The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe - "Free Will vs Determinism" eBook, available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe8
Determinism is not the same as cause and effect. All of the universe functioning requires reliable causation, but this does not mean that there is only one way for every event to unfold. Atoms are mindless objects, they passively react according to their nature, they do not determine anything.
wow! Who is acting twelve? You attack me with prejudice remarks because you don't agree with what I typed. DO you often treat people this manner when they disagree with you? I just used the Russell's Teapot analogy, if you were so knowledgeable in science you would know what I meant. without me having to explain it. I illustrated that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others (it's how science works). DO your self a favor and stop being cruel to others you disagree with. I hope you chilled and we could have a meaningful conversation however if you continue with your insults I will have no choice but to ignore you.
This is so funny. I had this same conversation with my grandma and we ended up having it so similarly to this. I even tried to convince her of something very similar to soft determinism. She wouldn’t budge. Always thought there was free will.
@paulb27864 that is part of the conversation that we had. An important part of my belief is that in daily life and in regular decision making it is extremely important to act as if you have free will because if you don’t you can create an excuse for anything. Through regular life I think it’s important to behave like you have free will, but I really do think that my decision to behave this way was already determined at the beginning of time. I don’t think that truths of the world will always have real world applicability, this being one of them. But after saying all this I have to admit that my views might be changing. This is because of possible randomness in quantum mechanics, any real randomness would make determinism impossible. But since I don’t understand quantum mechanics and I haven’t investigated further I can’t be sure yet.
@PaulB_864 But doesn't the realization of the lack of free will make people more compassionate? When you realize that "bad" people never chose to be bad, it's easier (or finally possible) to forgive them, which than gives them opportunities to fix their mistakes/become "better" people
So that is assuming the belief that we are free is false. So that is assuming hard determinism. So that is assuming no choice and no responsibility. Which is the exact definition of slavery. It might be a Pascal Wager, but if there is no free will, there is no difference between free-will believers and hard determinists, so what difference does it make? Especially to those who believe in free will, they would believe it regardless. But if we have some level of free will, wouldn't that make the free-will believers more free? So basically, everybody who believes they are free, falsely or not, is at worst equal to hard determinists.
I'm a hard-determinist. this is how I see "free will" and I find it beautiful! When you are making a choice predetermined or not you are weighing pros and cons, that the outcome (your choice) was inevitable doesn't matter. It was still your unique pattern of thought which made the choice. Such a simple choice such as between an apple and a chocolate in your mind is much more complex and so much more beautiful, humans surely are the most beautiful programs. Even if the outcome (your choice) is a dull one.
saying the choice was inevitable is fatalism. and hard determinism it is.more like "humans are robots of some other force pulling the strings for them" liek the sims... this is stupid. there isn't any force forcing you to choose. even influenced. you are the final chooser
Yep, still all very determined. He chose chocolate because he knew he liked it better....and by choosing chocolate, he also chose the apple for the other guy!! But the other guy was the one who decided to give him the option of a choice. He probably already knew which the guy would choose. So why did he offer the choice?? And so on... All of the "internal causes" are really just External causes if you go back a step or more.... External Causes in Internal Causes clothing
yes. The past is very much determined. The future will be the past. Hence determined. The present allows us to be ignorant and play with chance. Thereby the choice is the momentary feeling disguised to give us a sense control, agency, etc.
going back to the example about the bar vs the apple, is it free will that decides to take the chocolate or is it all the taste buds on your tongue sending signals to your brain? All your thoughts, emotions and feelings correspond with brain stems. If a neuroscientist studies your brain using MRI etc, they can roughly correlate feelings and thoughts with specific parts of the brain. Every thought you've ever had can be traced back to electrical signals that have taken place in your brain. So where is the freedom in all of this, we don't control these processes. Those processes all occur according to the laws of physics and these things are outside our control.
I guess I'm a hard determinist, but I still think that people should be punished, not because they're responsible for their actions, but because if no one ever got condemned or punished or anything, people would just keep making the same harmful choices and the world would be way worse off. But as for determinism, yeah, I think that everything any person does has a cause, and whenever we can't identify that cause, we call the action their choice. If I picked an apple over a chocolate bar, that action was made because of a huge number of factors, like how I was brought up, what my brain looks like and how it works, all the emotions built up in my head at that exact moment, etc. But because the reasoning is so complex, it's easier for everyone to just say it was my choice, while in reality, it totally follows determinism.
yes punishment is an external force that does affect the internal forces of the individuals, we are brought to know that crime has punishment which for some people is the external factor that tips the scale to stop them from comitting a crime, but it's one of many external factors and at one point punishment can only do so much and cant stand alone.
@buzzmusic200 Who are we to say if the world is worse off or better off in a hard deterministic world? Animals kill and eat each other all the time, so why is it suddenly bad for humans to do so? Where did the morals to say what is good or bad come from?
Totally agree. I look at it in respect to a sports match. Without rules and punishments for breaking those rules, there is no game, and no fun, just chaos. Those external forces of rules and punishments effect internal forces. I think people of free will and determinism mind sets can still agree on laws from this standpoint. Actually, I think determinists wouldn't agree with people getting away with crimes on pleas of insanity, because to a determinist no one has free will or responsibility, the punishment is merely to lessen the likelihood that others will break that same rule, when others know their will be punishment.
Basekitball In a determined world, everything has a measureable cause, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that a formula can be developed in which the future is exactly known due to knowing every cause that will be enacted on a human being?
Regarding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the point is that it is supposed to be physically impossible to know, not that we just happen to not have an answer yet(there are a lot of things we can't predict accurately, but have reason to believe that is just because we lack the variables/knowledge of how to do it). That said while I guess that would disprove determinism, it still does not provide any reason to believe in free will either, by definition it is completely random, so it's not chosen by "human decision". It's everything is determined, except for a few things that are completely random, I would not consider either of those free will.
As a hard determinist, to address the idea of “if everything is cause and effect then why punish?” I always viewed it as more cause and effect. We punish and reward to condition people so they are more or less inclined to behave a certain way. Therefore I don’t view punishment as a measure of fault necessarily, as it isn’t our fault the way we are. Punishment is more an effort to change perceived “bad” behavior.
Determinism and Predeterminism just leads to 'Here' and 'Now' , when you made a choice it's just another Determined and Predetermined cycle to 'Here' and 'Now'. No extremity needed.
Here's a simple demonstration of compatibility. In the video, John is offered both a chocolate bar and an apple. John plays football and needs to boost his energy for the game coming up a little later, and the extra fat plus the caffeine in the chocolate will give him the boost he needs to play better and longer. So, when John selects the chocolate bar rather than the apple, he is doing so according to his own purpose and his own reasons. Therefore, two things are simultaneously true: (A) Because his choice is a product of his own purpose and his own reasons, he has made the choice of his own free will. (B) Because his choice is a product of his own purpose and his own reasons, it is causally determined. Free will is our ability to decide for ourselves what we "will" do, when "free" of external coercion or other undue influence. This definition requires nothing supernatural, makes no anti-causal assertions, is commonly understood by and correctly applied by nearly everyone in all practical scenarios, and is quite sufficient for both moral and legal responsibility. Determinism is the belief that the objects and forces that make up the physical universe behave in a reliable fashion, such that, it is theoretically possible to predict their interactions and events in advance with perfect accuracy, given sufficient information (e.g., omniscience) and calculation power (e.g., omnipotence). It is important to take note of the fact that determinism itself, being neither an object nor a force, plays no active role in bringing about any events. It is not an actor on the stage of reality. On the other hand, we exist as physical objects, living organisms, and an intelligent species that can imagine a variety of ways to satisfy our needs, and choose which option will best suit our own purpose and our own reasons, and act upon that choice. And when we act upon our chosen intent, we are forces of nature.
@Mike It's "free will", not "free desire". While we may not choose our desires, we definitely do choose what we will do about them. A desire that controls you is termed an "irresistible impulse", and subject to psychiatric treatment. Normally, people have sufficient impulse control to avoid being taken over by their various desires. Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". Deciding what we will do sets our intention upon accomplishing something specific. This intention then motivates and directs our subsequent mental and physical actions toward satisfying that intent. So, what is "free will" supposed to be "free of"? Normally, it is a choice we make while free of coercion (a guy holding a gun to our head) and other forms of undue influence (a significant mental illness, being under the authority of someone as in parent/child, commander/soldier, doctor/patient relationships, etc.) Cause and effect in itself is neither coercive nor undue. Only specific causes qualify as coercion and undue influences. So, the notion of universal causal necessity/inevitability (determinism) in itself is also neither coercive nor undue. It is not even a meaningful constraint, because what we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, choosing to do what we choose to do. It is basically "what we would have done anyway", and that is not a meaningful constraint.
@Mike I don't see how you get to that conclusion, Mike. Weren't you free to post that comment? Aren't you free to decide what you will have for dinner? Aren't you generally free to do what you want? What kind of constraint is there that you need to be "free of"?
@Mike In order to be meaningful, the terms "free" and "freedom" must reference some meaningful constraint. For example: 1. We set the bird free (from its cage). 2. We each enjoy freedom of speech (free from censorship). 3. The lady in the grocery store was offering us free samples (free of charge). 4. I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence). Note that in none of these normal uses of "free" or "freedom" is there any mention of "freedom from reliable cause and effect". Why is that? Because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable causation. To suggest being free from that which freedom requires is paradoxical, and therefore irrational. So, if we stop pretending that we need to be free of cause and effect in order to be free, we can realize that all of the meaningful and relevant freedoms are still available to us.
@Mike "known in advance to the code of reality"? What kind of superstitious nonsense is that? To "know" anything requires a brain. To make a choice also requires a brain. Although my choice will be causally necessary from any prior point in time, the choice will not be made until my brain actually makes it.
The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?
How to justify punishing criminals through hard determinism: The criminal is acted upon by forces that make him endanger the mass. Therefore the the mass cannot afford to let these forces act against it through the criminal. Thus the mass removes the criminal. The mass, no longer under the pressure of the criminal, can understand the forces that caused the criminal to be a criminal. As it was hurt by the criminal's actions, it will attempt to fix the problem that caused the criminal to act. Then the ciminal may be reintegrated if he isn't too far gone. The judge is for all intents and purposes a clockmaker. The mass is a watch, and the clockmaker observes that the watch is broken. By observing the watch, he identifies the criminal as a damaged cog. the cog is removed to see how it blocks the system. Then by examining the watch further, the source of the advanced degradation of the cog can be identified (other cog needing oil...), and fixed. then the clockmaker examins the cog. if the cog can be fixed it can be reintegrated into the watch. If it is far too damaged, it is discarted and replaced.
This was a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if your analogy aligns with the prison structure our society currently holds. In your scenario the judge is acting out of concern for the mass and he removes the cog in order to try and preserve its safety. I don't think that a modern day judge who sentences someone to prison is doing so solely out of concern for the public, it's also out of a desire to punish him for being morally wrong. This is made more apparent when you see how inmates are treated and how negative public views of criminals are (not saying they shouldn't be). So after reading your comment I'm still left wondering how punishment, or even praise are justified under a hard determinist lens.
+VelvetWind8 Oh that's easy: it doesn't. my comment was a thought experiment, not an accurate depiction of reality. If I was asked to justify the existence of a judicial system through hard deterministic values in a vacuum, that's how I'd do it, but it appears obvious that prisons all over the world were founded on a different set of values. One I do not necessarily agree with either.
