This was a super productive discussion. Maybe because they both are neuroscientists. Some interviews are just about asking questions, but in this case, it’s a deep discussion that goes both ways. Great to see.
The first 8 minutes was, to me, just a contradiction: All is material, but, you can modulate. So how would you modulate it? If it's all material, then your modulating would also be material and that is not free. After the 8 minutes they began to discuss split brain and what the brain is, "conscious" of. I found that far more intriguiging. If indeed the brain "doesn't know," or does, but is not "conscious" of this knowledge, how does the "free" modulating work? Modulating is choosing. But if it's not conscious, how can you choose? My question doesn't prove or disprove anything. Just confused on how the unconscious brain can be convinced to actively modulate.. Help me.............
How does non-materiality grant the power of modulation, in a way that materiality does not? Can physical systems not modulate things? Most of our mental processes happen subconsciously. When you are talking rapidly in conversation, are you consciously choosing each word from a set of possible options you think about individually? Even if you did, how would the different words get on the list to choose from, would that be a conscious process? The actual generation of our stream of speech is, most of the time, and almost entirely subconscious process, it just pops into our conscious awareness just before we say it, sometimes too late to avoid an embarrassing mistake. We can consciously think through how to phrase something, of course, but consciously thinking through things is a slow and tiring process. Our subconscious cognition is much quicker and more efficient. I think this is why a lot of people think that consciousness gets beamed into our heads somehow from some numinous realm. Our thoughts do very often seem to come from 'nowhere'. That doesn't solve the problem though, the thoughts coming from 'elsewhere' just punts the problem to that elsewhere. It's still the case that most of our cognition is not accessible to our conscious awareness, wherever or whatever that is.
The modulation is itself a deterministic process, the unconscious brain being "convinced" to modulate is a deterministic process. You aren't missing anything, this interview just wasn't useful.
2:14 The fact that it doesn't make sense to talk about a person as a unified whole (from a certain perspective) misses the point when talking about free will. For one, how do you just start with the assertion that these 2 intentions represent 2 free wills? It begs the question. It also doesn't satisfy the only meaningful question about supposedly freely made choices, how did either hemisphere become the kind of hemisphere that would have that intention and make that choice?
If I eat peanuts, I eat them from my free will. I I have to go to the WC, I go there from my free will. I am not so stupid as to do something that I don't want to do, like not eating delicious peanuts or peeing in my pants.
After watching this I have chosen to believe I have no free will, this also absolves me of responsibility for all the awful things I choose to do going forward 😈
You can use those words, and in some sense they can be correct. But it doesn't absolve you if the consequence of your actions. For example, if you kill someone, you will still be put in prison (or worse). It doesn't really matter if you had complete free will or not. Consequences are generally set up based on what level of choice you have in a matter.
Anything that can undergo change by its own intention has free will. The onus is on those who "believe" that intention is merely a pretext. A pretext to an unchanging law. It cannot be that the law that makes us pull our hand out of a fire also controls those who force themselves to keep their hand in the fire. A law that changes is inconsistent to determinism. What unchanging law or set of laws determines the consciousness of living beings with self-consciousness and without?
You specifically mentioned a law that makes us pull a hand from fire, or something like that. I presume you meant a law in the scientific sense. I'm specifically asking what law that is. Or perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the comment?
@@mikel5582 What is a "law"? An unchanging rule, no? Is not the subject in this post about free will and, by extension, determinism? Are you unaware of the scientific foundations of Determinism coming from the "mechanical universe"? That the human being is also controlled by these laws? Do you really not know, or are you pretending? Do you contend that the laws of mechanics and electricity and chemistry play no part in the human body?
@@kallianpublico7517 By your own comment, that "law" cannot be a law since it is not unchanging. At this point I'm not even sure which argument you're trying to make. Regarding the personal questions about me, I'm a successful scientist who has studied life at the molecular level for the last 30+ years so you can rest assured that I'm familiar with the chemical and physical underpinnings of biology.
" This is not a personal problem, it is a philosophical question. Our lives are both predestined and they are not. Both yes and no. And both answers are true for all questions about life. In a way, everything is predetermined. Whatever is physical in you, material, whatever is mental, is predetermined. But something in you constantly remains undetermined, unpredictable. That something is your consciousness. If you are identified with your body and your material existence, in the same proportion you are determined by cause and effect. Then you are a machine. But if you are not identified with your material existence, with either body or mind - if you can feel yourself as something separate, different, above and transcendent to body-mind - then that transcending consciousness is not predetermined. It is spontaneous, free. Consciousness means freedom; matter means slavery. So it depends on how you define yourself. If you say, ”I am only the body,” then everything about you is completely determined. A person who says that man is only the body cannot say that man is not predetermined. Ordinarily, persons who do not believe in such a thing as consciousness also do not believe in predetermination. Persons who are religious and believe in consciousness ordinarily believe in predetermination. So what I am saying may look very contradictory. But still, it is the case. A person who has known consciousness has known freedom. So only a spiritual person can say there is no determination at all. That realization comes only when you are completely unidentified with the body. If you feel that you are just a material existence, then no freedom is possible. With matter, no freedom is possible. Matter means that which cannot be free. It must flow in the chain of cause and effect. Once someone has achieved consciousness, enlightenment, he is completely out of the realm of cause and effect. He becomes absolutely unpredictable. You cannot say anything about him. He begins to live each moment; his existence becomes atomic. Your existence is a river-like chain in which every step is determined by the past. Your future is not really future; it is just a by-product of the past. It is only the past determining, shaping, formulating and conditioning your future. That is why your future is predictable. Skinner says that man is as predictable as anything else. The only difficulty is that we have not yet devised the means to know his total past. The moment we can know his past, we can predict everything about him. Based upon the people he has worked with, Skinner is right, because they are all ultimately predictable. He has experimented with hundreds of people and he has found that they are all mechanical beings, that nothing exists within them that can be called freedom. But his study is limited. No Buddha has come to his laboratory to be experimented upon. If even one person is free, if even one person is not mechanical, not predictable, Skinner’s whole theory falls. If one person in the whole history of mankind is free and unpredictable, then man is potentially free and unpredictable. The whole possibility of freedom depends on whether you emphasize your body or your consciousness. If you are just an outward flow of life, then everything