating mental angst, it brings one no closer to the truth. James apparently espoused a skill that I'm incapable of, which is to adopt a belief simply because of its existential convenience. Perhaps my desire for my philosophical convictions to be true is just too great a demand.
Well, I suppose his approach hinges upon the falsifiability of free will.
If it was the case that free will could not be disproved, which i do not believe, then I could see an argument for taking the view that serves the greatest utility.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched …… twice 0:17
I also find it challenging to balance UA-cam with school
I believe that agents have the free will to change what happens, and from there determine what happens, until another free agent causes change, call it free determinism if you will. But I do hold to free will, because even if not true, it is ultimately better to believe in free will
I really believe in determinism.. Our consciousness, whatever it is, is within our universe and everything in the universe can be predicted if you have enough data and processing power so your actions can be predicted and there's nothing you can do about it..
Isnt the universe within our consciousness.. so its the other way around. Theres a bunch of phenomenon happening and we try to categorize it into space, time, cause/effect, etc. to make sense of it, and if we cant we just say its random.
So… he didn’t actually prove free will exists, he just thinks a belief in free will is pragmatic….
Thank you 😊
cosmic skeptic did an amazing video on this topic mb an year ago, his argument is quite the contrary that it still doesn't exist
@@thotslayer9914 Did you pick the things you desire? Did you decide to prefer whichever people you're attracted to? Do you author your own thoughts? If so, did you author the thoughts you used to author that thought? Do you decide when you'll forget things? Do you decide when you'll have an idea occur to you? If so, why didn't you make it occur sooner?
@@naturalisted1714 what about meta desires what about conflicting thoughts?
which one are u gonna pick?
The tender-minded / tough-minded approach dichotomy feels kinda forced. Like if I had to buy into that framing, I'd probably include the desire for understanding truth on either side. The tender-mind yearns to believe in and discover universal truth; the pragmatic mind understands that such a thing probably can't exist, yet is careful with its analysis of the world out of the same desire to arrive at a pragmatic truth.
When you choose what a coffee cup feels like
At around 10:16 you say (or paraphrase) "If we are a determinist, then what has happened would have happened no matter what."
I think that is wrong, or at best is technically correct but misses the entire point of determinism.
Rather than determinism, that sounds more like a belief in destiny, or fatalism.
A determinist typically basis their determinism in the idea of cause&effect, so had things been different then the result would be different.
While it happens to be the case that the causes couldn't have been different, to throw up our hands and say "it would have happened no matter what" makes the mistake of feeling powerless despite having a foundational belief in the power of cause & effect.
I think that I'm an optimistic determinist, but not in the fashion you mentioned it. My idea of a person is a mixture of genetics and environment, neither of which we decide. We do not decide what we do as the person we declare as "us" isn't decided, chosen or crafted by us, its simply what came to be. But this is not to say that we don't have free will and that we are part of the universe's plan. Although I do believe that we don't have true free will, any action of us was simply what we would do based on our experiences( and how we judge them) and they can be against this "flow of universe". Its like doing the reverse-reverse psychology thing as a child. You are who you are because of the environment and genetics and you take your decisions based on your experiences. And that's something you have no control over.
Early Christmas gift thank you daddy
Your sponsor ia literally lampooned in the new "Don't look up" movie!!
After watching the video I am still very confused. How did he prove free will?
Determinism blatantly ignores the halting problem which is very real. If determinism were the case, the halting problem would not be a problem.
I don't see how. The halting problem has a built in logical contradiction.
This would be a problem for determinism if math exists.
What am I missing? Does Determinism have to answer to any mathematical or logical paradoxes, and if so, why?
Mr Krabs when he reads the title :0