Interesting proposal, but I have an objection. In some cases of criminal actions, the actual criminal "responsible" for committing the crime would actually have a very low chance of committing the same crime again or any other crime for that matter, especially if it is a case where they harmed someone they knew personally (maybe they have personal issues or something). If those personal issues are only in place with said friend/family member, after the crime is committed the offender may have a very low chance of committing that crime again because the influence is gone. By this logic, it wouldn't be rational to place them in prison for something they (1) didn't have control of and (2) something they likely wouldn't do again regardless of whether or not they go to prison. However, I could see a way you could make this argument work. Firstly, just to note, I am not a hard determinist. I am a compatibalist (just getting that out of the way). You could argue that while (1) yes, the offender didn't have control over their actions, and (2) they may have a low chance of committing the crime again, however (3) punishing them could influence other members of society NOT to commit the same crime.
@Bush 911 the point was to explain to people why we would still "punish" criminals under the pretense of determinism where we are all void of moral responsibility. and instead of using "punish", we ought to use "treat". you have to explain things to change people properly. how could we ever get to being a determinism founded society, if we never even explain the foundations of that society? sure everything can be predetermined, but we still have to actually go through the process of acting it out. its the whole point of a determinist society, it doesn't just fall into nihilism and chaos and the void. it actively changes and thinks about what is best for the whole.
Personally, soft determinism does make sense in the fact that organisms do have to adjust and change for the environment around them which is an almost infinite of variables, but this is just personal speculation about why we had to evolve concepts such as "personal responsibility" in the first place which is a psychological tool used as a reference point for deciding what behaviors are good and bad to begin with.
This video assumes physicalism. Compatibilism requires "internal causes" [7:22]. But why are these causes described in mentalistic terms? Surely it would be more consistent with universal physical causation to hold that internal causes are nothing other than physical processing going on in our brains? But, regarded in this manner - without any mention of mental states or mental causation (conscious choices) - compatibilist free will is far from plausible.
The problem with this line of reasoning for determinism is that it is based upon newtonian physics. But quantum physics shows that the universe is not as predictable as we thought.
He expressed it precisely at minute 3:21: "Just because the cause is unknown doesn't negate its existence." The inability to predict the behavior of quantum particles doesn't imply they lack causality. Consider the flip of a coin: its outcome is deemed random due to the absence of complete information on influencing factors. However, if factors such as throwing force, air resistance, and mass were known, the outcome could be anticipated. Thus, randomness doesn't negate causality; it simply highlights our incomplete understanding of all contributing factors.
Free will and determinism can be attach together. Think about a video... If during a video, a person was asked to choose between a chocolate or an apple, and he ended up choosing the chocolate... Playing the video several times will end up on the same result... the person chosing a chocolate, but at least, he had the free will to chose while the video was recorded. :v I hope that summarizes your video
The Quantum superstate defeats the determinist hypothesis as you don't get an outcome until you observe the particle and therefore you can't have predetermined the state it would end up in. Such observation would have to be persistent to know the outcomes, they can not be calculated in advance. No matter how much knowledge you start with or how much processing power, quantum states ruin your perfect predictions. The best you would be able to do, ever, would be to predetermine probabilities. but no outcomes would ever be certain.
I'm for determinism. To believe or consider free will would be a pre-determined fate. We're like characters in a movie, from the character's point of view every moment forward is unknown yet if you were to step outside of the box, you would see that your fate, your progressing story, has already happened in a sense and that you're merely a happening along a linear progression that makes up the movie that you are a character in. They explored this very example in the movie "The Last Action Hero". Of course we often look back on a past and make up a story that enables us to make sense of it to our liking, such as, "Oh I just chose to do that" etc. Great video guys, love the background. Very entertaining.
Good video, but I have to correct you at 3:24. Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle do not say that we cannot KNOW the position and path of every particle; rather, it says that particles do not HAVE a specified position and path. 'Uncertainty Principle' is a bad translation of the German 'Unbestimmtheitsrelation'. A better translation would be: Undeterministic Principle. Of course, this does not help the vieuwpoint of free will, because now human action are the consequenses of the events in the past, the laws of nature and random chance. That still leaves no space for free will. A better comparison would have been: MATERIALISM vs free will. If you want to hear my opinion about free will: I think it just depends on the definition wheather we have it. The concept of free will that determinism makes impossible, would always be impossible, because that concept is flawed. To see why, imagine that our consciencesness operates wholly independent of physical reality, and that our choises are determined by what happens in this consciencesness. Seems like we would have free will then, ey? But, then our consciencesness would have to operate in some way according to some princples, and hence it would then be this principles that determine our actions, hence we would not have free will. This concept of free will never works when you try to specify how the free will actually works. Of course, we should still hold people accountable for their actions. We do not punish people out of revenge, but because people are more likely to behave themselves when they know they can be punished, and for various other reasons.
I am not a native english speaker but i will try to make my point clear and speak simply: I think there is something wrong in the way we treat the subject. If you put it in an other way, something appears to be quite obvious: what would it truly mean to have free will? I think it is simply unthinkable! We cannot be what we are not, and what are we? I think we are what Schopenhauer calls the Will, and we could not want to be something else, it is not possible to be what we are not.. Everything is determined which means we had to be this way because everything follows the will, but now, we, humans, think that we are seperated from the will, as if we were detached from a sort of survival instinct, but in fact i think that it is still the case exepted that we got more and more complex and invented tons of beliefs and concepts... We make one with everything in the universe, because we are the same thing, we are the will itself but it is like we don't know it because we invented more and more words and more and more concepts , as we evoluated which drove us away from our primal animal will.. did i make my point? so whatever we choose is to be choosen because it responds to the will, and we cannot complain about it because it is unthinkable that we could want to be something else. And what is now arising within us would be the will recognizing itself through all of our humans sensations and thoughts etc... Things are the way they are because they could not be otherwise, as if it responds to a necessity... and it is normal that we humans think that it is unfair because we invented concepts of morality and justice. A deer who sees her dead mom may feel in danger and hurt but does not think it is unfair... In the other hand i think that knowledge still drives us away from a primitive will and that it can extend our possibilities of choices, even if we don't choose, by experiencing life and learning every sort of things we bring to our brain all kind of experiences that offers the will various possibilities... so it is not : our self is determined by the will, but rather : our self is the will and cannot be nor want to be something else. because if we say that we are trapped in a body and mind determined by all sort of causes and effects, then we suppose that there is something that is not and which undergoes the will..i think we are the will itself, what could we be otherwise?
P1. Mere effects of physics can be neither true or false. (Is a tornado more true than an earthquake?). P2. If determinism true, all human evaluations, propositions, understanding, etc. are mere effects of physics. C. If determinism true, all human evaluations, propositions, understanding, etc. can be neither true or false (a clearly incoherent conclusion that is reached when determinism is assumed). ______________________________________ P1. My thoughts and actions are all predetermined, effects of physics from the big bang (once again assuming determinism to be true). P2. Your thoughts and actions are all predetermined, effects of physics from the big bang. C1. Your nor my statement could be either 'more true' or 'more false' than the other. C2. If determinism true, there is no such thing as true or false. (Is that true?)
All that this argument would prove is that humans can’t “know” if determinism is true since they can’t hold true or false beliefs, but it doesn’t show that determinism is false. If we didn’t know that adding 2 and 2 gets 4, this wouldn’t disprove that 2 and 2 gets 4, but rather that we don’t have knowledge that 2 and 2 gets 4. I’m not saying therefore determinism is true, but rather, you need more evidence to suggest determinism is not true, since it is not self-refuting. Additionally, not being able to hold knowledge (or propositions) is entirely dependent on your definitions. If it’s some abstract concept of the mind, then I’d agree we can’t know. But if you mean knowledge as the ability of an organism to decipher patterns in the environment then respond accordingly, then we can have knowledge. This is because we can recognise patterns that objectively exist in the world (ie. determinism) and respond accordingly (by having brain activity to affirm determinism is true - corresponds to reality). Think of this like a AI. It doesn’t hold some abstract knowledge of a non-physical mind, but, like us, it has programming (akin to biology) that based on training data (experiences) responds to stimuli (says things that do or do not correspond to an objective reality). It is still following the laws of physics in doing this as a purely physical process, yet would technically have knowledge according to my definition.
3:31 Einstein said that god does not role dice only because he refused to accept quantum mechanics, which has yet to be proven wrong despite numerous attempts to.
The religious claim on this matter is very self defeating. For they result in using fatalism to explain that a god created the universe and everything came to be because of that, than proceed to justify hell and heaven with "free will". Free will is indeed an illusion, and you put it right our actions are soft determinant indeed. And that is not only the logical answer, but also what neuroscience tells us, and the fact that stimulants effect human behavior.
I have been considering Free Will and Determinism and 'A God With A Rigid Plan' for some years. I have not reached any Hard Nosed Conclusions. Reviewing my 74 years of life, I can see validity in why I acted in the way that I did **** Because **** I was programmed to act the way that I did. There are days when I 'think' I can see myself as a pre-designed, pre-wired, 'robot'. And there are days when all Heck Breaks Loose, and I can't figure out 'who' or 'what' is running my show. I appreciate your video, and your deep coverage of the subject. This is a Heavy Duty Subject, and most of it is Way Over My Labor's Mentality. My studies have caused me to be less condemning, less intolerant, of the Humanoids around me. At the same time, I do have the Right of Self Defense **** Don't I ?
+Joseph Frierson We are all programmed base on the Law of Nature and a lot of choice given to us to make. Not making a choice means leaving the environment (including others) to make a choice.
In the case of God being all knowing and us having free will. We have free will despite God being all knowing because God's all knowing is NOT the cause of the things that we do. We are our own cause of the things that we do God just knows that we are going to do the things that we do. There is no contradiction in that at all.
I'm not sure where I reside in this debate, but I have numerous problems with hard determinism which is why I don't think I'd be able to hold it. For one, if you buy into the argument that we'll eventually be able to predict every single thing that will ever happen by cause and effect, then we should be able to print you a book that has your entire life sequence written out. However, it seems if this was the case, you could choose to differently than the book says. I have so many other objections, and further explanations, example and counter example, etc. But no time for it now
how does this fit in with the multiverse theory? do completely random events basically form the web that is ultimately different predetermined fates for everyone? food for thought.
This is a great crash course in free will and determinism, though the animation is rather amateur. Then again, I doubt I could do better, so I have no right to complain. Nicely done.
The immobilization and unification of the world: We know that matter want to find immobilization by knowing how our happiness works and we have to remember that we human are made of matters. Happiness is a state that we continuously want to feel. Which mean we want a immobilization state, because in a none immobilization state we are not satisfied, if we still have movement which mean we still have a goals, it mean we have to satisfy our goals to have none and find total immobilization. In that theory we would think that death is the perfect immobilization and total happiness but even in death matter has movement. So in order to find perfect happiness, matter has to continuously assemble itself in one single point where it will create the perfect immobilization and unification. Well this is the theory that is really vulgarize and simplified by all me.
Clearly, much of the time we have external constraints on our choices, e.g. the law, social disapproval, cost... So in those instances, surely we do not have free will -- ability to do what we please. Ditto for internal constraints. I cannot jump up and run a marathon. The very idea makes me exhausted. I suspect this problem will be "solved" by deciding it is too wooly to admit a solution.