is determined. Or are you something inner also? Do not give any preformulated answer. Do not say, ”I am the soul.” If you feel there is nothing inside you, then be honest about it. This honesty will be the first step toward the inner freedom of consciousness. If you go deeply inside, you will feel that everything is just part of the outside. Your body has come from without, your thoughts have come from without, even your self has been given to you by others. That is why you are so fearful of the opinion of others - because they are completely in control of your self. They can change their opinion of you at any moment. Your self, your body, your thoughts are given to you by others, so what is inside? You are layers and layers of outside accumulation. If you are identified with this personality of yours that comes from others, then everything is determined. Become aware of everything that comes from the outside and become non-identified with it. Then a moment will come when the outside falls completely. You will be in a vacuum. This vacuum is the passage between the outside and the inside, the door. We are so afraid of the vacuum, so afraid of being empty that we cling to the outside accumulation. One has to be courageous enough to disidentify with the accumulation and to remain in the vacuum. If you are not courageous enough, you will go out and cling to something, and be filled with it. But this moment of being in the vacuum is meditation. If you are courageous enough, if you can remain in this moment, soon your whole being will automatically turn inward. When there is nothing to be attached to from the outside, your being turns inward. Then you know for the first time that you are something that transcends everything you have been thinking yourself to be. Now you are something different from becoming; you are being. This being is free; nothing can determine it. It is absolute freedom. No chain of cause and effect is possible. Osho - Your actions are related to past actions. A created a situation for B to become possible; B creates a situation in which C flowers. Your acts are connected to past acts and this goes back to the beginningless beginning and on to the endless end. Not only do your own acts determine you, but your father’s and mother’s acts also have a continuity with yours. Your society, your history, all that has happened before, is somehow related to your present act. The whole history has come to flower in you. Everything that has ever happened is connected with your act, so your act is obviously determined. It is such a minute part of the whole picture. History is such a vital living force and your individual act is such a small part of it. Marx said, ”It is not consciousness that determines the conditions of society. It is society and its conditions that determines consciousness. It is not that great men create great societies. It is great societies that create great men.” And he is right in a way, because you are not the originator of your actions. The whole history has determined them. You are just carrying them out. The whole evolutionary process has gone into the making of your biological cells. These cells in you can then become part of another person. You may think that you are the father, but you have just been a stage on which the whole biological evolution has acted and has forced you to act. The act of procreation is so forceful because it is beyond you; it is the whole evolutionary process working through you. This is one way in which acts happen in relation to other past acts. But when a person becomes enlightened, a new phenomenon begins to happen. Acts are no longer connected with past acts. Any act, now, is connected only with his consciousness. It comes from his consciousness not from the past. That is why an enlightened person cannot be predicted. Skinner says that we can determine what you will do if your past acts are known. He says that the old proverb, ”You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,” is wrong. You can force him to. You can create an atmosphere so that the horse will have to drink. The horse can be forced, and you also can be forced, because your actions are created by situations, by circumstances. But even though you can bring a buddha to the river, you cannot force him to drink. The more you force him, the more impossible it will be. No heat will make him do it. Even if a thousand suns shine on him it will not help. A Buddha has a different origin of action. It is not concerned with other acts; it is connected with consciousness. That is why I emphasize that you act consciously. Then, every moment you act, it is not a question of a continuation of other acts. You are free. Now you begin to act, and no one can say how you will act. Habits are mechanical; they repeat themselves. The more you repeat something, the more efficient you become. Efficiency means that now consciousness is no longer needed. If a person is an efficient typist it means that no effort is needed; typing can be done unconsciously. Even if he is thinking about something else the typing continues. The body is typing; the man is not needed. Efficiency means that the thing is so certain that no effort is possible. With freedom, effort is always possible. A machine cannot make errors. To err, one has to be conscious. So your acts have a chain relationship with your previous acts. They are determined. Your childhood determines your youth; your youth determines your old age. Your birth determines your death; everything is determined. Buddha used to say, ”Provide the cause, and the effect will be there.” This is the world of cause and effect in which everything is determined. If you act with total consciousness, an altogether different situation exists. Then everything is moment to moment. Consciousness is a flow; it is not static. It is life itself, so it changes. It is alive. It goes on expanding; it goes on becoming new, fresh, young. Then, your acts will be spontaneous."
I think the sense of free will come from complexity. The more complex a system, the harder it is to understand the chain of events that led up to something.
4:24 "Nature does not change its laws once chosen." (Socrates); "A free man is a slave to the law." (Cicero); "The needs of the flesh are modest, that is, limited. The flesh clearly knows what it wants, and achieves it without frills. What is so terrible about the needs of the flesh? It wants to live, it wants to properly perform her functions, it resists pain. When the desires of the flesh are fulfilled, it does not invent new ones. Gluttony, drunkenness, debauchery are sins of the spirit*(imagination) in front of the flesh, at its expense and in spite of its protests, and not the other way around, although it is considered just the opposite. It is the flesh that finally pays all the bills - not only for its own, but also for all the follies of our spirit. The spirit is not limited by anything. He can imagine anything, and any of his ideas tends to be embodied. … Jokes aside. What kind of thoughts do not wander in the human head, and it is a great happiness that they cannot become reality without overcoming the resistance of matter. … I'm not saying that only bad thoughts are swarming in my head. But God forbid that noble, altruistic plans should also be carried out by themselves. So that any plan of the world order, born in one head, confident that this one plan is the one that the world needs, is implemented automatically and scrupulously. And the good Lord God really did not allow this, giving us time, matter and space in which, after all, everything should unfold... In the theater, directors with "ideas" scare me, but there are also those who are ready to direct the whole world. … The sense of smell makes us run away from the stench. The body of even the greatest criminal does not like to be near carrion, and the "purest" spirit quietly gets along with the greatest swinishness. The Spirit has always loved public executions, he loves to gather around street incidents and read about sexually motivated murders. … At a time when wars were fought hand-to-hand, only physical exhaustion, fatigue of the hands stopped the massacre. The spirit would continue to cut. Let the spirit reflect on this." (Mrozek, Short Letters, "Flesh and Spirit", fragment). P.S. It seems that true free will is a culture of self-restraint. ----------------- *) - consciousness.
