Al Mele - Philosophy of Free Will

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 228

  • @TheTroofSayer
    @TheTroofSayer 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    00:46 - "... whether freewill is compatible with determinism or not." Determinism usually implies, in the spirit of physicalism/materialism, bottom-up causation. No mention was made, throughout this interview, of top-down causation. As a simple, easily understood example, top-down causation is what takes place when culture wires the human, neuroplastic brain. People make choices from culture, our identities are inextricably intertwined within it, in our languages, customs & experiences. Choice-making is freewill at work, it relates to meaning, and the science of meaning is semiotic (CS Peirce). In the absence of top-down causation, freewill will always be incompatible with determinism.

  • @stephengee4182
    @stephengee4182 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Consciousness has free will. As consciousness matures, it can self reflect. The decision to self reflect is what causes evolution and responsibility for actions. Self reflection is how the infant matures into the adult.

    • @edwardprokopchuk3264
      @edwardprokopchuk3264 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      So, at what point can you make the claim that a person finally has “free will”?

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@edwardprokopchuk3264 We live in a biological universe where consciousness experiences the qualia of free will (since I know for a fact that I am experiencing free will qualia).
      If "free will" exists, maybe it is "no free will" which is the illusion. If the opposite "free will" is the illusion, the issue is moot since we do not have the "free will" to decipher the truth. However, if "no free will" is the illusion, the search for the truth is a feasible activity and highly relavant endeavor, and telling people that they do not have free will, when they do is dangerous. The debate is evidence for the reality of free will.

    • @edwardprokopchuk3264
      @edwardprokopchuk3264 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@stephengee4182 I would like to know your definition of “free will” before you make the claim that you for a fact are experiencing it.
      Is “free will” necessary in order for us to decipher if we actually do have “free will” or not?
      There is also a danger in telling people that they do have “free will” if they actually don’t, as well as telling people that they don’t have “free will” if they actually do.

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@edwardprokopchuk3264 I would define free will as consciousness affecting matter and energy through the mind having some minimal control over thought patterns and body movements. Driving cross country is a prime example of cognition's ability to control the movement of matter and energy in a non random way.

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@edwardprokopchuk3264 We set up laws to govern our free will and election systems to exercise free will differences in preference.

  • @genghisthegreat2034
    @genghisthegreat2034 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    If I am the only agent of an action I take, and if quantum effects are just not relevant in my entire consciousness of the prevailing circumstances of a decision, then I'm responsible in my agency. I'm trying to improve my circumstances, as I perceive them, and there's a menu of available options.
    Free will exists, because we don't live by coin flips.

    • @jeremymanson1781
      @jeremymanson1781 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      We work within a number of constraints. So we may be able to set ourselves a course through the ocean of life, heading out towards a goal that we imagine as desirable and yet we have no idea what storms may lie ahead.

  • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
    @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    (2:00) *AM: **_"Usually what they would like is that you could have made another decision."_* ... ALL of the arguments against free will are predicated on the fallacious use of semantics. *Example:* You have five items to choose from, so you choose one of them. The Hard Determinist (HDeist) will argue that you had *no other option* but to select the item that you did, ... therefore there is no free will.
    Unfortunately for the HDeist, his argument requires the use of a *nonexistent "time machine"* that can travel back and watch you make the same decision every single time.
    First, time machines don't exist. The only time that matters is the moment you made your decision. Second, once you've made your decision, the decision-making process comes to a screeching halt. There are *no other options* to choose from as you've already made your decision.
    The question of whether you could have chosen differently is only applicable while you are in the act of deciding. In this scenario, you had *five items to choose from* and you could have chosen any of the five ... _or none of them._

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Both libertarian and determinist thinkers make exactly the same form of argument, that either we could have done otherwise or could not have done otherwise. Is it fair to criticise those on one side of the discussion for this and not the other? In any case it's just a philosophical position, nobody is arguing that time machines are real, that's a straw man.
      >In this scenario, you had five items to choose from and you could have chosen any of the five ... or none of them.
      The question is how is that decision made. What is the nature of that process. That's what matters.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@simonhibbs887 *"Is it fair to criticise those on one side of the discussion for this and not the other?"*
      ... Yes, when the only argument against what is being subjectively observed in reality is solely based on the misuse of semantics, then there is only one side of this discussion. *Example:* If I said _"You only think Earth is round because it appears circular, but it's really flat, ... flat things can also be circular, ya know?"_ ... would you feel my argument has as much merit as yours that the Earth is round? ... After all, I am right that "flat things" can be round.
      *"The question is how is that decision made. What is the nature of that process. That's what matters."*
      ... I am the sole arbitrator for the decisions I make. I represent the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of every decision I make. However, the moment anyone can show me the mysterious *someone else* who's making all of my decisions for me, then I will change my stance.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >”There is only one side in this discussion”
      *Sigh*
      >”I am the sole arbiter of my decisions”
      I agree completely. The question is how do you make those decisions. As a determinist I think that your knowledge, preferences, likes, dislikes, experience, patterns of thought, etc are the preconditions that determine your considered choices. They are different from my equivalent mental characteristics, or anyone else’s. These mental characteristics, and the available information, are evaluated and weighed by a reliable logical process.
      To say that a decision was made by you is to say that your mental state was the determining factor in that choice. However to be able to say that, to think that your decisions were determined by you and that you were their cause - this requires a deterministic account of causation and decision making.