I have a possible theoretical senario for trying to understand free will. It starts like this: We are made of matter, our emotions, actions and choices are subject of interaction of matter with matter. Matter is governed by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are studied and researched by Physics According to classical physics, matter in our scale, behaves acc. to the law of causality (everything can be calculated and described). According to quantum physics , matter at the subatomic level behaves completely different ( Werner Heissenberg law, etc) As a result of the upper 2 statements, for the scale of our existential dimension we should validate the classical physics and accept the causation argument. We dont truly choose, that doesnt mean though that we are free of our vices. (utilitarian ethics) I 'd love to read anyones thoughts.
It seems ridiculous to think that someone with infinite knowledge could have predicted the exact content of this thread. Matter can be arranged into autonomous beings that are wholes greater than the sums of their parts.
Can genetic testing reveal both free will and determinism? For example, if an embryo had the gene to be a murder, it means that the embryo can be a murderer and that the embryo is determined to be a murderer. However, if we choose to make that embryo to grow up in a society where he doesn't become a murder, then that embryo or human being had the free will do not become a murderer. Does this show that a degree of determinism and free will can co-exist? And also can somebody give me an example of 'Indeterminism', which is no determinism and no free will? I though a robot was an example but I don't know if that could be Indeterminism.
Jamie Dunmore I'm not arguing against choice, but rather for it. Likewise, everything is a choice, even if the choice doesn't exist. So, why is freedom of choice necessary?
The origin of the big bang is a thought. Thoughts are acts of creations. Yes you can choose another's thought and make it your own, or you can create brand new thoughts. The space of thoughts are infinite. This is why they cannot be determined. An infinite source provides infinite possibilities continuously without ever running out. When you say we don't have free will? what is the "we" made from? One must clarify what the "thing" that has or has no free will made from before you can say anything about if it does have free will or not. So the steps for a viable approach is. 1. What is the definition of free will? 2. What stuff makes the "thing" that I call me? 3. Does that stuff permit free will? These are my answers to the above 1. What is the definition of fee will. The ability to change space-time 4 dimensionally, that is change past present and future 2.What stuff makes the "thing" that I call me? The thing I call me is a single thing that is made of stuff that can connect simultaneous events as is evident from my ability to see simultaneous event. 3. Does that stuff permit free will? A thing that can connect simultaneous events can operate faster than the speed of light and as such can change past present and future as needed by the definition philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
There is this time travel paradox that may explain about all this like when you travel back in time and kill your grandfather will you still be there, the way to avoid that is when determinism comes in and you shoot your grandpa something g will stop it for it to continue the timeline to go as already written
The main problem to solve this Free will and determinism debate are to know all the variable that shaped this universe and our ability to know that all variables. Especially the variable that shaped our brain. But, I wonder.. What if we know all the variable that shaped our world, and we can predict the people action in the future. (Let's assume we know that) And then we do differently from the prediction. Does it mean we have a free will? (sorry for my bad english)
Determinism says that everything is caused by influences and if we knew ever single one of them we could know who is going to do what. if you could see your future that would be an influence be a use of which you probably would not end up there
Determinism doesn't always have one outcome though... something could result in many outcomes.. of which one could then use free will to choose one of those outcomes. For example... consider a bowling ball that hits a set of numbered bowling pins... knocking them all down.... and you choose one or more of those bowling pins to keep (or not). Do you choose one, do you choose none or do you choose many?
One may state that effects have causes and be accurate. But causality writ large is not then given to being precisely described. A cause has an effect, but complexity overwhelms any simple notion of cause/effect in human action. Therefore; the inquiry "Do we have free will?" is not well served by a yes/no answer. Consequentally, we cannot expect to be able to create sweeping moral judgements based on whether we do or do not have free will. We can assign free will (or the lack of it) as a factor in events, while understanding that generalities will apply, as well as special cases. We should within this process also accept that the application of free will as a factor will change over time, or within groups.
Very well discussed!! 👏🏻👌🏻 For me, what i understood is, freewill and determinism both overlap in every action of ours since we do have a previous cause to determine the situation but we also can't determine how strong or weak is the cause which has an effect on our choices now.. Some causes are really strong and determined that it results will reap anyway and some causes are there which are not deterministic and thus it gives us some space to have freewill to do better or worse based on our discriminatory wisdom which shapes our feelings, feelings shape our intention which give the results as actions. This is what i learnt from Nalanda studies based on Buddhist psychology and philosophy. 🤔🫣
it's a conceptual thing. Neither determined nor undetermined actions are 'free'. When we talk about free will, we don't actually realise that we are not making sense. What is actually happening when we arrive at a choice is that we seem, experientially, to pull our choices out of an internal hat. We refer to that as making a 'free' choice. But even from the experiential point of view, how could this amount to freedom of choice? It just pops into your consciousness. There is no-one who selects it.
Thoughts don't just pop into your mind. They come to mind to aid the problem you are trying to solve or the issue you're trying to resolve. Thus, they are purpose-driven events. Personally, I find Sam Harris's mysticism about this to be quite uncharacteristic of scientific thinking.
Well first punishement and reward are given to squeeze the risk/reward ratio of actions so that people act accordingly to what is profitable to the group so that's internally consistent with determinism. Second having internal causes doesn't mean they are free, it simply mean they are things that'll cause actions from you that you believe will bring a positive outcome for you while external causes are causes applied to you that you can't at least partially affect what outcome it will have. But that doesn't make internal cause free, you are still determined, and in fact it's because you can differentiate between actions that will grant a positive outcome to you, action that will bring a negative outcome and actions that you can't perform and therefore have no control on what it would affect, that you are able to act. And humans don't have perfect judgement about those choices, that's also what bring the illusion of free will. When you think "I should have chosen the apple" for exemple, that doesn't mean you could, you made a wrong decision and you would have chosen differently with this knowledge in mind. But in the state you were at the time you did the choice you'd have chosen the chocolate... proof is that you did, and until we can construct a time machine to clearly show that in some worlds you choose the apple (and if we accept that time travel doesn't affect reality of course...) then we are stuck with what we know. But in the end there is only one meaningful thing to ask : "what is free will?". Until you can define free will in a way that you are able to differentiate between a being with free will and a being with no free will then it's meaningless to even have the word since it doesn't have any descriptive value whatsoever.
I was determined to watch this, because God want me to know my fate was sealed. We think we are free but we are driven by the necessities of the everyday like a car is driven by human.
I really like this. As of now, I agree with the guy on the right. I would like to add a question, which I suppose would be addressed particularly to the guy on the left but also the guy on the right and anyone reading: why punish those who do wrong? Why not help them to change their ways? Rehabilitate I suppose. What does punishment accomplish? It seems to me that rehabilitation is much more productive. One more question: why doesn't society take a close look at what determines people's destructive behaviors and try to prevent them from happening in the first place? I suppose I'm particularly referring to a massive education reform.
Doesn't occam's razor work with this? that hard determinism is too complex and that the simplest solution should be considered as the best? therefore, freewill is correct?
i use the theory for calming down, or getting extra bravery for some actions :P or just let everything be. an interesting thing is you cant really control it all, if understood properly which brings into funny confusions. That's how i live for now, with a little hope that there wont be left any doubts in the future. Sometimes it feels like i want to be More sure about the way things work, but i cant even be sure that i have two eyes
Well this is actually a funny question because it really makes no sense. Let me rephrase the question you asked- So how do you choose to change your life knowing that you have no choices? See how it makes no sense? If one is a hard determinist they skip all the lectures on ethics because they believe that they have no choice to change their way of life.
Brian Sheldon you choose, but whatever you choose is predeterminable, inevitable. Things you're going to do in x situtation would be obvious to me if i would know you really really well. And the question does make sense for me atleast. If you're a hard determinist, that doesn't mean you should sit in the corner and not do anything, you can if you want, but you probably won't. Some people do actually.. Doesn't really matter anyway. I think it's more like you're not responsible for anything going on with your feelings, thoughts, actions and anything else. They just happen the way they should
1. The argument that there exists an omniscient god who does not have preknowledge of everything we will think and do is logically incoherent. 2. If an omniscient god is also a creator god, and had a choice to create differently (i.e. where it can predict its creations would choose and do differently) then that creator god is ultimately responsible for what we will think and do.
I don't think determinism damages the justice system; it only emphasises the fact that we ought to focus on rehabilitation over vengeance, - always. And I do believe; the fact that we have _punishment_ works as an external factor on people's actions, and in that way it is further justified by (indirect?) prevention of law-breaking actions.
Thank you for your comment. We are currently working on a portfolio of videos and will be populating the website in the coming months so stay tuned. Feel free to also sign up to the site and get involved in our philosophical debates.We are looking for users to post essays and help grow Philosophy Vibe.
aperson1234567891098 I'm part of a podcast where we talk a lot about morality from the perspective of no free will. Free Will, Science and Religion subscription links: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/free-will-science-religion/id1001850850?mt=2 www.stitcher.com/podcast/chandler-klebs/free-will-science-and-religion?refid=stpr
Everything is Determined and we have No Free Will... but we lack the ability to observe or comprehend the infinite Causal Events in a way that would allow us to predict everything...but it Could be done by someone smarter than us!! Murderers were Always gonna murder before they were even born (it was set into motion by the Big Bang {or before} and a causal chain made it inevitable)!!! However, we can't just have murderers and rapists running around the streets freely!! Anyway, I would just say that it was also inevitable and Determined that he would go to prison etc!!!
Interesting video. My opinion from a theist perspective: our mind to comprehend determinism is limited by our human mind. If a God created time - if we contemplate on it, can we even imagine creating time? If we cannot, how can we comprehend a being existing outside of time. In the meantime, our view of it is contaminated by pop culture like back to the future and comics, that time must be like a line and when we return to the past it must be like in a movie. John Calvin only gave an analogy in his understanding of predeterminism: There is a gate which on top says 'Welcome', alot of people walking outside the gate. some chose to walk in, some chose not to. The ones that walked in, when they turn around and look at the back to the gate saw the words 'you were chosen'.
NeverStopAsking Why Atom's reactions are controllable. Getting an atom to react exactly the way you want it is why nuclear energy and bombs exist. The problem with determinism is if you apply science to human behavior, you get Social Darwinism. There is no scientific evidence for altruism for poor and marginalized factions of a species for all living organisms.
You try and defeat quantum mechanic's supposed (there is none) elimination of determinism with the hidden variable theory, which has been shown to be wrong. The greater point stands, not being able to predict it doesn't mean you can influence it.
Because those results would fit perfectly In the illusion of free will, if you want to create an illusion of free will you would certainly punish or praise people by their actions... so it looks like they have a choice but in reality is part of a more complex mechanism, the mechanism of existence itself...
+D Green315 A democracy is still superior to a dictatorship because the organism inside you (the whole you) still makes a decision within the democracy, but the argument for hard determinism says that the conscious "I" which claims to make this decision by itself is an illusion. Think of it like this "you dont want something because you've found reason for it, you find reason for it because you want it"
Imagine a time machine, that gets you back to the point of a choice, but without changing you. You will be exactly the same person (mind, body and soul) as you were before the choice. You won't have memories of the events during and after the choice. If souls exist, they too would be restored to that point of time by the machine. The machine would even restore god to that very point of time. (That's one powerful machine) Will you make a different choice? Why would you, if you lacked the experience gained from and after the choice? The motives for your choice will be exactly the same as the first time you made the choice. Even divine intervention wouldn't be possible, because god would be busy with whatever he was doing during the first time you chose (after all causality applies to him as well). Now repeat this exercise a billion times. Did you become a hard determinist?