3:57 I don't understand how the brain worms wiggle their way in at this point. It's like he's taken the content out of the word determined resulting in pure word salad. Obviously if the brain is determined by the states that precede it, if all choices made are the result of a continuous arch of gene sensitivity being modulated by environment in a self tuning feedback loop, then this *includes* moments where the prefrontal cortex steps in to inhibit. The PFC also doesn't have infinite willpower to do it's job, it's modulated by the states that precede it in the causal chain. Wtf man.
You have people like this guy who doubts that we have free will, and then you have people who doubt what this guy is saying is true. But to me since doubting is something freely done, we are free to use our will to doubt thus we have free will.
If you think you are free to disagree, then you must also be free to agree. So let me know when you truly agree with this. If you can't, then do you really have free will?
If free will does not exist, why does pain exist ? Since the obvious use of pain is to influence the will, if the will is absent, pain would be redundant.
“the obvious use of pain is to influence the will” Is it though? Pain is to alert our brain of harm being done to us. I don’t see how free will comes into that process, never-mind it being “the obvious use” of pain. If anything, pain and our involuntary reaction upon experiencing it is a better argument against free will than for it
@@cocodee23 Pain is superfluous to alerting the brain to harm. If you touch a hot surface the nociceptors in your skin trigger a reflex that causes you to remove your hand before you experience pain. The pain arises moments later as a product of the brain. I suspect it evolved as a reminder not to do the same thing again. I don't see it as an argument for or against free will, though it does illustrate that the brain produces real emotions which are not material in themselves, and these emotions effect our future behaviour. I would stress that I don't believe in dualism , but the physical brain is perhaps capable of some degree of self control and hence at least a degree of free will. I don't think this question will be resolved whilst the hard question of consciousness remains unanswered and don't understand why some people seem so certain one way or the other. I suppose some don't like to feel they are not in control and others like to be able to pass responsibility for their actions to a deterministic universe.
@johnhoward6201 In the old days people used torture to force you to say something or do something, so if you didn't have any free will how would the torture be effective or for that matter how would it even serve a purpose?
So, the interesting conclusion seems to be that ''freedom to will'' is apparently free in various degrees b u t within the causal constraint of biology of the brain processes and states.
Brain does not have a will, rather mind does ,🥰 Brain is just a conduit for mind. It's not inteligent 😘 Rather inteligence is part of mind, not of brain
I think I'm on the fence. I agree generally that the mind is this thing that requires a brain, and that in theory The Ship of Theseus could be crossed - a mind teleported or downloaded, etc. But I wonder how relevant quantum effects in our brain are, and how severely this would limit the practical ability to ever cross that ship. If we try to examine time and space too closely, we will create a black hole (see Nina Arkhani Ahmed videos). I fear our minds may be tied very closely to our brains like that, such that we will never get a complete picture of a mind, only a more accurate one.
Agree. To have real free will, we need to know what we are absolutely. We do not even know anything in absolute sense. It's only perceived free will, not real free will. For example of what we don't know: we don't even know ourselves. We don't know why our body does what it does to repair ourselves. We are not even aware of these things going on and we don't direct the body to repair itself. We don't have free will when we do not even know what we are.
Language is an issue and cause of misunderstandings and misperceptions as even science is using art of language to explain, describe and theorise. It guarantees ambiguity
Milton Erickson w indirect hypnosis created illogical binds of choice. "you may or may not notice" type statements. Once confused, patients would in a sense freeze from inability to decide. THEN Erickson could present an issue to consider w a story. Point is confusion needed to lead/restrict issue focus. Obviously the sales business loved this so who really has free will?
Willing Freedom or Freeing the Willing - it's simply Detaching by paying a Fee. To detach is by Intentionally attaching or allowing the flow of events - Authorship than Ownership.....So freedom is a Flexibility, exercised. Similarly, is the brain an ordering system or a feedback driven system??? Seems to be feedback based. Again dependent on Heart & other system given feedback.
Biophysics is a discipline. When I used to attend the annual meeting, roughly half of the presentations involved biophysical processes related to neuron activity. Of course, all of the discussion was relevant to the molecular underpinnings of life.
@@deanodebo free will 2 of 2 noun 1 : voluntary choice or decision I do this of my own free will 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention Merriam-Webster Most people who argue for free will refer to the first definition. True philosophical conflict lies in the second definition. If our choices are governed by prior causes, then we do not have a true “free will” as our choices are “caused” be internal or external factors, therefore no true libertarian free will.
@@edwardprokopchuk3264 if you don’t have free will, then you’re incapable of reasoning, and you’ve no control of your output So your argument has no force You’re literally refuting yourself
It's funny that in a conversation that is mostly about the works done by the unconscious mind, they are totally ignoring the unconscious mind!!! The materialistic approach to such a problem is: if the unconscious part of the mind cannot be observed, then it doesn't exist!!!
Zaidel at 13:22 calls his definition of free will a "copout." In other words, even though a person has the ability to "modulate" his/her behavior (satisfying Zaidel's definition of free will) s/he fundamentally has no choice about _whether_ to modulate it. The choice to modulate or not is determined by the laws of physics (assuming materialism is correct). It would be helpful in discussions of free will to begin by defining it. There seem to be two definitions, a "weak" free will that corresponds to the (limited) agency we clearly have, and a "strong" free will that's impossible according to the "known" laws of physics.
@brothermine2292, the laws of physics aren't the doer of activity. Rehabilitation of yourself is dependent on your desire to change your habits for the betterment of your own physical and mental health so you can live your life in good health.
>williamburts3114 : According to materialism, your "desire" is determined by the laws of physics. If you prefer to believe materialism is wrong, that's fine, but you shouldn't state your belief as if it's established fact.
@@brothermine2292 " your desire is determined by the laws of physics" yes, this a materialist belief but demonstration of this as a truth is something unproven.
Free will is non-dualism. Since we are dual, then there is no free will. Since we have many choices (dualism) we have no free will. The only free will choice we have, If only temporary, is between non-dualism and dualism. Between love and fear. Any choice based on fear is not free. Free will is freedom. Freedom from the dualism of constant choosing.
I am broke that's why I eat the peanut 🥜. I ddo it out of necessity, not because so I won't steal or disturb others. There are rich and poorly harvested. I eat the badly kind.