    • @christianrelloso2649
      @christianrelloso2649 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I am the sole arbitrator for the decisions I make. I represent the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of every decision I make.
      I think there is another explanation besides your that someone unsatisfied with it.

    • @dr_shrinker
      @dr_shrinker 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ⁠@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      It’s not “someone else” making the decisions. It’s the physical universe making your decisions.
      Your decisions are hindered by physical process. Your decisions are corralled and you think you have choices, but your life events are a long string of events that are determined by the world you live in.
      You have no choice to be something you aren’t. You cannot determine your morals, your preferences, and phobias. The universe determines those for you.
      You call it semantics, like a get out of “jail free card” to avoid the debate. It’s not semantics, it’s hard determinism and every choice you make is hindered by physicality

  • @sylvestermumba981
    @sylvestermumba981 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Its difficult for us to determine if free will is there or not because it requires for us initially to be presumptively free do to discern in the first place

    • @JagadguruSvamiVegananda
      @JagadguruSvamiVegananda 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      INCORRECT induction. ☝️
      🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
      Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
      This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
      Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
      So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
      The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
      Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
      At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
      University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
      If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
      We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
      Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
      The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
      Cont...

  • @ronhudson3730
    @ronhudson3730 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    How does the idea of block-time or quantum uncertainty square with the free-will idea? Most personal free-will decisions are in response to the needs of the immediate moment, the near-future or the longer-term anticipated future. She kissed me, I’ll kiss her back. I’ll bring her flowers tomorrow. I’ll book her ticket on our couple’s-cruise next spring. Other peoples’ choices affect us in all time frames. My kissing her led to nothing more. She refused to open her door! Even though I could see her through her window. She told me it was off and I couldn’t get a refund on the tickets. Accepting block-time, all of the actions and outcomes have existed since the beginning of the universe - so no free-will - just the illusion of free-will. We remember the past and act in anticipation of the future but only directly experience and interact with events in the present, however you define it. So, from our perspective we feel we have free-will, but perhaps we’re the needle in the groove of the record. Remembering the past, experiencing the present moment and anticipating the near, middle and far future. Which may or may not transpire. If another possible but unanticipated event - the dog knocks the player off the table - happens, everything changes. Either is equally plausible, in my view.

  • @drchaffee
    @drchaffee 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Odd to think that most of the one and a quarter million fast food fry cooks in the United States would not have chosen their professions differently, but maybe that's merely the philosophy of Incompetent Will - a position which few philosophers seem to argue against.

    • @dukeallen432
      @dukeallen432 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Oh I’d rather be a fry cook than sit 5 more minutes of my life in a business meeting.

    • @drchaffee
      @drchaffee 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@dukeallen432 Agreed! I've been a fry cook, and I've also been in business meetings where I'd rather make more taco shells. It's just that at the end of the day, where we end up isn't necessarily a rational chain of freewill choices - there's a lot of chance and chaos.

  • @UnstableYT-u7k
    @UnstableYT-u7k 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    The title almost made me think this video was gonna talk about Artificial Intelligence.

  • @neththom999
    @neththom999 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The assertion that determinism is compatible with free will (compatibilism) is just that, a mere assertion. No amount of argumentation can make a blatant logical contradiction valid.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Compatibilism is just determinism in which free will is defined as the freedom of action of an agent. It's a semantic position more than a philosophical one IMHO and is really just a flavour of determinism.

    • @neththom999
      @neththom999 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@simonhibbs887 They do accept determinism, yes. But defining free will as freedom of an agent directly contradicts determinism where there can be no freedom of an agent, nor an agent. It's a logical contradiction and no amount of argumentation can make it valid. It's determinism in denial.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@neththom999 Determinism has complete consistent accounts of agents and decision making as systems and processes. It just says that the information available, and the mental state of the agent determine the decision. In order for the person making the decision to be accountable for it, the process of making that decision must be reliable and consistent. The decision must have a cause, the cause must be the person, and that process must be deterministic in order for it to be reliable.

  • @michelangelope830
    @michelangelope830 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Free will is the capacity to choose between alternatives. How could anyone deny we have free will?. We choose all the time so how is it possible to deny the existence of free will? I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. You choose to understand or not. Am I right and atheism is a logical fallacy or am I wrong? Atheists commit the atheist logical fallacy everytime they use the word "god" because they believe God is what they call "sky daddy" and they don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. Atheism is a bleak, nihilistic, alienating, despairing understanding of reality. With God anything is possible and without God there is no hope. It is better for you if God exists because for atheists death is the end. Is there any life and death worse than for an atheist? It could be argued that a religious life and death is worse. I offer an understanding of reality being Time past, present and future to live well eternally if it is possible. If you understand we are accountable for all our life without deceptions your life would change incredibly for the better. Atheists think the universe is uncreated and theists think the universe was created. Who has the burden of proof? Atheism is the idea that the universe is eternal because there is no evidence that the creator exists. Theism is the idea that the universe was created by the creator. You don't have to believe in God because God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. For atheists all reality is created and intelligence is created from non intelligence, which is impossible. I am censored and to end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Thank you.