I still can't entirely understand what free will and conciousness really is. today we are able to predict with great accuracy what the weather will be like tomorrow because we have experience on how the weather changed in the last 24 hours, and so we can calculate the future. but a human is also a physical being made of matter. however, if I somehow was able to predict what I would do in 10 seconds - and I was aware of that fact, then I would have made any other action than the one that was predicted, which wouldn't make sence from a deterministic standpoint
Basically knowledge of the event is the reason for responsibility. This is why in law there is a difference between an "accident" and a "murder". Example: If I step on a butterfly and it starts WW3. A) I did not know this would happen = not responsible B) I somehow gained the ridiculous amount of knowledge possible, = responsible. Now of course with the legal system in place we need something more pragmatic or efficient. We don't possess the ability to obtain people's knowledge of the outcome and it would be terribly wasteful to postpone judgement on a person before we do have that tech. Basically our judgement system even in theory still requires some working on.
Omg. I just love this topic sooo much.. I havr many thoughts on those naturally. (That is caused by my environmental factors-->determinism). Its funny when they argue about weather they should punish anyone for doing something bad... haha I mran of course we should. The first thing we should note is that if we realise something in our nature (lets say we are deterministic) the logical conclusion is not to suspend our laws... Just cause we realized something NATURAL LAW does not mean anything COMMANDING to our SOCIETY LAWS. What if our societal laws are also deterministic? Either way we choose it will be deterministic. Its just a natural law nothing has to do with how we punish ppl. We should understand the difference between natural laws and societal laws. Natural laws are there if we know it or not does not matter what we do they r there. But they dont force us to do anything. What we do as a socuety are moral arguments and of course we can pumisg criminals... and we should cause thats the right thing That does not contradict to determinism. They are determined but think of a scenario how much more deteemimed would they be if there were no alienating factor as the law? Much more ppl would steal and murder so its a good thing... its hard to comprehend but thinfs are like this. As a society we should focus on making people good citizens.
my analogy, Free choice.. free will.. Surely you do not have choice because by that elemental factor, "choice" is a state of freedom to do any possible actions in your behalf, choice is an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. "the choice between good and evil", ability of option, ability of altering alternatives, possibility of options, possible course of action, deciding upon or having the ability to cause problems and solution,and by God being our creator, like a scientist creating a robot, God knows your Pathology, neurology, biology, bacteriology, Physiology, Futurology, Ethnology, Philology, Epistemology and yes even your/our Personology. Now that is the paradox of creation and Gods ability of the concept of creation of judgment and sin and punishment which is in question. Let's now see the Omni-Omnious, Omnividence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnifarious, Omnilingual, Omnigenous, Omniform, Omnipercipience, Omniparience/Omniparient, Omnificence, Omnikenesis, Omnimode, Omnitemporal, Omnipresence, Omniscients, Omnibenevolence, Omnilingual, Omniparity and Omnicompotence, Omnisentience, Omnimodus, Omnitemporal, Omnirelevance, Omnispective, Omniarch, Omnific of God in general, God knows all things, God knows the beginning of The universe, and the end of the universe (according to abrahamic concept of end times) by that magnificent ability of prediction and determinism of the end of the universe by will, can this even apply to a puny little spec of matter as ourselves? And if not.. then we saying God lacks knowledge upon the littlest of Gods creation or has a fault of some kind or even having limited powers to our deterministic choices, or by god's ability, is intentionally demobilising or crippling/disabling gods unfathomable abilities to something so meaningless as ourselves? why would something of that calibre self subjugate itself giving even the concept of the probability of sin knowing the exact outcome? (Since you have answered that with reasoning and logics) If that is also the case, why create hell knowing there is a chance, likelihood, plausibility, possibility and yes even the concept of viability upon people going to infinite punishment? Furthermore... a scenario to help... with biblical evidences in all religions...is it fair of someone to die in a "sinful" state without the time to repent but NOT had the opportunity to possibly change, but a person who done a lifetime of "sinning" is wiped clean? Can this apply to your logical perception of your type of denomination sectarian God? Where is the Omniparity? (Ability of equality in every part; general equality) But continuing with the scenario, does this Mean that God favours those who will go heaven and those who are born by fatalism (a philosophical belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable) to hell by god's Omnipotence (having unlimited power in all fields) Omniscience (state in knowing everything there is to know meaning nothing is unknown to such a thing) Omnipresence (being simultaneously everywhere at the same time [taking into the two abilities as a catalyst factor] in all your fatalism of a existence) although God is Omniscient (knowing everything, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise) and Omnifarious (knowing all that is relating to all sorts or varieties) which in that case is Omnigenous (power over all kinds and of great diversity) , Omniform (adjective. Of all forms; having, taking, or displaying any or every form; of all shapes, appearances, or manifestations.), Omnitemporal (all applicable at all times), Omnirelevant (Relevant everywhere, or to everything; always relevant) Omnific (Capable of making or doing anything, all-creating, all-invoking, all-effectuating, all-producing, all-causing, all-catalysing, all-vindicating, all-prompting, all-confirming, all-verifying, all-substantiating, all -accrediting, all-establishing, all-manifesting, all-influencing etc) and Omnilingual (having the ability to understand all types of languages, Omnividence, (The faculty of seeing everything, or of perceiving all things), Omnispective (beholding everything, all-seeing, Omnificent (all creating, all manifesting, all developing) omni-ominous (all power to impress that something bad is about to happen), Omnisentience (all sensory awareness of all things) Omnipercipience (having the ability of absolute insight, ability and perceptive), Omniparious (all producing all things, Omniparient (producing or bringing fourth all things) Omnikenesis (all power in the power to manipulate anything, the ultimate form of telekinesis [recommend the story of exodus with this one]) and my favourite, Can this apply to the omnibenevolence of THE God (infinitely good, All-loving, kind, kindly, kind-hearted, warm-hearted, tender-hearted, big-hearted, thoughtful, loving, exquisitely enchanting, , infinitely nice, good-natured, good, gracious, tolerant, benign, compassionate, caring, generous, infinitely merciful, forbearing, humane, indulgent, tolerant, magnanimous, sympathetic, considerate, thoughtful, well meaning, munificent, bounteous, unselfish, unstinting etc) and Gods Omnicompetence (having the ability or able to deal with all matters and having powers to legislate on all matters) being that God is of a spiritual legislative moral judger that is justice, egalitarian, principle, foundation, pillar of the epitome of what is considered as perfect example, role model, true idol, virtue, propriety, awe in absolute ethical figure? By this logic can the concept of hell or sin or evil or given the same principle applying to the creation, manifestation, apparition (a remarkable or unexpected appearance of someone or something) and even the thought or logical explanation to the materialisation of the devil himself by God's standards to actually, factually exist? This concept goes straight back to "choice between" Now when we also philosophically think about the concept of the devil (which I hear this argument a lot) being created as a "all perfect" "most beautiful" "most powerful" "all awe inspiring creation", before even continuing upon such deity, you have to consider by its makings that such a thing cannot have a flaw, or even any fallacious analogies and arguments against such a thing because if something like that actually, factually did exist, it will denote, debunk, demote and derate the very concept of it credibility of it being created or the process of creating such as the most perfect, majestic, fantastic creation, or even questioning the concept of Gods omnipotence, omniscience and Omniparient (producing or bringing fourth all things) Omniparious (producing all things) . We will also need to discuss how this can apply to the omnipotence paradox, God being as what most theist consider god under the umbrella of imperfections, flaws, fallibilities which is responsible or liable to unnecessary ancient holy wars and destructions to digress humanity upon its preservation, prosperity and all natural disasters, cataclysms, disease epidemics that is becoming more harder and further advancing rather than refraining, digressing, decreasing or declining. Has such an infinite powerful being(s) wanted to create a being that possessed all the elements that made it a God(s) or the very concept of God(s) using its powers to create something by infinite energy that could be infinite energy by its immortality now applying the omnipotence paradox to that very creation? Furthermore, I mentioned the paradox of the elemental traits to the design of the human which if a third party is required, it is responsible, accountable, authoritative towards the atomic creation of this Devil(s) we hear of (applying the Neurology, Pathology, Psychology [and most importantly] PERSONOLOGY) with the concept of Omnipotence to Omnifarious,(infinite ability to possess power of comprising or relating to all sorts or varieties) of the natures of these concepts as well as being Omniarch (noun. A person who rules over the whole world or universe) and Omnimode (ability of all functions) with Omnimodus (the faculty of possession of all or every sort or kinds) which then we use this concept it goes straight back to the concept of free will by what I presented above.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Free Will vs Determinism" eBook, available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe8
Determinism is not the same as cause and effect. All of the universe functioning requires reliable causation, but this does not mean that there is only one way for every event to unfold. Atoms are mindless objects, they passively react according to their nature, they do not determine anything.
😊
This channel has gotten me through all my tests, exams and assignments this semester. Thank you!
A pleasure, glad we could help.
I guess i had to write this.
+Joshua Mauro Yep, because you did.
souls don't exist but their could be an invisible toaster orbiting uranus.
wow! Who is acting twelve? You attack me with prejudice remarks because you don't agree with what I typed. DO you often treat people this manner when they disagree with you? I just used the Russell's Teapot analogy, if you were so knowledgeable in science you would know what I meant. without me having to explain it. I illustrated that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others
(it's how science works). DO your self a favor and stop being cruel to others you disagree with. I hope you chilled and we could have a meaningful conversation however if you continue with your insults I will have no choice but to ignore you.
Yes and I had to write this reply. It can be quite amazing thinking about past events and what caused them.
I had to reply two years later.
This is so funny. I had this same conversation with my grandma and we ended up having it so similarly to this. I even tried to convince her of something very similar to soft determinism. She wouldn’t budge. Always thought there was free will.
did this start with her accusing you of cookie theft?
@paulb27864 that is part of the conversation that we had. An important part of my belief is that in daily life and in regular decision making it is extremely important to act as if you have free will because if you don’t you can create an excuse for anything. Through regular life I think it’s important to behave like you have free will, but I really do think that my decision to behave this way was already determined at the beginning of time. I don’t think that truths of the world will always have real world applicability, this being one of them. But after saying all this I have to admit that my views might be changing. This is because of possible randomness in quantum mechanics, any real randomness would make determinism impossible. But since I don’t understand quantum mechanics and I haven’t investigated further I can’t be sure yet.
@PaulB_864 But doesn't the realization of the lack of free will make people more compassionate? When you realize that "bad" people never chose to be bad, it's easier (or finally possible) to forgive them, which than gives them opportunities to fix their mistakes/become "better" people
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
So that is assuming the belief that we are free is false.
So that is assuming hard determinism.
So that is assuming no choice and no responsibility.
Which is the exact definition of slavery.
It might be a Pascal Wager, but if there is no free will, there is no difference between free-will believers and hard determinists, so what difference does it make? Especially to those who believe in free will, they would believe it regardless. But if we have some level of free will, wouldn't that make the free-will believers more free? So basically, everybody who believes they are free, falsely or not, is at worst equal to hard determinists.
lol say that to 2020
Pff 2024.
We act on our desires, but we cannot choose our desires.
yes
Hard determinism will really come in handy if you get caught cheating on your spouse, although she probably won't see it that way.
even if she understand , she probably also determined to leave you :)
Blame the penis,I didn’t want to do it darling.
I'm a hard-determinist. this is how I see "free will" and I find it beautiful!
When you are making a choice predetermined or not you are weighing pros and cons, that the outcome (your choice) was inevitable doesn't matter. It was still your unique pattern of thought which made the choice.