There a number of big issues that supporters of human determinism would have to address. A big one is creativity. Creativity is defined as creating something new. Think Mozart creating Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. For supporters of determinism there can't be anything new - at least not created by a human. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik must have somehow been embedded in the big bang to be suddenly revealed by Mozart 13.8 billions years later. In fact all creativity by everyone and anyone would be like this under full determinism. Really? Dr Kuhn - please do an episode or two on how creativity could exist (or not) in a determined world. I have never heard a supporter of determinism adequately address this.
New is a perspective, something that has always existed is still new to you if you've never experienced it before. I don't see what that has to do with determinism. Determinism allows for highly complex interactions that are irreducible in principle, meaning you have to play out each step to know what will happen because you can't predict the result from the initial conditions. This means from the perspective of the person witnessing a computational irreducibility play out, the results can be things that haven't been seen before, either by them or even never seen by anything ever before, so there ya go, new stuff arising from creativity in a completely determined universe.
6:11 What a stupifying statement. He just continues to describe distortions in the learning feedback loop that prevents a person from acquiring and processing information that would bring the learning feedback loop in harmony with its environment to better survive and asserting that this pathology is limiting "freedom". I'm disappointed.
I watched that show My 600 Pound Life and saw that the incredibly obese people were eating as if they were starving. Your body stores fat so that you won't starve or even be hungry between meals. Generally, this starving sensation is a result of a metabolic syndrome induced by excessive insulin being released since your body monitors blood sugar in order to know when it is hungry, and insulin drives blood sugar into cells. If you reduce sugar/carbs to a low/normal level it will stop this sensation of starving hunger. You may insist that you have an irresistible sweet tooth, but this is also your body trying not to die of starvation. It takes a couple weeks of very low sugar/carbs for you to feel the difference. Good luck.
When I give my dog a sausage he chooses to eat the sausage. He has never tried to eat my fingers, even though they are delicious. So I think his will is not completely free.
Everyone has free will..it's why God suffered with us.. people think God doesn't suffer with us. But the truth is God is the one who suffered the most. he didn't have to suffer..he chose to because he is a good God. Humanity rejects him but he still gives us life. Jesus Christ is king of kings The body is just a vessel
You always have the free will to draw outwards and consider the perspectives of the trillions upon trillion of disassociated cells within your body, within your surrounding, and within your universe at large; or you can withdraw into "self only", fixed ego perspective.
@@aleembabur9922 You always have the free will to (1) give greater or lesser consideration to the unknown perspectives of others around you or (2) give greater or lesser consideration to your own better known "ego self" perspectives.
@@aleembabur9922 Consider the perspective of brainless slime mold, which probably achieves its remarkable intelligence using the same fundamental physics as human intelligence.
@@stellarwind1946 The brain is deterministic, comparable to a computer. Input, process, output. The brain has no concept of time like we do when we are conscious. Brain is correlated to consciousness, but we don't know how consciousness happens. Consciousness is a unique entity in itself. It is in consciousness where we have control over which memories, what circumstances, and what expectations we freely choose to think about and act upon.
@@arnarsigurjonsson2511 An Indepth analysis of your brain even with the most sophisticated technology would not give me any information of your character. I would have to get to know you personally before I could know that.
So many words gave their lives to prove or disprove absolutely nothing. These discussions are meaningless and pointless. Experts try so hard to disprove what is blinding obvious. I have free-will because I do. Because I feel I do. To not have free-will is to absolve anybody of any action. These are semantic self-abuse sessions and of no practical worth.
He does believe we have free will, in the common everyday language sense, and in the causal sense necessary for responsibility. He doesn't think we have it in an abstract incoherent un-caused cause sense.
Your feeling- and is-from-ought-based arguments are not more persuasive or true when you express them scornfully and claim their obviousness. I hope in the future you take this topic more seriously, demand more logical rigor from yourself, and express your ideas in a way more appropriate to dispassionate inquiry.
@@rob.parsnips I believe he's citing the great thinker renowned for fearless exploration of the Seven Seas, an undying love for his sweetheart Olive Oyl, and the irrefutable wisdom summarized as: "I yams what I yams and that's all that I yams." You can apply all the fancy education and argumentation you want but you cannot refute the truth laid down by Popeye the Sailor Man.
"Free Will", per se is merely a religious term. Reason with me: IF your god is Omni a) Did he know what was going to happen before it did? b) Can you go against the Will of God? c) If Either A OR B is true then "Free Will" does NOT exist. If either A OR B are False, then your god is NOT Omni!
When you are attempting an internal critique, you have to be careful to do so accurately The problem with your critique is that the God you are supposing would be subject to the laws of logic rather than the creator of the laws of logic This fatal flaw renders your argument invalid
Free will is not a religious term. Where did you pull that from? Also, that argument seems to argue against the conjunction of god and free will, that is to say, god and free-will are incompatible. Nowhere does it show there is no free will.
This was a super productive discussion. Maybe because they both are neuroscientists. Some interviews are just about asking questions, but in this case, it’s a deep discussion that goes both ways. Great to see.
If zero is no understanding, and a million is total understanding, I think we’re at like a two on free will
0
The first 8 minutes was, to me, just a contradiction: All is material, but, you can modulate. So how would you modulate it? If it's all material, then your modulating would also be material and that is not free. After the 8 minutes they began to discuss split brain and what the brain is, "conscious" of. I found that far more intriguiging. If indeed the brain "doesn't know," or does, but is not "conscious" of this knowledge, how does the "free" modulating work? Modulating is choosing. But if it's not conscious, how can you choose? My question doesn't prove or disprove anything. Just confused on how the unconscious brain can be convinced to actively modulate.. Help me.............
How does non-materiality grant the power of modulation, in a way that materiality does not? Can physical systems not modulate things?
Most of our mental processes happen subconsciously. When you are talking rapidly in conversation, are you consciously choosing each word from a set of possible options you think about individually? Even if you did, how would the different words get on the list to choose from, would that be a conscious process?
The actual generation of our stream of speech is, most of the time, and almost entirely subconscious process, it just pops into our conscious awareness just before we say it, sometimes too late to avoid an embarrassing mistake. We can consciously think through how to phrase something, of course, but consciously thinking through things is a slow and tiring process. Our subconscious cognition is much quicker and more efficient.