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Do you have a PhD in psychology from a scientifically accredited university in the field? You claim the credentials, but refuse to answer this simple question I’ve asked you now a half dozen times. My guess is, you know your theories are weak and so try to bolster them by claiming an education you don’t have.

    • @markb3786
      @markb3786 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@longcastle4863 whether or does or not is moot. he is just making another god of the gaps argument to the Christian God.

  • @mickeybrumfield764
    @mickeybrumfield764 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It seems inherent as part of the condition of being a finite being that we can never know if we have free-will. It takes an all-knowing all seeing being such as God to know to what extent we have free-will. It would also seem that when we as humans think of the idea of free will , we have a bit of a prejudice in the outcome.

  • @evaadam3635
    @evaadam3635 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    "Philosophy of Free Will"
    One grave error common to many religions such as Islam, Christianity, etc., is the belief that the "Free Will to Choose" was created by God. This grave error is making God all responsible for the evils that men choose to do because, without the creation of free will, men would NOT be able to freely choose evil or good.
    Understanding one's personal ACCOUNTABILITY based on CREATED free will would be impossible to do if you do not even have any idea why you exists here in the first place. The following light may help you see the whole picture, pls read w/ patience :
    Consciousness was once the sole power of the Holy Spirit when He was all alone.... but, after God split Himself into free souls to have a free family to love and to be loved, this sole power of consciousness was also split and shared...Free Will was therefore NOT created but shared..
    ...and for you to understand, we all are responsible for the existence of our Physical Universe because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD who created this Great Cosmos before He split Himself into free souls (us).
    In other words, as One Whole God, we all have the hand in the decision to split and the decision to create this Universe. So, God alone is not all accountable for all the consequences of the decision to split just to have a free loving family. WE ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE !
    You soon will discover this truth when your temporary "life's chance of salvation through faith" ends where only your immortal souls survive...
    In the beginning is the "WORD" which does not mean man's vocal chords but means the vibrations of spirits from a tiny portion of God's infinite Spiritual World that had FUSED to create our Physical World. This is how the Universe begun, not by explosion nor inflation but by FUSION...
    ...and, as ONE WHOLE GOD before we split, our purpose for the creation of this Cosmos is to provide a temporary home for free splits, or us free souls, who may go astray for a chance of salvation through faith.
    ...by the way, natural calamities, diseases, or all sufferings you undergo in this Universe can NOT destroy your immortal soul. Only losing faith or without faith in a loving God can hurt your soul.
    This Universe was magnifecently fine-tuned with imperfections for us to understand what is bad, good, better, or best, ugly or beautiful, so for us to have a hint that there is better or worse place out there (heaven & hell) to hopefully find faith in God.
    So, focus more on your soul's fate because it is your immortal soul that survives when your temporary physical body dies and rots.
    Once again, the purpose of the creation of Physical Universe is for lost souls, who fell from Heaven, to have a temporary home for a chance of salvation through regaining faith in a loving God.
    Our lost souls were sent here (on our request) so to have a chance of salvation by regaining the faith that we lost that ended us all in hell - a state of cold dark nothingness...We lost Heaven because we lost faith, so only by regaining this faith that we can return Home.
    ... In other words, we were not sent here to know but to believe because knowledge can compromise your free will to believe, so, evidence or proof is not required to have faith so for us all to be welcomed back to Heaven which is our Original Home. THIS IS THE MAIN PURPOSE.
    I do not know this. This is my understanding of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith. Believe it or not, you are free to choose. Pls share this light to all if you believe. This may resolve Christianity and Islam differences to possibly unite as one religion of faith in a loving God.

  • @dr_shrinker
    @dr_shrinker 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Freewill means unhindered choice -- yet, every choice we face is hindered by physics. What does this say about freewill?

    • @caricue
      @caricue 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's how you've chosen to define free will, but it seems like you are stacking the deck to get the outcome you desire. How about free will meaning that you generate behaviors that you predict will bring you desired outcomes.

  • @CrowMagnum
    @CrowMagnum 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Free will is in the feedback path that updates the system that chooses, but that pattern is fractal recursive

  • @S3RAVA3LM
    @S3RAVA3LM 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    We don't possess freewill, as in a thing we own( we don't 'have' freewill).
    Antithesis to freewill is being 'acted upon' or controlled.
    Being acted upon entails karma(action) and something that's more powerful than what is below.
    Being 'acted upon' implies that which is in act after being acted upon must participate in that which acts.
    What is that which has the authority to act upon other things?
    There's 'That' which is not in act nor acts upon any; that which can not be acted upon, but acts upon others; that which is acted upon and can act upon others; and that which is acted upon but does not act.
    What is this great 'Will', this revolution, this procession and then regression?
    There is something in man, the Intellect. And it's capable of going Up, and also going down. If there's something like freewill it is there, and is a potiential.

    • @S3RAVA3LM
      @S3RAVA3LM 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@halcyon2864 how bout you and your boyfriend here take it somewhere's else. And then you can give each other thumbs up all night long.