Such a simple choice such as between an apple and a chocolate in your mind is much more complex and so much more beautiful, humans surely are the most beautiful programs. Even if the outcome (your choice) is a dull one.
saying the choice was inevitable is fatalism.
and hard determinism it is.more like "humans are robots of some other force pulling the strings for them" liek the sims... this is stupid. there isn't any force forcing you to choose. even influenced. you are the final chooser
Yep, still all very determined. He chose chocolate because he knew he liked it better....and by choosing chocolate, he also chose the apple for the other guy!! But the other guy was the one who decided to give him the option of a choice. He probably already knew which the guy would choose. So why did he offer the choice?? And so on... All of the "internal causes" are really just External causes if you go back a step or more.... External Causes in Internal Causes clothing
Seems kind of linear though.
Why wasn't he free to simply not choose either
If there is no free will, everything that anyone ever felt, thought, said or did was - and always will be - inevitable.
yes. The past is very much determined. The future will be the past. Hence determined. The present allows us to be ignorant and play with chance. Thereby the choice is the momentary feeling disguised to give us a sense control, agency, etc.
going back to the example about the bar vs the apple, is it free will that decides to take the chocolate or is it all the taste buds on your tongue sending signals to your brain? All your thoughts, emotions and feelings correspond with brain stems. If a neuroscientist studies your brain using MRI etc, they can roughly correlate feelings and thoughts with specific parts of the brain. Every thought you've ever had can be traced back to electrical signals that have taken place in your brain. So where is the freedom in all of this, we don't control these processes. Those processes all occur according to the laws of physics and these things are outside our control.
I guess I'm a hard determinist, but I still think that people should be punished, not because they're responsible for their actions, but because if no one ever got condemned or punished or anything, people would just keep making the same harmful choices and the world would be way worse off. But as for determinism, yeah, I think that everything any person does has a cause, and whenever we can't identify that cause, we call the action their choice. If I picked an apple over a chocolate bar, that action was made because of a huge number of factors, like how I was brought up, what my brain looks like and how it works, all the emotions built up in my head at that exact moment, etc. But because the reasoning is so complex, it's easier for everyone to just say it was my choice, while in reality, it totally follows determinism.
yes punishment is an external force that does affect the internal forces of the individuals, we are brought to know that crime has punishment which for some people is the external factor that tips the scale to stop them from comitting a crime, but it's one of many external factors and at one point punishment can only do so much and cant stand alone.
@buzzmusic200 Who are we to say if the world is worse off or better off in a hard deterministic world? Animals kill and eat each other all the time, so why is it suddenly bad for humans to do so? Where did the morals to say what is good or bad come from?
Totally agree. I look at it in respect to a sports match. Without rules and punishments for breaking those rules, there is no game, and no fun, just chaos. Those external forces of rules and punishments effect internal forces. I think people of free will and determinism mind sets can still agree on laws from this standpoint. Actually, I think determinists wouldn't agree with people getting away with crimes on pleas of insanity, because to a determinist no one has free will or responsibility, the punishment is merely to lessen the likelihood that others will break that same rule, when others know their will be punishment.
it came from social cooperation desire
Basekitball In a determined world, everything has a measureable cause, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that a formula can be developed in which the future is exactly known due to knowing every cause that will be enacted on a human being?
Regarding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the point is that it is supposed to be physically impossible to know, not that we just happen to not have an answer yet(there are a lot of things we can't predict accurately, but have reason to believe that is just because we lack the variables/knowledge of how to do it).
That said while I guess that would disprove determinism, it still does not provide any reason to believe in free will either, by definition it is completely random, so it's not chosen by "human decision". It's everything is determined, except for a few things that are completely random, I would not consider either of those free will.
As a hard determinist, to address the idea of “if everything is cause and effect then why punish?” I always viewed it as more cause and effect. We punish and reward to condition people so they are more or less inclined to behave a certain way. Therefore I don’t view punishment as a measure of fault necessarily, as it isn’t our fault the way we are. Punishment is more an effort to change perceived “bad” behavior.
Or we can simply say punishment is a consequence of or a part of determinism.
Determinism and Predeterminism just leads to 'Here' and 'Now' , when you made a choice it's just another Determined and Predetermined cycle to 'Here' and 'Now'.
No extremity needed.
Here's a simple demonstration of compatibility. In the video, John is offered both a chocolate bar and an apple. John plays football and needs to boost his energy for the game coming up a little later, and the extra fat plus the caffeine in the chocolate will give him the boost he needs to play better and longer. So, when John selects the chocolate bar rather than the apple, he is doing so according to his own purpose and his own reasons. Therefore, two things are simultaneously true:
(A) Because his choice is a product of his own purpose and his own reasons, he has made the choice of his own free will.
(B) Because his choice is a product of his own purpose and his own reasons, it is causally determined.
Free will is our ability to decide for ourselves what we "will" do, when "free" of external coercion or other undue influence. This definition requires nothing supernatural, makes no anti-causal assertions, is commonly understood by and correctly applied by nearly everyone in all practical scenarios, and is quite sufficient for both moral and legal responsibility.
Determinism is the belief that the objects and forces that make up the physical universe behave in a reliable fashion, such that, it is theoretically possible to predict their interactions and events in advance with perfect accuracy, given sufficient information (e.g., omniscience) and calculation power (e.g., omnipotence).
It is important to take note of the fact that determinism itself, being neither an object nor a force, plays no active role in bringing about any events. It is not an actor on the stage of reality.
On the other hand, we exist as physical objects, living organisms, and an intelligent species that can imagine a variety of ways to satisfy our needs, and choose which option will best suit our own purpose and our own reasons, and act upon that choice. And when we act upon our chosen intent, we are forces of nature.
For more on this, see: marvinedwards.me/2017/08/19/determinism-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/
@Mike It's "free will", not "free desire". While we may not choose our desires, we definitely do choose what we will do about them. A desire that controls you is termed an "irresistible impulse", and subject to psychiatric treatment. Normally, people have sufficient impulse control to avoid being taken over by their various desires.
Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". Deciding what we will do sets our intention upon accomplishing something specific. This intention then motivates and directs our subsequent mental and physical actions toward satisfying that intent.
So, what is "free will" supposed to be "free of"? Normally, it is a choice we make while free of coercion (a guy holding a gun to our head) and other forms of undue influence (a significant mental illness, being under the authority of someone as in parent/child, commander/soldier, doctor/patient relationships, etc.)
Cause and effect in itself is neither coercive nor undue. Only specific causes qualify as coercion and undue influences.
So, the notion of universal causal necessity/inevitability (determinism) in itself is also neither coercive nor undue.
It is not even a meaningful constraint, because what we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, choosing to do what we choose to do. It is basically "what we would have done anyway", and that is not a meaningful constraint.
@Mike I don't see how you get to that conclusion, Mike. Weren't you free to post that comment? Aren't you free to decide what you will have for dinner? Aren't you generally free to do what you want? What kind of constraint is there that you need to be "free of"?
@Mike In order to be meaningful, the terms "free" and "freedom" must reference some meaningful constraint. For example:
1. We set the bird free (from its cage).
2. We each enjoy freedom of speech (free from censorship).
3. The lady in the grocery store was offering us free samples (free of charge).
4. I participated in Libet's experiment of my own free will (free of coercion and undue influence).
Note that in none of these normal uses of "free" or "freedom" is there any mention of "freedom from reliable cause and effect". Why is that? Because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable causation. To suggest being free from that which freedom requires is paradoxical, and therefore irrational.
So, if we stop pretending that we need to be free of cause and effect in order to be free, we can realize that all of the meaningful and relevant freedoms are still available to us.
@Mike "known in advance to the code of reality"? What kind of superstitious nonsense is that?
To "know" anything requires a brain. To make a choice also requires a brain. Although my choice will be causally necessary from any prior point in time, the choice will not be made until my brain actually makes it.
The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it
useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?
One of the best video on free will I've ever seen. Exceptionally well done.
Thank you!
Thanks for explaining Compatibilism in a short & nice discussion ❤
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
How to justify punishing criminals through hard determinism:
The criminal is acted upon by forces that make him endanger the mass. Therefore the the mass cannot afford to let these forces act against it through the criminal. Thus the mass removes the criminal. The mass, no longer under the pressure of the criminal, can understand the forces that caused the criminal to be a criminal. As it was hurt by the criminal's actions, it will attempt to fix the problem that caused the criminal to act. Then the ciminal may be reintegrated if he isn't too far gone.
The judge is for all intents and purposes a clockmaker. The mass is a watch, and the clockmaker observes that the watch is broken. By observing the watch, he identifies the criminal as a damaged cog. the cog is removed to see how it blocks the system. Then by examining the watch further, the source of the advanced degradation of the cog can be identified (other cog needing oil...), and fixed. then the clockmaker examins the cog. if the cog can be fixed it can be reintegrated into the watch. If it is far too damaged, it is discarted and replaced.
This was a really interesting comment, but I'm not sure if your analogy aligns with the prison structure our society currently holds. In your scenario the judge is acting out of concern for the mass and he removes the cog in order to try and preserve its safety. I don't think that a modern day judge who sentences someone to prison is doing so solely out of concern for the public, it's also out of a desire to punish him for being morally wrong. This is made more apparent when you see how inmates are treated and how negative public views of criminals are (not saying they shouldn't be). So after reading your comment I'm still left wondering how punishment, or even praise are justified under a hard determinist lens.
+VelvetWind8 Oh that's easy: it doesn't. my comment was a thought experiment, not an accurate depiction of reality. If I was asked to justify the existence of a judicial system through hard deterministic values in a vacuum, that's how I'd do it, but it appears obvious that prisons all over the world were founded on a different set of values. One I do not necessarily agree with either.
Interesting proposal, but I have an objection. In some cases of criminal actions, the actual criminal "responsible" for committing the crime would actually have a very low chance of committing the same crime again or any other crime for that matter, especially if it is a case where they harmed someone they knew personally (maybe they have personal issues or something). If those personal issues are only in place with said friend/family member, after the crime is committed the offender may have a very low chance of committing that crime again because the influence is gone. By this logic, it wouldn't be rational to place them in prison for something they (1) didn't have control of and (2) something they likely wouldn't do again regardless of whether or not they go to prison.
However, I could see a way you could make this argument work. Firstly, just to note, I am not a hard determinist. I am a compatibalist (just getting that out of the way).
You could argue that while (1) yes, the offender didn't have control over their actions, and (2) they may have a low chance of committing the crime again, however (3) punishing them could influence other members of society NOT to commit the same crime.
this clock /watch analogy is represented in this video, when he explains a society founded on determinism
ua-cam.com/video/rfOMqehl-ZA/v-deo.html
@Bush 911 the point was to explain to people why we would still "punish" criminals under the pretense of determinism where we are all void of moral responsibility. and instead of using "punish", we ought to use "treat".
you have to explain things to change people properly. how could we ever get to being a determinism founded society, if we never even explain the foundations of that society?
sure everything can be predetermined, but we still have to actually go through the process of acting it out. its the whole point of a determinist society, it doesn't just fall into nihilism and chaos and the void.
it actively changes and thinks about what is best for the whole.
Personally, soft determinism does make sense in the fact that organisms do have to adjust and change for the environment around them which is an almost infinite of variables, but this is just personal speculation about why we had to evolve concepts such as "personal responsibility" in the first place which is a psychological tool used as a reference point for deciding what behaviors are good and bad to begin with.
This video assumes physicalism. Compatibilism requires "internal causes" [7:22]. But why are these causes described in mentalistic terms?
Surely it would be more consistent with universal physical causation to hold that internal causes are nothing other than physical processing going on in our brains?