I think this is why a lot of people think that consciousness gets beamed into our heads somehow from some numinous realm. Our thoughts do very often seem to come from 'nowhere'. That doesn't solve the problem though, the thoughts coming from 'elsewhere' just punts the problem to that elsewhere. It's still the case that most of our cognition is not accessible to our conscious awareness, wherever or whatever that is.
Modulating is an activity of matter
The modulation is itself a deterministic process, the unconscious brain being "convinced" to modulate is a deterministic process. You aren't missing anything, this interview just wasn't useful.
This was indeed a very interesting, informative, and fruitful discussion. Thank you!
2:14 The fact that it doesn't make sense to talk about a person as a unified whole (from a certain perspective) misses the point when talking about free will. For one, how do you just start with the assertion that these 2 intentions represent 2 free wills? It begs the question. It also doesn't satisfy the only meaningful question about supposedly freely made choices, how did either hemisphere become the kind of hemisphere that would have that intention and make that choice?
If I eat peanuts, I eat them from my free will. I I have to go to the WC, I go there from my free will. I am not so stupid as to do something that I don't want to do, like not eating delicious peanuts or peeing in my pants.
@MrJPl This guy would probably say it is your brain that likes eating peanuts.
@@williamburts3114 Maybe he would, and maybe for that reason I so free willingly eat peanuts. :-)
After watching this I have chosen to believe I have no free will, this also absolves me of responsibility for all the awful things I choose to do going forward 😈
You can use those words, and in some sense they can be correct. But it doesn't absolve you if the consequence of your actions. For example, if you kill someone, you will still be put in prison (or worse). It doesn't really matter if you had complete free will or not. Consequences are generally set up based on what level of choice you have in a matter.
is there a way to trace backward measurement of quantum wave function in physical brain?
maybe causation and sense of free will from measurement / collapse of quantum wave function?
Anything that can undergo change by its own intention has free will.
The onus is on those who "believe" that intention is merely a pretext. A pretext to an unchanging law.
It cannot be that the law that makes us pull our hand out of a fire also controls those who force themselves to keep their hand in the fire. A law that changes is inconsistent to determinism.
What unchanging law or set of laws determines the consciousness of living beings with self-consciousness and without?
There's a law covering removing (or not removing) a hand from a fire? Which law is that?
@@mikel5582The brain/body. It has voluntary and involuntary systems.
You specifically mentioned a law that makes us pull a hand from fire, or something like that. I presume you meant a law in the scientific sense. I'm specifically asking what law that is. Or perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the comment?
@@mikel5582 What is a "law"? An unchanging rule, no? Is not the subject in this post about free will and, by extension, determinism? Are you unaware of the scientific foundations of Determinism coming from the "mechanical universe"? That the human being is also controlled by these laws?
Do you really not know, or are you pretending? Do you contend that the laws of mechanics and electricity and chemistry play no part in the human body?
@@kallianpublico7517 By your own comment, that "law" cannot be a law since it is not unchanging.
At this point I'm not even sure which argument you're trying to make.
Regarding the personal questions about me, I'm a successful scientist who has studied life at the molecular level for the last 30+ years so you can rest assured that I'm familiar with the chemical and physical underpinnings of biology.
" This is not a personal problem, it is a philosophical question. Our lives are both predestined and they are not. Both yes and no. And both answers are true for all questions about life. In a way, everything is predetermined. Whatever is physical in you, material, whatever is mental, is predetermined. But something in you constantly remains undetermined, unpredictable. That something is your consciousness.
If you are identified with your body and your material existence, in the same proportion you are determined by cause and effect. Then you are a machine. But if you are not identified with your material existence, with either body or mind - if you can feel yourself as something separate, different, above and transcendent to body-mind - then that transcending consciousness is not predetermined. It is spontaneous, free.
Consciousness means freedom; matter means slavery. So it depends on how you define yourself. If you say, ”I am only the body,” then everything about you is completely determined. A person who says that man is only the body cannot say that man is not predetermined. Ordinarily, persons who do not believe in such a thing as consciousness also do not believe in predetermination.
Persons who are religious and believe in consciousness ordinarily believe in predetermination. So what I am saying may look very contradictory. But still, it is the case. A person who has known consciousness has known freedom. So only a spiritual person can say there is no determination at all. That realization comes only when you are completely unidentified with the body. If you feel that you are just a material existence, then no freedom is possible.
With matter, no freedom is possible. Matter means that which cannot be free. It must flow in the chain of cause and effect. Once someone has achieved consciousness, enlightenment, he is completely out of the realm of cause and effect. He becomes absolutely unpredictable. You cannot say anything about him. He begins to live each moment; his existence becomes atomic.
Your existence is a river-like chain in which every step is determined by the past. Your future is not really future; it is just a by-product of the past. It is only the past determining, shaping, formulating and conditioning your future. That is why your future is predictable.
Skinner says that man is as predictable as anything else. The only difficulty is that we have not yet devised the means to know his total past. The moment we can know his past, we can predict everything about him. Based upon the people he has worked with, Skinner is right, because they are all ultimately predictable. He has experimented with hundreds of people and he has found that they are all mechanical beings, that nothing exists within them that can be called freedom.
But his study is limited. No Buddha has come to his laboratory to be experimented upon. If even one person is free, if even one person is not mechanical, not predictable, Skinner’s whole theory falls. If one person in the whole history of mankind is free and unpredictable, then man is potentially free and unpredictable. The whole possibility of freedom depends on whether you emphasize your body or your consciousness.
If you are just an outward flow of life, then everything is determined. Or are you something inner also? Do not give any preformulated answer. Do not say, ”I am the soul.” If you feel
there is nothing inside you, then be honest about it. This honesty will be the first step toward the inner freedom of consciousness. If you go deeply inside, you will feel that everything is just part of the outside. Your body has come from without, your thoughts have come from without, even your self has been given to you by others.
That is why you are so fearful of the opinion of others - because they are completely in control of your self. They can change their opinion of you at any moment. Your self, your body, your thoughts are given to you by others, so what is inside? You are layers and layers of outside accumulation. If you are identified with this personality of yours that comes from others, then everything is determined.