  • @Nonconceptuality
    @Nonconceptuality 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    "Will" refers to the future and includes a "Won't". Every human has said "I will do..." and "I won't do...", only to have those statements turn out to be false. How many times have you declared, with all sincerity "I will do..." and then end up not doing that which you willed? How many times have you declared: "I'm never doing..." only to end up doing exactly what you will-notted?
    It's a narrative that projects the illusion of the separately existing identity "your name here." The narrative has been written in such a way as to make it appear as though there is a choice to do something other than what is being done. The voice in your head isn't controlling anything that is occurring in the physical realm, it is creating a fantasy world that branches off of the experience of the senses (the physical realm)
    There is no "will" or "will not". This is a system manufactured by the voice in your head, to project the illusion that the Self IS the voice in your head.

  • @johnbowen4442
    @johnbowen4442 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Dictatorships like Russia , China , North Korea , others the people have far less free will they have to do what the government tells them period ? In democracies people have more free will to do what they want and learn from their choices which system is more succesfull has a much higher standard of living ? So than free will is logically better than non will and therefore is a reality of how things work ?

  • @Robinson8491
    @Robinson8491 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    I also want to be a philospher, but I'm afraid it will be bad for my hairline

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      *"I also want to be a philospher, but I'm afraid it will be bad for my hairline."*
      ... Descartes was a hippie. However, when you become a physicist, your hair turns gray and looks like you stuck your finger in a light socket.

  • @LucasGage
    @LucasGage 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Only God has free will; in order for us to have it as well, we must learn to submit to the Cosmic will. "Learn" is not a choice; learning is a process.

    • @aiya5777
      @aiya5777 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      is being God is a job he couldn't choose? if you said yes, not even God had free will

    • @archangelarielle262
      @archangelarielle262 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Free will is incoherent under any defintion.
      Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them.
      Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression.
      Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction.
      If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason?
      Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason.
      A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them?
      What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything.
      So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are.
      I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught.
      These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory.
      True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics.
      You can only do anything for 2 reasons; because you want to, or you are forced to:
      You can do whatever you want, but you cannot choose what you want. It’s a fact that you cannot change. Try this with any scenario.
      E.g., I give you 2 ice cream flavours to pick from: your favourite (x) and unknown (y). You will choose what you want more. If you pick your favourite x, it’s because you want it presumably for whatever reason it’s your favourite (taste/ texture, nostalgia, safe choice etc.) If you pick y, maybe it’s because you want to try something new in case it’s your new favourite, and this want becomes higher than the want of having your favourite ice cream, which you never chose to want more. Perhaps despite preferring x, you choose y in an effort to regain control of free will and nothing else. You still fall into the same problem; In order to do that, you'd need to "want" to regain your free will, as you see it.
      Why is your desire to prove a point like this stronger than the desire to have the ice cream you prefer? It just is, and if it happened not to be, you'd have chosen the ice cream that you do prefer. The key takeaway is this: you cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. Try to not want it. Think of something you don't want and try to want it. It's not possible. And even if it were, in order to change a don't want into a want, you'd need to want to want it. And vice versa. To change want into a don't want, you'd need to want to not want it. You simply can't control what you want.
      So being forced to do something isn't free will, and wanting to do something isn't free will.
      But being forced or wanting to do something are the only reasons why you do anything.
      You never lined up all the flavours; a,b,c…x,y,z… and said “I’m choosing for x to be my favourite”, rather it is innate to you, based on internal and external variables that you did not choose.
      Why did you choose x? Because I like the way it tastes, or maybe it’s nostalgic because my nan used to give to me as a boy. But again, why? Because it’s how my gustatory system is wired (in which you didn’t choose), or because that’s what my nan was raised to eat as well. I can ask why, ad Infinitum.
      But why did that resonate with you and not something else? You keep digging existentially deeper, you’re left with bio/chemical/physical mechanics and processes that you have no control of that creates the whole illusion of the experience of you. You did not pick your taste buds, or brain sensory input/ output systems or to be in that environment for that nan to provide you with those experiences. Why will have an infinite regression to a point you cannot explain. “It just is”.
      Why, will always have a why question following it into an infinite regression.
      Divine Foreknowledge:
      The argument is not that God predetermined what he knows ahead of time, it is that in order to infallibly know what will happen in the future, what will happen in the future has to be written in stone. Even if it’s not written in stone by God, it still has to be written in stone in order for God to know it infallibly. Knowing something will happen, even infallibly doesn't deterministically cause it to happen. The point is that in order to infallibly know that an event will happen, that event has to be predetermined. It doesn't have to be predetermined by the knowledge you have, but in order to have that knowledge infallibly, the event cannot be free to not occur. To say that an event is free to occur or not occur is to say whether it will occur or not cannot be infallibly known. There is no coherent scenario, not even hypothetically in which these events do not occur.
      Even if God is outside time, and our future actions are retroactively causing God to know about them infallibly in the present, then they also lock us into committing them inescapably, otherwise we could defy God's foreknowledge. This would mean that I am predetermined to take every action I will ever take. If we aren't free to act differently, in the future, from how he, presently know we will act, because from his perspective it's already happened, then we have no more freedom to change the future, that we have to change the past.