But, regarded in this manner - without any mention of mental states or mental causation (conscious choices) - compatibilist free will is far from plausible.
The problem with this line of reasoning for determinism is that it is based upon newtonian physics. But quantum physics shows that the universe is not as predictable as we thought.
He expressed it precisely at minute 3:21: "Just because the cause is unknown doesn't negate its existence." The inability to predict the behavior of quantum particles doesn't imply they lack causality. Consider the flip of a coin: its outcome is deemed random due to the absence of complete information on influencing factors. However, if factors such as throwing force, air resistance, and mass were known, the outcome could be anticipated. Thus, randomness doesn't negate causality; it simply highlights our incomplete understanding of all contributing factors.
really appreciate the way they explain the difference and everything ❤
Do you happen to have the text transcribed? I want to show it to my brother, who can't hear.
+Siana Mirandjeva Yes we do. Email philosophyvibe@gmail.com and we will reply with the script.
I want the script too
You just saved me from getting an F. Thanks!
My argument against internal causes is that we have the free will to go against our desires, our emotions, our cultures and make REAL choices.
@@ClimateJames Do you still hold this view?
If it is against your emotions thoughts and desires what would cause you to make this “real choice”.
@Mike Just a question.
Free will and determinism can be attach together.
Think about a video... If during a video, a person was asked to choose between a chocolate or an apple, and he ended up choosing the chocolate...
Playing the video several times will end up on the same result... the person chosing a chocolate, but at least, he had the free will to chose while the video was recorded. :v
I hope that summarizes your video
The Quantum superstate defeats the determinist hypothesis as you don't get an outcome until you observe the particle and therefore you can't have predetermined the state it would end up in. Such observation would have to be persistent to know the outcomes, they can not be calculated in advance. No matter how much knowledge you start with or how much processing power, quantum states ruin your perfect predictions.
The best you would be able to do, ever, would be to predetermine probabilities. but no outcomes would ever be certain.
I'm for determinism. To believe or consider free will would be a pre-determined fate. We're like characters in a movie, from the character's point of view every moment forward is unknown yet if you were to step outside of the box, you would see that your fate, your progressing story, has already happened in a sense and that you're merely a happening along a linear progression that makes up the movie that you are a character in. They explored this very example in the movie "The Last Action Hero". Of course we often look back on a past and make up a story that enables us to make sense of it to our liking, such as, "Oh I just chose to do that" etc. Great video guys, love the background. Very entertaining.
So what makes something good or bad? I have yet to hear a compelling argument for what makes morals, laws, and societal standards
Good video, but I have to correct you at 3:24. Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle do not say that we cannot KNOW the position and path of every particle; rather, it says that particles do not HAVE a specified position and path. 'Uncertainty Principle' is a bad translation of the German 'Unbestimmtheitsrelation'. A better translation would be: Undeterministic Principle.
Of course, this does not help the vieuwpoint of free will, because now human action are the consequenses of the events in the past, the laws of nature and random chance. That still leaves no space for free will. A better comparison would have been: MATERIALISM vs free will.
If you want to hear my opinion about free will: I think it just depends on the definition wheather we have it. The concept of free will that determinism makes impossible, would always be impossible, because that concept is flawed. To see why, imagine that our consciencesness operates wholly independent of physical reality, and that our choises are determined by what happens in this consciencesness. Seems like we would have free will then, ey? But, then our consciencesness would have to operate in some way according to some princples, and hence it would then be this principles that determine our actions, hence we would not have free will. This concept of free will never works when you try to specify how the free will actually works.
Of course, we should still hold people accountable for their actions. We do not punish people out of revenge, but because people are more likely to behave themselves when they know they can be punished, and for various other reasons.
This video is perfectly explains the subject. Thank you for making this!
I am not a native english speaker but i will try to make my point clear and speak simply: I think there is something wrong in the way we treat the subject. If you put it in an other way, something appears to be quite obvious: what would it truly mean to have free will? I think it is simply unthinkable! We cannot be what we are not, and what are we? I think we are what Schopenhauer calls the Will, and we could not want to be something else, it is not possible to be what we are not.. Everything is determined which means we had to be this way because everything follows the will, but now, we, humans, think that we are seperated from the will, as if we were detached from a sort of survival instinct, but in fact i think that it is still the case exepted that we got more and more complex and invented tons of beliefs and concepts... We make one with everything in the universe, because we are the same thing, we are the will itself but it is like we don't know it because we invented more and more words and more and more concepts , as we evoluated which drove us away from our primal animal will.. did i make my point? so whatever we choose is to be choosen because it responds to the will, and we cannot complain about it because it is unthinkable that we could want to be something else. And what is now arising within us would be the will recognizing itself through all of our humans sensations and thoughts etc... Things are the way they are because they could not be otherwise, as if it responds to a necessity... and it is normal that we humans think that it is unfair because we invented concepts of morality and justice. A deer who sees her dead mom may feel in danger and hurt but does not think it is unfair... In the other hand i think that knowledge still drives us away from a primitive will and that it can extend our possibilities of choices, even if we don't choose, by experiencing life and learning every sort of things we bring to our brain all kind of experiences that offers the will various possibilities... so it is not : our self is determined by the will, but rather : our self is the will and cannot be nor want to be something else. because if we say that we are trapped in a body and mind determined by all sort of causes and effects, then we suppose that there is something that is not and which undergoes the will..i think we are the will itself, what could we be otherwise?
I'll put it in less words for you - free will is a lovely illusion.
@@maxnicks4661 Wrong
I am free
@@leonardu6094 nah bro he’s right
the avoidance of pain/discomfort is the determining factor in all decisions... whether it is to avoid pain in the present or the future
***** masochism=pleasure in the eliviation of mental trauma/pain vs pain
curiosity=the grass could be greener
P1. Mere effects of physics can be neither true or false. (Is a tornado more true than an earthquake?).
P2. If determinism true, all human evaluations, propositions, understanding, etc. are mere effects of physics.
C. If determinism true, all human evaluations, propositions, understanding, etc. can be neither true or false (a clearly incoherent conclusion that is reached when determinism is assumed).
______________________________________
P1. My thoughts and actions are all predetermined, effects of physics from the big bang (once again assuming determinism to be true).
P2. Your thoughts and actions are all predetermined, effects of physics from the big bang.
C1. Your nor my statement could be either 'more true' or 'more false' than the other.
C2. If determinism true, there is no such thing as true or false. (Is that true?)
All that this argument would prove is that humans can’t “know” if determinism is true since they can’t hold true or false beliefs, but it doesn’t show that determinism is false. If we didn’t know that adding 2 and 2 gets 4, this wouldn’t disprove that 2 and 2 gets 4, but rather that we don’t have knowledge that 2 and 2 gets 4. I’m not saying therefore determinism is true, but rather, you need more evidence to suggest determinism is not true, since it is not self-refuting.
Additionally, not being able to hold knowledge (or propositions) is entirely dependent on your definitions. If it’s some abstract concept of the mind, then I’d agree we can’t know. But if you mean knowledge as the ability of an organism to decipher patterns in the environment then respond accordingly, then we can have knowledge. This is because we can recognise patterns that objectively exist in the world (ie. determinism) and respond accordingly (by having brain activity to affirm determinism is true - corresponds to reality). Think of this like a AI. It doesn’t hold some abstract knowledge of a non-physical mind, but, like us, it has programming (akin to biology) that based on training data (experiences) responds to stimuli (says things that do or do not correspond to an objective reality). It is still following the laws of physics in doing this as a purely physical process, yet would technically have knowledge according to my definition.
Thank you gentlemen. Shine On.
Thank you :)
3:31 Einstein said that god does not role dice only because he refused to accept quantum mechanics, which has yet to be proven wrong despite numerous attempts to.
Could you please make a video on berkeley and free will & the self
Yes this is on the list. Thank you for the recommendation.
Would you happen to know of any readings & primary & secondary sources I could use to write on this topic ?
The religious claim on this matter is very self defeating. For they result in using fatalism to explain that a god created the universe and everything came to be because of that, than proceed to justify hell and heaven with "free will".
Free will is indeed an illusion, and you put it right our actions are soft determinant indeed. And that is not only the logical answer, but also what neuroscience tells us, and the fact that stimulants effect human behavior.
I have been considering Free Will and Determinism and 'A God With A Rigid Plan' for some years. I have not reached any Hard Nosed Conclusions. Reviewing my 74 years of life, I can see validity in why I acted in the way that I did **** Because **** I was programmed to act the way that I did. There are days when I 'think' I can see myself as a pre-designed, pre-wired, 'robot'. And there are days when all Heck Breaks Loose, and I can't figure out 'who' or 'what' is running my show.
I appreciate your video, and your deep coverage of the subject. This is a Heavy Duty Subject, and most of it is Way Over My Labor's Mentality. My studies have caused me to be less condemning, less intolerant, of the Humanoids around me. At the same time, I do have the Right of Self Defense **** Don't I ?
+Joseph Frierson It's a joy to pontificate even without firm conclusions though isn't it? :)
+Joseph Frierson What is this "I" you talk about?
+Harry Rice ---- It is the same things that you have.
Me, MySelf, and I.
The same things that you have.
+Joseph Frierson
We are all programmed base on the Law of Nature and a lot of choice given to us to make. Not making a choice means leaving the environment (including others) to make a choice.
In the case of God being all knowing and us having free will.
We have free will despite God being all knowing because God's all knowing is NOT the cause of the things that we do.
We are our own cause of the things that we do God just knows that we are going to do the things that we do.
There is no contradiction in that at all.
There’s no point in that at all either
I'm not sure where I reside in this debate, but I have numerous problems with hard determinism which is why I don't think I'd be able to hold it. For one, if you buy into the argument that we'll eventually be able to predict every single thing that will ever happen by cause and effect, then we should be able to print you a book that has your entire life sequence written out. However, it seems if this was the case, you could choose to differently than the book says. I have so many other objections, and further explanations, example and counter example, etc. But no time for it now
Great video! Keep up the good work! It all contributes to a better world.
how does this fit in with the multiverse theory? do completely random events basically form the web that is ultimately different predetermined fates for everyone? food for thought.
This is a great crash course in free will and determinism, though the animation is rather amateur. Then again, I doubt I could do better, so I have no right to complain. Nicely done.
Didn't give any case for Free Will at all. At most, only discussed hard and soft determinism.
Why didn’t you jus erase everything but the last sentence?
The immobilization and unification of the world:
We know that matter want to find immobilization by knowing how our happiness works and we have to remember that we human are made of matters. Happiness is a state that we continuously want to feel. Which mean we want a immobilization state, because in a none immobilization state we are not satisfied, if we still have movement which mean we still have a goals, it mean we have to satisfy our goals to have none and find total immobilization. In that theory we would think that death is the perfect immobilization and total happiness but even in death matter has movement. So in order to find perfect happiness, matter has to continuously assemble itself in one single point where it will create the perfect immobilization and unification.
Well this is the theory that is really vulgarize and simplified by all me.
Clearly, much of the time we have external constraints on our choices, e.g. the law, social disapproval, cost...
So in those instances, surely we do not have free will -- ability to do what we please.
Ditto for internal constraints. I cannot jump up and run a marathon. The very idea makes me exhausted.
I suspect this problem will be "solved" by deciding it is too wooly to admit a solution.
What is will, and what is it meant to be free of?
I have a possible theoretical senario for trying to understand free will. It starts like this:
We are made of matter, our emotions, actions and choices are subject of interaction of matter with matter.