Become aware of everything that comes from the outside and become non-identified with it. Then a moment will come when the outside falls completely. You will be in a vacuum. This vacuum is the passage between the outside and the inside, the door. We are so afraid of the vacuum, so afraid of being empty that we cling to the outside accumulation. One has to be courageous enough to disidentify with the accumulation and to remain in the vacuum. If you are not courageous enough, you will go out and cling to something, and be filled with it.
But this moment of being in the vacuum is meditation. If you are courageous enough, if you can remain in this moment, soon your whole being will automatically turn inward. When there is nothing to be attached to from the outside, your being turns inward.
Then you know for the first time that you are something that transcends everything you have been thinking yourself to be. Now you are something different from becoming; you are being. This being is free; nothing can determine it. It is absolute freedom. No chain of cause and effect is possible.
Osho - Your actions are related to past actions. A created a situation for B to become possible; B creates a situation in which C flowers. Your acts are connected to past acts and this goes back to the beginningless beginning and on to the endless end. Not only do your own acts determine you, but your father’s and mother’s acts also have a continuity with yours. Your society, your history, all that has happened before, is somehow related to your present act. The whole history has come to flower in you.
Everything that has ever happened is connected with your act, so your act is obviously determined. It is such a minute part of the whole picture. History is such a vital living force and your individual act is such a small part of it. Marx said, ”It is not consciousness that determines the conditions of society. It is society and its conditions that determines consciousness. It is not that great men create great societies.
It is great societies that create great men.” And he is right in a way, because you are not the originator of your actions. The whole history has determined them. You are just carrying them out. The whole evolutionary process has gone into the making of your biological cells. These cells in you can then become part of another person. You may think that you are the father, but you have just been a stage on which the whole biological evolution has acted and has forced you to act. The act of procreation is so forceful because it is beyond you; it is the whole evolutionary process working through you.
This is one way in which acts happen in relation to other past acts. But when a person becomes enlightened, a new phenomenon begins to happen. Acts are no longer connected with past acts. Any act, now, is connected only with his consciousness. It comes from his consciousness not from the past. That is why an enlightened person cannot be predicted.
Skinner says that we can determine what you will do if your past acts are known. He says that the old proverb, ”You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,” is wrong. You can force him to. You can create an atmosphere so that the horse will have to drink. The horse can be forced, and you also can be forced, because your actions are created by situations, by circumstances. But even though you can bring a buddha to the river, you cannot force him to drink. The more you force him, the more impossible it will be.
No heat will make him do it. Even if a thousand suns shine on him it will not help. A Buddha has a different origin of action. It is not concerned with other acts; it is connected with consciousness. That is why I emphasize that you act consciously. Then, every moment you act, it is not a question of a continuation of other acts. You are free. Now you begin to act, and no one can say how you will act.
Habits are mechanical; they repeat themselves. The more you repeat something, the more efficient you become. Efficiency means that now consciousness is no longer needed. If a person is an efficient typist it means that no effort is needed; typing can be done unconsciously. Even if he is thinking about something else the typing continues. The body is typing; the man is not needed. Efficiency means that the thing is so certain that no effort is possible.
With freedom, effort is always possible. A machine cannot make errors. To err, one has to be conscious. So your acts have a chain relationship with your previous acts. They are determined. Your childhood determines your youth; your youth determines your old age. Your birth determines your death; everything is determined. Buddha used to say, ”Provide the cause, and the effect will be there.” This is the world of cause and effect in which everything is determined.
If you act with total consciousness, an altogether different situation exists. Then everything is moment to moment. Consciousness is a flow; it is not static. It is life itself, so it changes. It is alive. It goes on expanding; it goes on becoming new, fresh, young. Then, your acts will be spontaneous."
could there be sense of free will from causation? physical brain experences causation?
I think the sense of free will come from complexity. The more complex a system, the harder it is to understand the chain of events that led up to something.
4:24 "Nature does not change its laws once chosen." (Socrates);
"A free man is a slave to the law." (Cicero);
"The needs of the flesh are modest, that is, limited. The flesh clearly knows what it wants, and achieves it without frills. What is so terrible about the needs of the flesh?
It wants to live, it wants to properly perform her functions, it resists pain. When the desires of the flesh are fulfilled, it does not invent new ones. Gluttony, drunkenness, debauchery are sins of the spirit*(imagination) in front of the flesh, at its expense and in spite of its protests, and not the other way around, although it is considered just the opposite. It is the flesh that finally pays all the bills - not only for its own, but also for all the follies of our spirit.
The spirit is not limited by anything. He can imagine anything, and any of his ideas tends to be embodied. … Jokes aside. What kind of thoughts do not wander in the human head, and it is a great happiness that they cannot become reality without overcoming the resistance of matter.
… I'm not saying that only bad thoughts are swarming in my head. But God forbid that noble, altruistic plans should also be carried out by themselves. So that any plan of the world order, born in one head, confident that this one plan is the one that the world needs, is implemented automatically and scrupulously.
And the good Lord God really did not allow this, giving us time, matter and space in which, after all, everything should unfold... In the theater, directors with "ideas" scare me, but there are also those who are ready to direct the whole world.
… The sense of smell makes us run away from the stench. The body of even the greatest criminal does not like to be near carrion, and the "purest" spirit quietly gets along with the greatest swinishness.
The Spirit has always loved public executions, he loves to gather around street incidents and read about sexually motivated murders. … At a time when wars were fought hand-to-hand, only physical exhaustion, fatigue of the hands stopped the massacre. The spirit would continue to cut.
Let the spirit reflect on this."
(Mrozek, Short Letters, "Flesh and Spirit", fragment).
P.S. It seems that true free will is a culture of self-restraint.
-----------------
*) - consciousness.
3:57 I don't understand how the brain worms wiggle their way in at this point. It's like he's taken the content out of the word determined resulting in pure word salad.
Obviously if the brain is determined by the states that precede it, if all choices made are the result of a continuous arch of gene sensitivity being modulated by environment in a self tuning feedback loop, then this *includes* moments where the prefrontal cortex steps in to inhibit.
The PFC also doesn't have infinite willpower to do it's job, it's modulated by the states that precede it in the causal chain.
Wtf man.
It's clear he doesn't think from an animal's perspective... That don't have the conscious levels of humans .. it's so simplistic
Agree with realistic outcome but don't agree that it is useless.
Dr. Kuhn sometimes says that he is "obsessed" with the topics of consciousness and free will. I think that I agree with his self-diagnosis.