    • @aiya5777
      @aiya5777 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@archangelarielle262 do you seriously think that
      somebody would be willing to read that wall text of yours? Lol

    • @archangelarielle262
      @archangelarielle262 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@aiya5777 the first 2 sentences will suffice.

    • @aiya5777
      @aiya5777 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@archangelarielle262 if free will doesn't exist, it's a harmless belief to keep
      If free will does exist, those who don't believe it would ofc miss the greatest treasure in life
      being pragmatic is the best choice in handling the free will conundrum

  • @stephenzhao5809
    @stephenzhao5809 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    1:55 ... and other people think other philosophers no that's not enough for free will it really needs to be the case that at the moment of decision uh something else could have happened and usually what they would like is that you could have made another decision an alternative decision so you can sort of roll back time if you can picture it roll it back 5 minutes roll it forward turns out differently or roll it back 2 seconds and roll it forward and it could turn out differently some people require that for free will 2:26

  • @holgerjrgensen2166
    @holgerjrgensen2166 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Life is Eternal,
    Will, goes in developing-circuits,
    from minimum to maximum.

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    God gave us free will so we can choose.
    Thanks God.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Then punished us for 'choosing wrong'. Thanks, with a cheery on top.

    • @mikel5582
      @mikel5582 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      That makes zero rational sense. A creation cannot logically be responsible for how it was created. A self-driving car can make myriad decisions but, if it starts running over pedestrians, the manufacturer (i.e., creator) is responsible.

    • @tedgrant2
      @tedgrant2 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @LifesInsight
      It still doesn't choose the destination

    • @tedgrant2
      @tedgrant2 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @LifesInsight
      You mean a service station ?

  • @r2c3
    @r2c3 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    is free will part of any equation or did it emerge from one 🤔

  • @Brody.W
    @Brody.W 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Galatians 3:13-14..

  • @lovetownsend
    @lovetownsend 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    There is 0 evidence for free-will. Anytime I open these videos expecting a decent argument for it, it's just philosopher's word playing, loosening the definition, dancing around surface level arguments. I don't know why this is even a debate to be honest. Cause it hurts our feelings thinking we are machines? You have as much free-will as deciding not to scream when stabbed in the knee lol

    • @richardatkinson4710
      @richardatkinson4710 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      “To be honest”/“hurts our feelings” - there’s evidence of free will right there.

    • @Bill..N
      @Bill..N 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      On the flipside, what EVIDENCE do you propose falsifies "free will" ?

    • @warrengibson7898
      @warrengibson7898 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Were you exercising free will when made that pronouncement or were you just a machine making noisees?

    • @Bill..N
      @Bill..N 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Would the evidence for NO free will be derived from physics as in the idea of a fully deterministic universe? Maybe even a block universe? Maybe tests done in a neurology lab on when subjects become aware of decisions reached a few milliseconds earlier as the result of an orchestra of merged inputs. Something else, friend? I understand that free will may not exist in the classic sense that people generally imagine .. That does not equate to zero freewill or agency, though, right?

    • @dr_shrinker
      @dr_shrinker 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Bill..Nbecause your decisions are hindered by physical events. Freewill means “unhindered” decision.
      If you asked a blind person to pick a white sock out of a pile of socks, how is their choice unhindered?

  • @philipdesantos5275
    @philipdesantos5275 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    You do not define your initial conditions - the sperm meeting the egg. You then develop in the womb as a group of cells interactinng with your environment - you have no say in what that environment is - is your mother an alcoholic does she shout or sing a lot etc? You then pop out of the womb and continue to interact with your environment which dictates what you do, think say etc. You may decide to change your environment by (eg moving house, changing occupation etc) but it is the initial conditions combined with the environment which you are in that dictate what you do, all the decisions you make etc. Also quantum events are occurring in your brain all the the time which you may say adds a bit of Indeterminism but you are not aware of all these events, you have no control. All you can say is that you are conscious but being conscious does not mean that you have free will. Free will is an illusion but a life without this illusion would be unbearable.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      If you look at yourself as an individual moving through the world with knowledge and intention, then it's pretty obvious that only you are in control of your body and behaviors. If you don't believe that this individual is making their own choices, then who exactly is?

    • @philipdesantos5275
      @philipdesantos5275 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I don't see myself as separate from everthing else. I am not an individual cut off from my environment. Take my environment away I cease to exist as a corporeal being. I need to eat and drink to live. I need nature, plants and animals to survive. I have a lot of time for the basic beliefs of all mystics when they talk of seeing reality ie according to A C Bouquet's analysis of genuine mystical experience through all major religions:-
      1. That all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity;
      2. That evil is illusory, and the illusion arises through regarding a part of the universe as being self subsistent;
      3. that time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense of being out of time.
      There is something that some physicists call the "Block universe" everything across all time is fixed and immutable. Some call it Tao - see Tao Te Ching.
      Some people confuse being conscious of the thoughts that you are having as being indicative of having free will. Consciousness I do have, free no. I have simply reacted with your post having drunk a bottle of wine and feeling happy not to be alone - though really deep down we all are.
      . I have not had the mystical experience of seeing reality but intellectually agree with the fundamental beliefs of genuine mystics who have experienced it. ie as ascertained by Bertrand Russell 1)

  • @eensio
    @eensio 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Free will is religious concept to try to solve the problem of evil.