Matter is governed by the laws of nature.
The laws of nature are studied and researched by Physics
According to classical physics, matter in our scale, behaves acc. to the law of causality (everything can be calculated and described).
According to quantum physics , matter at the subatomic level behaves completely different ( Werner Heissenberg law, etc)
As a result of the upper 2 statements, for the scale of our existential dimension we should validate the classical physics and accept the causation argument.
We dont truly choose, that doesnt mean though that we are free of our vices. (utilitarian ethics)
I 'd love to read anyones thoughts.
It seems ridiculous to think that someone with infinite knowledge could have predicted the exact content of this thread. Matter can be arranged into autonomous beings that are wholes greater than the sums of their parts.
Can genetic testing reveal both free will and determinism? For example, if an embryo had the gene to be a murder, it means that the embryo can be a murderer and that the embryo is determined to be a murderer. However, if we choose to make that embryo to grow up in a society where he doesn't become a murder, then that embryo or human being had the free will do not become a murderer. Does this show that a degree of determinism and free will can co-exist?
And also can somebody give me an example of 'Indeterminism', which is no determinism and no free will? I though a robot was an example but I don't know if that could be Indeterminism.
How can we argue for Freedom when we can't argue for Free Will? What's the point of having the freedom to make a choice we were determined to make?
Jamie Dunmore I'm not arguing against choice, but rather for it. Likewise, everything is a choice, even if the choice doesn't exist. So, why is freedom of choice necessary?
The origin of the big bang is a thought. Thoughts are acts of creations. Yes you can choose another's thought and make it your own, or you can create brand new thoughts. The space of thoughts are infinite. This is why they cannot be determined. An infinite source provides infinite possibilities continuously without ever running out. When you say we don't have free will? what is the "we" made from? One must clarify what the "thing" that has or has no free will made from before you can say anything about if it does have free will or not. So the steps for a viable approach is.
1. What is the definition of free will?
2. What stuff makes the "thing" that I call me?
3. Does that stuff permit free will?
These are my answers to the above
1. What is the definition of fee will.
The ability to change space-time 4 dimensionally, that is change past present and future
2.What stuff makes the "thing" that I call me?
The thing I call me is a single thing that is made of stuff that can connect simultaneous events as is evident from my ability to see simultaneous event.
3. Does that stuff permit free will?
A thing that can connect simultaneous events can operate faster than the speed of light and as such can change past present and future as needed by the definition
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
There is this time travel paradox that may explain about all this like when you travel back in time and kill your grandfather will you still be there, the way to avoid that is when determinism comes in and you shoot your grandpa something g will stop it for it to continue the timeline to go as already written
The main problem to solve this Free will and determinism debate are to know all the variable that shaped this universe and our ability to know that all variables. Especially the variable that shaped our brain.
But, I wonder.. What if we know all the variable that shaped our world, and we can predict the people action in the future. (Let's assume we know that) And then we do differently from the prediction. Does it mean we have a free will? (sorry for my bad english)
Determinism says that everything is caused by influences and if we knew ever single one of them we could know who is going to do what. if you could see your future that would be an influence be a use of which you probably would not end up there
Determinism doesn't always have one outcome though... something could result in many outcomes.. of which one could then use free will to choose one of those outcomes. For example... consider a bowling ball that hits a set of numbered bowling pins... knocking them all down.... and you choose one or more of those bowling pins to keep (or not). Do you choose one, do you choose none or do you choose many?
what are emotions and desires and where do they come from?
+Craig Stevens heart.mind,soul
One may state that effects have causes and be accurate. But causality writ large is not then given to being precisely described. A cause has an effect, but complexity overwhelms any simple notion of cause/effect in human action. Therefore; the inquiry "Do we have free will?" is not well served by a yes/no answer. Consequentally, we cannot expect to be able to create sweeping moral judgements based on whether we do or do not have free will. We can assign free will (or the lack of it) as a factor in events, while understanding that generalities will apply, as well as special cases. We should within this process also accept that the application of free will as a factor will change over time, or within groups.
if it's determined that a person will be a criminal, why would it also not be determined that we would send them to jail? I don't see a problem here.
Very well discussed!! 👏🏻👌🏻
For me, what i understood is, freewill and determinism both overlap in every action of ours since we do have a previous cause to determine the situation but we also can't determine how strong or weak is the cause which has an effect on our choices now..
Some causes are really strong and determined that it results will reap anyway and some causes are there which are not deterministic and thus it gives us some space to have freewill to do better or worse based on our discriminatory wisdom which shapes our feelings, feelings shape our intention which give the results as actions.
This is what i learnt from Nalanda studies based on Buddhist psychology and philosophy. 🤔🫣
it's a conceptual thing. Neither determined nor undetermined actions are 'free'. When we talk about free will, we don't actually realise that we are not making sense.
What is actually happening when we arrive at a choice is that we seem, experientially, to pull our choices out of an internal hat. We refer to that as making a 'free' choice. But even from the experiential point of view, how could this amount to freedom of choice? It just pops into your consciousness. There is no-one who selects it.
But people have no choice to believe in anything different. And you or me will never have the freedom to make them believe it.
Thoughts don't just pop into your mind. They come to mind to aid the problem you are trying to solve or the issue you're trying to resolve. Thus, they are purpose-driven events. Personally, I find Sam Harris's mysticism about this to be quite uncharacteristic of scientific thinking.
Thank god you rebranded! New animation better, thanks for help with degree
Internal Desire Thou Are Determined independent of choice however we can choose to act on our desires or choose not to if given the option to choose
Isaiah 46:10
"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish."
Nice that you brought up chaos theory
Well first punishement and reward are given to squeeze the risk/reward ratio of actions so that people act accordingly to what is profitable to the group so that's internally consistent with determinism.
Second having internal causes doesn't mean they are free, it simply mean they are things that'll cause actions from you that you believe will bring a positive outcome for you while external causes are causes applied to you that you can't at least partially affect what outcome it will have. But that doesn't make internal cause free, you are still determined, and in fact it's because you can differentiate between actions that will grant a positive outcome to you, action that will bring a negative outcome and actions that you can't perform and therefore have no control on what it would affect, that you are able to act. And humans don't have perfect judgement about those choices, that's also what bring the illusion of free will.
When you think "I should have chosen the apple" for exemple, that doesn't mean you could, you made a wrong decision and you would have chosen differently with this knowledge in mind. But in the state you were at the time you did the choice you'd have chosen the chocolate... proof is that you did, and until we can construct a time machine to clearly show that in some worlds you choose the apple (and if we accept that time travel doesn't affect reality of course...) then we are stuck with what we know.
But in the end there is only one meaningful thing to ask : "what is free will?". Until you can define free will in a way that you are able to differentiate between a being with free will and a being with no free will then it's meaningless to even have the word since it doesn't have any descriptive value whatsoever.
I was determined to watch this, because God want me to know my fate was sealed. We think we are free but we are driven by the necessities of the everyday like a car is driven by human.
I really like this. As of now, I agree with the guy on the right. I would like to add a question, which I suppose would be addressed particularly to the guy on the left but also the guy on the right and anyone reading: why punish those who do wrong? Why not help them to change their ways? Rehabilitate I suppose. What does punishment accomplish? It seems to me that rehabilitation is much more productive. One more question: why doesn't society take a close look at what determines people's destructive behaviors and try to prevent them from happening in the first place? I suppose I'm particularly referring to a massive education reform.
Great, it gave me a new outlook which I had never knew.
Doesn't occam's razor work with this? that hard determinism is too complex and that the simplest solution should be considered as the best? therefore, freewill is correct?
Most underrated channel
Thank you!
What about Agency and Agent as prime mover unmoved, or uncaused causer/author of one’s actions?
Keep grinding guys! You're great!
Thank you very much!!!
So how do you go about your life, knowing that you most likely do not have free will?
i use the theory for calming down, or getting extra bravery for some actions :P
or just let everything be. an interesting thing is you cant really control it all, if understood properly which brings into funny confusions. That's how i live for now, with a little hope that there wont be left any doubts in the future. Sometimes it feels like i want to be More sure about the way things work, but i cant even be sure that i have two eyes
Well this is actually a funny question because it really makes no sense. Let me rephrase the question you asked- So how do you choose to change your life knowing that you have no choices? See how it makes no sense? If one is a hard determinist they skip all the lectures on ethics because they believe that they have no choice to change their way of life.
Brian Sheldon you choose, but whatever you choose is predeterminable, inevitable. Things you're going to do in x situtation would be obvious to me if i would know you really really well. And the question does make sense for me atleast. If you're a hard determinist, that doesn't mean you should sit in the corner and not do anything, you can if you want, but you probably won't. Some people do actually.. Doesn't really matter anyway.
I think it's more like you're not responsible for anything going on with your feelings, thoughts, actions and anything else. They just happen the way they should
1. The argument that there exists an omniscient god who does not have preknowledge of everything we will think and do is logically incoherent.
2. If an omniscient god is also a creator god, and had a choice to create differently (i.e. where it can predict its creations would choose and do differently) then that creator god is ultimately responsible for what we will think and do.
Great vid guys, helped me a lot with understanding the debate!
great video you guys should try and do a video on compatibilism it would be interesting to see
edit: oh never mind you already did
Thank you, glad you liked the video :)
I don't think determinism damages the justice system; it only emphasises the fact that we ought to focus on rehabilitation over vengeance, - always. And I do believe; the fact that we have _punishment_ works as an external factor on people's actions, and in that way it is further justified by (indirect?) prevention of law-breaking actions.
Great Video. I think you should've focused more on justifying morals with hard compatabilism, though. Make more videos and I'll sponsor you.
Thank you for your comment. We are currently working on a portfolio of videos and will be populating the website in the coming months so stay tuned. Feel free to also sign up to the site and get involved in our philosophical debates.We are looking for users to post essays and help grow Philosophy Vibe.
aperson1234567891098 I'm part of a podcast where we talk a lot about morality from the perspective of no free will.
Free Will, Science and Religion subscription links:
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/free-will-science-religion/id1001850850?mt=2
www.stitcher.com/podcast/chandler-klebs/free-will-science-and-religion?refid=stpr
Everything is Determined and we have No Free Will... but we lack the ability to observe or comprehend the infinite Causal Events in a way that would allow us to predict everything...but it Could be done by someone smarter than us!! Murderers were Always gonna murder before they were even born (it was set into motion by the Big Bang {or before} and a causal chain made it inevitable)!!! However, we can't just have murderers and rapists running around the streets freely!! Anyway, I would just say that it was also inevitable and Determined that he would go to prison etc!!!
David Belcher Yes, ironically we have no choice but to attempt to stop others from doing what hurts us and those we love.
@David Belcher If it was determined why should we punish murder? What about age of consent, was that determined by the big bang as well?
Interesting video. My opinion from a theist perspective: our mind to comprehend determinism is limited by our human mind. If a God created time - if we contemplate on it, can we even imagine creating time? If we cannot, how can we comprehend a being existing outside of time.
In the meantime, our view of it is contaminated by pop culture like back to the future and comics, that time must be like a line and when we return to the past it must be like in a movie.
John Calvin only gave an analogy in his understanding of predeterminism: There is a gate which on top says 'Welcome', alot of people walking outside the gate. some chose to walk in, some chose not to. The ones that walked in, when they turn around and look at the back to the gate saw the words 'you were chosen'.
I appreciate this short video. It's fun. (out of the options mentioned Hard Determinism definitely wins tho)
This video was inevitable, and is occurring bit-by-bit as prescribed by the laws of physics.