Maybe. Or, he's obsessed with the benefits reaped by appealing to others' obsessions on those topics. 😉
@@mikel5582 The show is syndicated, so profit undoubtedly plays a role.
You have people like this guy who doubts that we have free will, and then you have people who doubt what this guy is saying is true. But to me since doubting is something freely done, we are free to use our will to doubt thus we have free will.
If you think you are free to disagree, then you must also be free to agree. So let me know when you truly agree with this. If you can't, then do you really have free will?
@@Surefire99 I agree, you are free to believe what you want.
@@williamburts3114 So you're saying your freedom in belief is constrained only to things you want?
@@Surefire99 in what you believe
@@williamburts3114 Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying your freedom in belief is constrained to what you believe?
If free will does not exist, why does pain exist ? Since the obvious use of pain is to influence the will, if the will is absent, pain would be redundant.
“the obvious use of pain is to influence the will” Is it though? Pain is to alert our brain of harm being done to us. I don’t see how free will comes into that process, never-mind it being “the obvious use” of pain. If anything, pain and our involuntary reaction upon experiencing it is a better argument against free will than for it
@@cocodee23 You can ignore pain, further supporting the free will argument.
@@cocodee23 Pain is superfluous to alerting the brain to harm. If you touch a hot surface the nociceptors in your skin trigger a reflex that causes you to remove your hand before you experience pain. The pain arises moments later as a product of the brain. I suspect it evolved as a reminder not to do the same thing again. I don't see it as an argument for or against free will, though it does illustrate that the brain produces real emotions which are not material in themselves, and these emotions effect our future behaviour. I would stress that I don't believe in dualism , but the physical brain is perhaps capable of some degree of self control and hence at least a degree of free will. I don't think this question will be resolved whilst the hard question of consciousness remains unanswered and don't understand why some people seem so certain one way or the other. I suppose some don't like to feel they are not in control and others like to be able to pass responsibility for their actions to a deterministic universe.
@johnhoward6201 In the old days people used torture to force you to say something or do something, so if you didn't have any free will how would the torture be effective or for that matter how would it even serve a purpose?
So, the interesting conclusion seems to be that ''freedom to will'' is apparently free in various degrees b u t within the causal constraint of biology of the brain processes and states.
Brain does not have a will, rather mind does ,🥰 Brain is just a conduit for mind. It's not inteligent 😘 Rather inteligence is part of mind, not of brain
Would you say computers that can play chess or AI have a mind?
I think I'm on the fence. I agree generally that the mind is this thing that requires a brain, and that in theory The Ship of Theseus could be crossed - a mind teleported or downloaded, etc. But I wonder how relevant quantum effects in our brain are, and how severely this would limit the practical ability to ever cross that ship. If we try to examine time and space too closely, we will create a black hole (see Nina Arkhani Ahmed videos). I fear our minds may be tied very closely to our brains like that, such that we will never get a complete picture of a mind, only a more accurate one.
We don't have a free will. We have a choice but a label "free will" is misleadind.
Agree. To have real free will, we need to know what we are absolutely. We do not even know anything in absolute sense. It's only perceived free will, not real free will. For example of what we don't know: we don't even know ourselves. We don't know why our body does what it does to repair ourselves. We are not even aware of these things going on and we don't direct the body to repair itself. We don't have free will when we do not even know what we are.
Language is an issue and cause of misunderstandings and misperceptions as even science is using art of language to explain, describe and theorise. It guarantees ambiguity
I believe even our capacity for choice is an illusion.
Milton Erickson w indirect hypnosis created illogical binds of choice. "you may or may not notice" type statements. Once confused, patients would in a sense freeze from inability to decide. THEN Erickson could present an issue to consider w a story. Point is confusion needed to lead/restrict issue focus. Obviously the sales business loved this so who really has free will?
Willing Freedom or Freeing the Willing - it's simply Detaching by paying a Fee. To detach is by Intentionally attaching or allowing the flow of events - Authorship than Ownership.....So freedom is a Flexibility, exercised. Similarly, is the brain an ordering system or a feedback driven system??? Seems to be feedback based. Again dependent on Heart & other system given feedback.
We need a new science called "neurophysics" to answer this question to some degree.
Biophysics is a discipline. When I used to attend the annual meeting, roughly half of the presentations involved biophysical processes related to neuron activity. Of course, all of the discussion was relevant to the molecular underpinnings of life.
We only have “free will” if we change its definition.
But in reality, we don’t have a true libertarian “free will”.
OK. That’s a claim. Do you have an argument?
@@deanodebo about what part, the definition or libertarian free will?
@@edwardprokopchuk3264 you claim was
“in reality, we don’t have a true libertarian ‘free will’ “
That’s a claim. Do you have an argument?
@@deanodebo
free will
2 of 2
noun
1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Merriam-Webster
Most people who argue for free will refer to the first definition.
True philosophical conflict lies in the second definition. If our choices are governed by prior causes, then we do not have a true “free will” as our choices are “caused” be internal or external factors, therefore no true libertarian free will.
@@edwardprokopchuk3264 if you don’t have free will, then you’re incapable of reasoning, and you’ve no control of your output
So your argument has no force
You’re literally refuting yourself
We dont have free will!Is impossible!
Yes, the word free will is created when we don't even know what it is
It's funny that in a conversation that is mostly about the works done by the unconscious mind, they are totally ignoring the unconscious mind!!!
The materialistic approach to such a problem is: if the unconscious part of the mind cannot be observed, then it doesn't exist!!!
You should interview dennis nobel. It will be interesting.
physical brain experiences causation?
11:33 Well, dang...
There goes My excuse...
😆
Go Bluejays!
Zaidel at 13:22 calls his definition of free will a "copout." In other words, even though a person has the ability to "modulate" his/her behavior (satisfying Zaidel's definition of free will) s/he fundamentally has no choice about _whether_ to modulate it. The choice to modulate or not is determined by the laws of physics (assuming materialism is correct).
It would be helpful in discussions of free will to begin by defining it. There seem to be two definitions, a "weak" free will that corresponds to the (limited) agency we clearly have, and a "strong" free will that's impossible according to the "known" laws of physics.
@brothermine2292, the laws of physics aren't the doer of activity. Rehabilitation of yourself is dependent on your desire to change your habits for the betterment of your own physical and mental health so you can live your life in good health.