    • @gettaasteroid4650
      @gettaasteroid4650 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      yeah, from the bronze age? It's just that these new age varieties seem to describe something real and intriguingly often share the same wrapper with the problem of evil

    • @richardatkinson4710
      @richardatkinson4710 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Without free will there can be no evil, only fact.

  • @SingularitySplitting
    @SingularitySplitting 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This channel keeps deleting my posts about free will, which makes me wonder if it is automated?

  • @Lopfff
    @Lopfff 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    People who defend free will: “Free will exists; you just have to redefine HAVING free will to FEELING LIKE you have free will”

    • @LouisHochmanTheJourno
      @LouisHochmanTheJourno 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It's more lke this: There is no "you" that sits outside of the system of the universe. You're a system in the universe, and every system in the universe is a subsystem of the universe itself.
      The idea that "you" could cause things in the universe without being part of it, and without being subject to its rules, isn't coherent. Even if you're a spirit or a soul, we have to factor that "you" in as part of the universe.
      You can make decisions subject to your nature. If nothing external stops you from doing that, you can be said to be free.
      There are always constraints. You can't just defy gravity or shoot lasers from your eyes. What you will to do has to be compatible with the way things work. And you'll always be subject to influences and prior causes - your upbringing, peer pressure, economic pressure, social norms, the limits inherent to the choices in front of you. Your own subconscious desires.
      When those are weak enough contributors to the decision that you might reasonably override them, if you want, we say you're free.
      When they're not - say, someone puts a gun to your head - we say you're not.
      The dividing line between free and not in that sense is subjective. It's all matters of degree.
      But there's no situation where you can escape your own nature (what would that even mean? You wouldn't be you if you did) or the external forces that influence you.

    • @Lopfff
      @Lopfff 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@LouisHochmanTheJourno Very well said

    • @evaadam3635
      @evaadam3635 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      "Philosophy of Free Will"
      One grave error common to many religions such as Islam, Christianity, etc., is the belief that the "Free Will to Choose" was created by God. This grave error is making God all responsible for the evils that men choose to do because, without the creation of free will, men would NEVER be able to freely choose evil or good.
      Understanding one's personal ACCOUNTABILITY based on a CREATED free will would be impossible to do if you do not even have any idea why you exists here in the first place. The following light may help you see the whole picture, pls read w/ patience :
      Consciousness was once the sole power of the Holy Spirit when He was all alone.... but, after God split Himself into free souls to have a free family to love and to be loved, this sole power of consciousness was also split and shared...Free Will was therefore NOT created but shared..
      ...and for you to understand, we all are responsible for the existence of our Physical Universe because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD who created this Great Cosmos before He split Himself into free souls (us).
      In other words, as One Whole God, we all have the hand in the decision to split and the decision to create this Universe. So, God alone is not all accountable for all the consequences of the decision to split just to have a free loving family. WE ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE !
      You soon will discover this truth when your temporary "life's chance of salvation through faith" ends where only your immortal souls survive...
      In the beginning is the "WORD" which does not mean man's vocal chords but means the vibrations of spirits from a tiny portion of God's infinite Spiritual World that had FUSED to create our Physical World. This is how the Universe begun, not by explosion nor inflation but by FUSION...
      ...and, as ONE WHOLE GOD before we split, our purpose for the creation of this Cosmos is to provide a temporary home for free splits, or us free souls, who may go astray for a chance of salvation through faith.
      ...by the way, natural calamities, diseases, or all sufferings you undergo in this Universe can NOT destroy your immortal soul. Only losing faith or without faith in a loving God can hurt your soul.
      This Universe was magnifecently fine-tuned with imperfections for us to understand what is bad, good, better, or best, ugly or beautiful, so for us to have a hint that there is better or worse place out there (heaven & hell) to hopefully find faith in God.
      So, focus more on your soul's fate because it is your immortal soul that survives when your temporary physical body dies and rots.
      Once again, the purpose of the creation of Physical Universe is for lost souls, who fell from Heaven, to have a temporary home for a chance of salvation through regaining faith in a loving God.
      Our lost souls were sent here (on our request) so to have a chance of salvation by regaining the faith that we lost that ended us all in hell - a state of cold dark nothingness...We lost Heaven because we lost faith, so only by regaining this faith that we can return Home.
      ... In other words, we were not sent here to know but to believe because knowledge can compromise your free will to believe, so, evidence or proof is not required to have faith so for us all to be welcomed back to Heaven which is our Original Home. THIS IS THE MAIN PURPOSE.
      I do not know this. This is my understanding of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith. Believe it or not, you are free to choose. Pls share this light to all if you believe. This may resolve Christianity and Islam differences to possibly unite as one religion of faith in a loving God.

  • @Kyedo2022
    @Kyedo2022 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    round and round, srry this channel now blocked. I'll check back when there are some answers(never). I am going to focus on problems that have a solution. These talks will never go anywhere.