It couldn't be any other way. And there is no ''you.''
@@JoeBudd-D Are you still alive after these 2 years? (Serious question)
X Y Are you?
Thanks.loved it.best among all philosophy channels n podcast.
from india
So happy to read this. Appreciate the kind words and glad you're enjoying the videos :)
If the actions of a murderer are determined and he is sentenced to prison by a jury isn't the action of that jury also predetermined?
+Oladeji Adelekan Yes, as is everything.
So Rodney King's case was predetermined one way, then suddenly reversed after riots? Why two different outcomes?
cuz atom react differently not just alway the same reaction.
NeverStopAsking Why Atom's reactions are controllable. Getting an atom to react exactly the way you want it is why nuclear energy and bombs exist.
The problem with determinism is if you apply science to human behavior, you get Social Darwinism. There is no scientific evidence for altruism for poor and marginalized factions of a species for all living organisms.
not in the sense that u can control ur own atom constantly according to ur free will.
Awesome work... I do appreciate your effort.
You try and defeat quantum mechanic's supposed (there is none) elimination of determinism with the hidden variable theory, which has been shown to be wrong.
The greater point stands, not being able to predict it doesn't mean you can influence it.
Because those results would fit perfectly In the illusion of free will, if you want to create an illusion of free will you would certainly punish or praise people by their actions... so it looks like they have a choice but in reality is part of a more complex mechanism, the mechanism of existence itself...
Why not both?
This is really saddening actually. Knowing that you aren't in control.
Was your comment determined?
+Vape Only No. But I dont see how this could be false. There is no proof agaisnt it.
So what's the point of Democracy? Why can't we all just live under a global dictator?
+D Green315 A democracy is still superior to a dictatorship because the organism inside you (the whole you) still makes a decision within the democracy, but the argument for hard determinism says that the conscious "I" which claims to make this decision by itself is an illusion. Think of it like this "you dont want something because you've found reason for it, you find reason for it because you want it"
Thanks for that! Very helpful
Imagine a time machine, that gets you back to the point of a choice, but without changing you. You will be exactly the same person (mind, body and soul) as you were before the choice. You won't have memories of the events during and after the choice. If souls exist, they too would be restored to that point of time by the machine. The machine would even restore god to that very point of time. (That's one powerful machine)
Will you make a different choice?
Why would you, if you lacked the experience gained from and after the choice?
The motives for your choice will be exactly the same as the first time you made the choice. Even divine intervention wouldn't be possible, because god would be busy with whatever he was doing during the first time you chose (after all causality applies to him as well).
Now repeat this exercise a billion times. Did you become a hard determinist?
if time; the past present and future are all happening now, then it is a moot point whether or not there is free will.....
This really helps and it's really detailed as well...
This is excellent work
Thank you!
I 've done 10 videos about free will and determinism
hey what did platform, program etc. did you use to create this video?
I still can't entirely understand what free will and conciousness really is. today we are able to predict with great accuracy what the weather will be like tomorrow because we have experience on how the weather changed in the last 24 hours, and so we can calculate the future. but a human is also a physical being made of matter. however, if I somehow was able to predict what I would do in 10 seconds - and I was aware of that fact, then I would have made any other action than the one that was predicted, which wouldn't make sence from a deterministic standpoint
Basically knowledge of the event is the reason for responsibility. This is why in law there is a difference between an "accident" and a "murder".
Example: If I step on a butterfly and it starts WW3.
A) I did not know this would happen = not responsible
B) I somehow gained the ridiculous amount of knowledge possible, = responsible.
Now of course with the legal system in place we need something more pragmatic or efficient. We don't possess the ability to obtain people's knowledge of the outcome and it would be terribly wasteful to postpone judgement on a person before we do have that tech.
Basically our judgement system even in theory still requires some working on.
Omg. I just love this topic sooo much.. I havr many thoughts on those naturally. (That is caused by my environmental factors-->determinism).
Its funny when they argue about weather they should punish anyone for doing something bad... haha I mran of course we should. The first thing we should note is that if we realise something in our nature (lets say we are deterministic) the logical conclusion is not to suspend our laws... Just cause we realized something NATURAL LAW does not mean anything COMMANDING to our SOCIETY LAWS. What if our societal laws are also deterministic? Either way we choose it will be deterministic. Its just a natural law nothing has to do with how we punish ppl. We should understand the difference between natural laws and societal laws. Natural laws are there if we know it or not does not matter what we do they r there. But they dont force us to do anything. What we do as a socuety are moral arguments and of course we can pumisg criminals... and we should cause thats the right thing
That does not contradict to determinism. They are determined but think of a scenario how much more deteemimed would they be if there were no alienating factor as the law? Much more ppl would steal and murder so its a good thing... its hard to comprehend but thinfs are like this. As a society we should focus on making people good citizens.
The agreement: We act in accordance with our will
The dispute: Do we choose what we will?
my analogy, Free choice.. free will.. Surely you do not have choice because by that elemental factor, "choice" is a state of freedom to do any possible actions in your behalf, choice is an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
"the choice between good and evil", ability of option, ability of altering alternatives, possibility of options, possible course of action, deciding upon or having the ability to cause problems and solution,and by God being our creator, like a scientist creating a robot, God knows your Pathology, neurology, biology, bacteriology, Physiology, Futurology, Ethnology, Philology, Epistemology and yes even your/our Personology.
Now that is the paradox of creation and Gods ability of the concept of creation of judgment and sin and punishment which is in question.
Let's now see the Omni-Omnious, Omnividence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnifarious, Omnilingual, Omnigenous, Omniform, Omnipercipience, Omniparience/Omniparient, Omnificence, Omnikenesis, Omnimode, Omnitemporal, Omnipresence, Omniscients, Omnibenevolence, Omnilingual, Omniparity and Omnicompotence, Omnisentience, Omnimodus, Omnitemporal, Omnirelevance, Omnispective, Omniarch, Omnific of God in general, God knows all things, God knows the beginning of The universe, and the end of the universe (according to abrahamic concept of end times) by that magnificent ability of prediction and determinism of the end of the universe by will, can this even apply to a puny little spec of matter as ourselves? And if not.. then we saying God lacks knowledge upon the littlest of Gods creation or has a fault of some kind or even having limited powers to our deterministic choices, or by god's ability, is intentionally demobilising or crippling/disabling gods unfathomable abilities to something so meaningless as ourselves?
why would something of that calibre self subjugate itself giving even the concept of the probability of sin knowing the exact outcome? (Since you have answered that with reasoning and logics) If that is also the case, why create hell knowing there is a chance, likelihood, plausibility, possibility and yes even the concept of viability upon people going to infinite punishment?
Furthermore... a scenario to help... with biblical evidences in all religions...is it fair of someone to die in a "sinful" state without the time to repent but NOT had the opportunity to possibly change, but a person who done a lifetime of "sinning" is wiped clean? Can this apply to your logical perception of your type of denomination sectarian God? Where is the Omniparity? (Ability of equality in every part; general equality) But continuing with the scenario, does this Mean that God favours those who will go heaven and those who are born by fatalism (a philosophical belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable) to hell by god's Omnipotence (having unlimited power in all fields) Omniscience (state in knowing everything there is to know meaning nothing is unknown to such a thing) Omnipresence (being simultaneously everywhere at the same time [taking into the two abilities as a catalyst factor] in all your fatalism of a existence) although God is Omniscient (knowing everything, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise) and Omnifarious (knowing all that is relating to all sorts or varieties) which in that case is Omnigenous (power over all kinds and of great diversity) , Omniform (adjective. Of all forms; having, taking, or displaying any or every form; of all shapes, appearances, or manifestations.), Omnitemporal (all applicable at all times), Omnirelevant (Relevant everywhere, or to everything; always relevant) Omnific (Capable of making or doing anything, all-creating, all-invoking, all-effectuating, all-producing, all-causing, all-catalysing, all-vindicating, all-prompting, all-confirming, all-verifying, all-substantiating, all -accrediting, all-establishing, all-manifesting, all-influencing etc) and Omnilingual (having the ability to understand all types of languages, Omnividence, (The faculty of seeing everything, or of perceiving all things), Omnispective (beholding everything, all-seeing, Omnificent (all creating, all manifesting, all developing) omni-ominous (all power to impress that something bad is about to happen), Omnisentience (all sensory awareness of all things) Omnipercipience (having the ability of absolute insight, ability and perceptive), Omniparious (all producing all things, Omniparient (producing or bringing fourth all things) Omnikenesis (all power in the power to manipulate anything, the ultimate form of telekinesis [recommend the story of exodus with this one]) and my favourite, Can this apply to the omnibenevolence of THE God (infinitely good, All-loving, kind, kindly, kind-hearted, warm-hearted, tender-hearted, big-hearted, thoughtful, loving, exquisitely enchanting, , infinitely nice, good-natured, good, gracious, tolerant, benign, compassionate, caring, generous, infinitely merciful, forbearing, humane, indulgent, tolerant, magnanimous, sympathetic, considerate, thoughtful, well meaning, munificent, bounteous, unselfish, unstinting etc) and Gods Omnicompetence (having the ability or able to deal with all matters and having powers to legislate on all matters) being that God is of a spiritual legislative moral judger that is justice, egalitarian, principle, foundation, pillar of the epitome of what is considered as perfect example, role model, true idol, virtue, propriety, awe in absolute ethical figure? By this logic can the concept of hell or sin or evil or given the same principle applying to the creation, manifestation, apparition (a remarkable or unexpected appearance of someone or something) and even the thought or logical explanation to the materialisation of the devil himself by God's standards to actually, factually exist? This concept goes straight back to "choice between"
Now when we also philosophically think about the concept of the devil (which I hear this argument a lot) being created as a "all perfect" "most beautiful" "most powerful" "all awe inspiring creation", before even continuing upon such deity, you have to consider by its makings that such a thing cannot have a flaw, or even any fallacious analogies and arguments against such a thing because if something like that actually, factually did exist, it will denote, debunk, demote and derate the very concept of it credibility of it being created or the process of creating such as the most perfect, majestic, fantastic creation, or even questioning the concept of Gods omnipotence, omniscience and Omniparient (producing or bringing fourth all things) Omniparious (producing all things) .
We will also need to discuss how this can apply to the omnipotence paradox, God being as what most theist consider god under the umbrella of imperfections, flaws, fallibilities which is responsible or liable to unnecessary ancient holy wars and destructions to digress humanity upon its preservation, prosperity and all natural disasters, cataclysms, disease epidemics that is becoming more harder and further advancing rather than refraining, digressing, decreasing or declining.
Has such an infinite powerful being(s) wanted to create a being that possessed all the elements that made it a God(s) or the very concept of God(s) using its powers to create something by infinite energy that could be infinite energy by its immortality now applying the omnipotence paradox to that very creation? Furthermore, I mentioned the paradox of the elemental traits to the design of the human which if a third party is required, it is responsible, accountable, authoritative towards the atomic creation of this Devil(s) we hear of (applying the Neurology, Pathology, Psychology [and most importantly] PERSONOLOGY) with the concept of Omnipotence to Omnifarious,(infinite ability to possess power of comprising or relating to all sorts or varieties) of the natures of these concepts as well as being Omniarch (noun. A person who rules over the whole world or universe) and Omnimode (ability of all functions) with Omnimodus (the faculty of possession of all or every sort or kinds) which then we use this concept it goes straight back to the concept of free will by what I presented above.
Wow that opened up my mind and opened up a can of worms lol