    • @archangelarielle262
      @archangelarielle262 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Free will is incoherent under any defintion.
      Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them.
      Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression.
      Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction.
      If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason?
      Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason.
      A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them?
      What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything.
      So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are.
      I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught.
      These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory.
      True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics.
      You can only do anything for 2 reasons; because you want to, or you are forced to:
      You can do whatever you want, but you cannot choose what you want. It’s a fact that you cannot change. Try this with any scenario.
      E.g., I give you 2 ice cream flavours to pick from: your favourite (x) and unknown (y). You will choose what you want more. If you pick your favourite x, it’s because you want it presumably for whatever reason it’s your favourite (taste/ texture, nostalgia, safe choice etc.) If you pick y, maybe it’s because you want to try something new in case it’s your new favourite, and this want becomes higher than the want of having your favourite ice cream, which you never chose to want more. Perhaps despite preferring x, you choose y in an effort to regain control of free will and nothing else. You still fall into the same problem; In order to do that, you'd need to "want" to regain your free will, as you see it.
      Why is your desire to prove a point like this stronger than the desire to have the ice cream you prefer? It just is, and if it happened not to be, you'd have chosen the ice cream that you do prefer. The key takeaway is this: you cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. Try to not want it. Think of something you don't want and try to want it. It's not possible. And even if it were, in order to change a don't want into a want, you'd need to want to want it. And vice versa. To change want into a don't want, you'd need to want to not want it. You simply can't control what you want.
      So being forced to do something isn't free will, and wanting to do something isn't free will.
      But being forced or wanting to do something are the only reasons why you do anything.
      You never lined up all the flavours; a,b,c…x,y,z… and said “I’m choosing for x to be my favourite”, rather it is innate to you, based on internal and external variables that you did not choose.
      Why did you choose x? Because I like the way it tastes, or maybe it’s nostalgic because my nan used to give to me as a boy. But again, why? Because it’s how my gustatory system is wired (in which you didn’t choose), or because that’s what my nan was raised to eat as well. I can ask why, ad Infinitum.
      But why did that resonate with you and not something else? You keep digging existentially deeper, you’re left with bio/chemical/physical mechanics and processes that you have no control of that creates the whole illusion of the experience of you. You did not pick your taste buds, or brain sensory input/ output systems or to be in that environment for that nan to provide you with those experiences. Why will have an infinite regression to a point you cannot explain. “It just is”.
      Why, will always have a why question following it into an infinite regression.
      Divine Foreknowledge:
      The argument is not that God predetermined what he knows ahead of time, it is that in order to infallibly know what will happen in the future, what will happen in the future has to be written in stone. Even if it’s not written in stone by God, it still has to be written in stone in order for God to know it infallibly. Knowing something will happen, even infallibly doesn't deterministically cause it to happen. The point is that in order to infallibly know that an event will happen, that event has to be predetermined. It doesn't have to be predetermined by the knowledge you have, but in order to have that knowledge infallibly, the event cannot be free to not occur. To say that an event is free to occur or not occur is to say whether it will occur or not cannot be infallibly known. There is no coherent scenario, not even hypothetically in which these events do not occur.
      Even if God is outside time, and our future actions are retroactively causing God to know about them infallibly in the present, then they also lock us into committing them inescapably, otherwise we could defy God's foreknowledge. This would mean that I am predetermined to take every action I will ever take. If we aren't free to act differently, in the future, from how he, presently know we will act, because from his perspective it's already happened, then we have no more freedom to change the future, that we have to change the past.

  • @JohnQPublic11
    @JohnQPublic11 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    “People have free-will but they couldn’t have done otherwise.” rotfl! This is the amazing level of stupidity philosophy finds itself.

  • @Brody.W
    @Brody.W 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Jesus Christ of Nazareth..

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Jesus was one of dozens of messiah-like prophet figures that arose in Israel from about 200 BCE to 70 AD. All of them performing miracles and preaching the imminent kingdom of God. Most of these were persecuted by the Roman authorities and killed and often their followers coped with the loss by claiming their leader had ascended to heaven where he sat with God awaiting the day of judgement. Jesus story just stuck more than the others for various reasons.

    • @S3RAVA3LM
      @S3RAVA3LM 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ​@@longcastle4863 everything you comment is always garbage.

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@S3RAVA3LM Just the facts ma’am.

    • @S3RAVA3LM
      @S3RAVA3LM 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@longcastle4863 is that supposed to be an insult. I know of genuine woman, their Divine femininity has more balls than you, boy.
      You're such a coward you follow closer to truth, you speak of clowns like Kant often. Having direction is a man's quality, and you don't.

    • @archangelarielle262
      @archangelarielle262 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@longcastle4863Free will is incoherent under any defintion.
      Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them.
      Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression.
      Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction.
      If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason?
      Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason.
      A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them?
      What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything.
      So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are.
      I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught.
      These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory.
      True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics.
      You can only do anything for 2 reasons; because you want to, or you are forced to:
      You can do whatever you want, but you cannot choose what you want. It’s a fact that you cannot change. Try this with any scenario.
      E.g., I give you 2 ice cream flavours to pick from: your favourite (x) and unknown (y). You will choose what you want more. If you pick your favourite x, it’s because you want it presumably for whatever reason it’s your favourite (taste/ texture, nostalgia, safe choice etc.) If you pick y, maybe it’s because you want to try something new in case it’s your new favourite, and this want becomes higher than the want of having your favourite ice cream, which you never chose to want more. Perhaps despite preferring x, you choose y in an effort to regain control of free will and nothing else. You still fall into the same problem; In order to do that, you'd need to "want" to regain your free will, as you see it.
      Why is your desire to prove a point like this stronger than the desire to have the ice cream you prefer? It just is, and if it happened not to be, you'd have chosen the ice cream that you do prefer. The key takeaway is this: you cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. Try to not want it. Think of something you don't want and try to want it. It's not possible. And even if it were, in order to change a don't want into a want, you'd need to want to want it. And vice versa. To change want into a don't want, you'd need to want to not want it. You simply can't control what you want.
      So being forced to do something isn't free will, and wanting to do something isn't free will.
      But being forced or wanting to do something are the only reasons why you do anything.
      You never lined up all the flavours; a,b,c…x,y,z… and said “I’m choosing for x to be my favourite”, rather it is innate to you, based on internal and external variables that you did not choose.
      Why did you choose x? Because I like the way it tastes, or maybe it’s nostalgic because my nan used to give to me as a boy. But again, why? Because it’s how my gustatory system is wired (in which you didn’t choose), or because that’s what my nan was raised to eat as well. I can ask why, ad Infinitum.
      But why did that resonate with you and not something else? You keep digging existentially deeper, you’re left with bio/chemical/physical mechanics and processes that you have no control of that creates the whole illusion of the experience of you. You did not pick your taste buds, or brain sensory input/ output systems or to be in that environment for that nan to provide you with those experiences. Why will have an infinite regression to a point you cannot explain. “It just is”.
      Why, will always have a why question following it into an infinite regression.
      Divine Foreknowledge:
      The argument is not that God predetermined what he knows ahead of time, it is that in order to infallibly know what will happen in the future, what will happen in the future has to be written in stone. Even if it’s not written in stone by God, it still has to be written in stone in order for God to know it infallibly. Knowing something will happen, even infallibly doesn't deterministically cause it to happen. The point is that in order to infallibly know that an event will happen, that event has to be predetermined. It doesn't have to be predetermined by the knowledge you have, but in order to have that knowledge infallibly, the event cannot be free to not occur. To say that an event is free to occur or not occur is to say whether it will occur or not cannot be infallibly known. There is no coherent scenario, not even hypothetically in which these events do not occur.
      Even if God is outside time, and our future actions are retroactively causing God to know about them infallibly in the present, then they also lock us into committing them inescapably, otherwise we could defy God's foreknowledge. This would mean that I am predetermined to take every action I will ever take. If we aren't free to act differently, in the future, from how he, presently know we will act, because from his perspective it's already happened, then we have no more freedom to change the future, that we have to change the past.

  • @alanschaub147
    @alanschaub147 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Free will is commensurate with consciousness. ❤

    • @jeremymanson1781
      @jeremymanson1781 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I don't think a cow really has free will. So I assume you mean a fairly highly developed level of self-consciousness?

    • @alanschaub147
      @alanschaub147 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jeremymanson1781
      The more consciousness, the more capacity for free will. A cow has more consciousness than a plant, and therefore more capacity for free will.

    • @jeremymanson1781
      @jeremymanson1781 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@alanschaub147 that sounds plausible to me

  • @longcastle4863
    @longcastle4863 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    When thinking about free will (which I define as just the ability to make choices from the options available to one) I think it’s best to think about when and how and for what reasons the ability to makes choices emerged in the course of biological evolution on this planet. Imo, the ability to make choices either emerged with the very first life forms (at a very “proto” kind of level) or developed some time later in the animal kingdom. But with increasing autonomy in either case, nevertheless, continuing to be selected for through the process of evolution because of the advantages in provided the species who had it in adapting to and surviving in their environments.

    • @mikel5582
      @mikel5582 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      What exactly is making the choice? Bacteria make a "choice" to propel themselves towards a nutrient gradient via a process called chemotaxis. Is that choice really free will or is it just the organism's molecular machinery doing what it evolved to do. More complex organisms use similar biochemical and biophysical processes as part of their ecological strategy.
      It's funny that human survival involves myriad molecular processes that proceed without any notice. The fact that we notice consciousness doesn't make the processes behind it any freer than all of the other processes.

  • @mikel4879
    @mikel4879 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo!
    Total BS!

  • @bozo5632
    @bozo5632 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Settle determinism first.

  • @rickwyant
    @rickwyant 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It seems like free will but it ain't

  • @Maxwell-mv9rx
    @Maxwell-mv9rx 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Free Will is fallacies because unpredictable conscieusness not Control random reality. This guys doesnt know nothing about philosophy proceendings. What he is showing is pseud philosophy and rambling gibberich. Though free Will proceendings nothing is true nil absolutetly

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      He didn't advocate for any particular view on free will, he was only explaining some of the ideas about it.

  • @boonraypipatchol7295
    @boonraypipatchol7295 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    No Freewill...
    Causes and Consequences...