>williamburts3114 : According to materialism, your "desire" is determined by the laws of physics. If you prefer to believe materialism is wrong, that's fine, but you shouldn't state your belief as if it's established fact.
@@williamburts3114 What is the basis for that desire? Hint: it's physical processes that occur completely without the desirer's notice.
@@brothermine2292 " your desire is determined by the laws of physics" yes, this a materialist belief but demonstration of this as a truth is something unproven.
@@mikel5582 Hmmm, my friend you just created a duality between the desirer and physical processes
Free will is non-dualism. Since we are dual, then there is no free will. Since we have many choices (dualism) we have no free will. The only free will choice we have, If only temporary, is between non-dualism and dualism. Between love and fear. Any choice based on fear is not free. Free will is freedom. Freedom from the dualism of constant choosing.
ja true been there...
If you are a Materialistic atheism? Free will Reason and Moral Responsibility doesn't Exist.
Great insight Sir Eran Zaidel.
Whether or not he eats the peanuts surely is all about the myriad prior causes and current contexts and nothing to do with the narrators story
How do the first human couple "know" kindness..!!!??? Peace be upon you'll out there
No they can’t
Free will is just an illusion. 🙄
I am broke that's why I eat the peanut 🥜. I ddo it out of necessity, not because so I won't steal or disturb others. There are rich and poorly harvested. I eat the badly kind.
There a number of big issues that supporters of human determinism would have to address. A big one is creativity. Creativity is defined as creating something new. Think Mozart creating Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. For supporters of determinism there can't be anything new - at least not created by a human. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik must have somehow been embedded in the big bang to be suddenly revealed by Mozart 13.8 billions years later. In fact all creativity by everyone and anyone would be like this under full determinism. Really?
Dr Kuhn - please do an episode or two on how creativity could exist (or not) in a determined world. I have never heard a supporter of determinism adequately address this.
New is a perspective, something that has always existed is still new to you if you've never experienced it before. I don't see what that has to do with determinism.
Determinism allows for highly complex interactions that are irreducible in principle, meaning you have to play out each step to know what will happen because you can't predict the result from the initial conditions. This means from the perspective of the person witnessing a computational irreducibility play out, the results can be things that haven't been seen before, either by them or even never seen by anything ever before, so there ya go, new stuff arising from creativity in a completely determined universe.
If you and I take the W and Ls then there is free.
Please interview Graziano soon.
So where is free will if it's all neurological activity governed by physical laws. He seems to be contradicting himself.
6:11 What a stupifying statement. He just continues to describe distortions in the learning feedback loop that prevents a person from acquiring and processing information that would bring the learning feedback loop in harmony with its environment to better survive and asserting that this pathology is limiting "freedom".
I'm disappointed.
Would I be so fat is I had free will?
I watched that show My 600 Pound Life and saw that the incredibly obese people were eating as if they were starving. Your body stores fat so that you won't starve or even be hungry between meals. Generally, this starving sensation is a result of a metabolic syndrome induced by excessive insulin being released since your body monitors blood sugar in order to know when it is hungry, and insulin drives blood sugar into cells. If you reduce sugar/carbs to a low/normal level it will stop this sensation of starving hunger. You may insist that you have an irresistible sweet tooth, but this is also your body trying not to die of starvation. It takes a couple weeks of very low sugar/carbs for you to feel the difference. Good luck.
When I give my dog a sausage he chooses to eat the sausage.
He has never tried to eat my fingers, even though they are delicious.
So I think his will is not completely free.
If my previous comment doesn't show up in this area by 1:00 EST I will delete it and move on.
Simon Hibbs and rob.j.g rescued it, .... but this is still ridiculous.
Will is Eternal, Brains, is Eternal Living Beings,
Free your self, 'use your Will'.
Free ourselves from what?
@@aleembabur9922 I presume it's freedom from the fear of -morality- oops, meant to write "mortality". What a difference a single letter makes.
The obsession with 'free will',
Everyone has free will..it's why God suffered with us.. people think God doesn't suffer with us. But the truth is God is the one who suffered the most.
he didn't have to suffer..he chose to because he is a good God. Humanity rejects him but he still gives us life.
Jesus Christ is king of kings
The body is just a vessel
You always have the free will to draw outwards and consider the perspectives of the trillions upon trillion of disassociated cells within your body, within your surrounding, and within your universe at large; or you can withdraw into "self only", fixed ego perspective.
Sorry Mr Stephen could not get what you are putting across?
@@aleembabur9922 You always have the free will to (1) give greater or lesser consideration to the unknown perspectives of others around you or (2) give greater or lesser consideration to your own better known "ego self" perspectives.
@@aleembabur9922 Consider the perspective of brainless slime mold, which probably achieves its remarkable intelligence using the same fundamental physics as human intelligence.
The self has free will, the brain does not.
Self is not brain?
@@stellarwind1946 Past memories, present circumstances, and future expectations give an identity of self.
@@quantumkaththose are all cognitive faculties of the brain.
@@stellarwind1946 The brain is deterministic, comparable to a computer. Input, process, output. The brain has no concept of time like we do when we are conscious.
Brain is correlated to consciousness, but we don't know how consciousness happens. Consciousness is a unique entity in itself.
It is in consciousness where we have control over which memories, what circumstances, and what expectations we freely choose to think about and act upon.
@@stellarwind1946”brain” is a concept created by consciousness. Thus, the inverse is impossible.
Your brain is an organ and not a person.
Where's the difference?
@@arnarsigurjonsson2511 An Indepth analysis of your brain even with the most sophisticated technology would not give me any information of your character. I would have to get to know you personally before I could know that.
So many words gave their lives to prove or disprove absolutely nothing. These discussions are meaningless and pointless. Experts try so hard to disprove what is blinding obvious. I have free-will because I do. Because I feel I do. To not have free-will is to absolve anybody of any action. These are semantic self-abuse sessions and of no practical worth.
You may never know who is behaving in free will or deterministic way. It applies to whole of humanity
He does believe we have free will, in the common everyday language sense, and in the causal sense necessary for responsibility. He doesn't think we have it in an abstract incoherent un-caused cause sense.
Your feeling- and is-from-ought-based arguments are not more persuasive or true when you express them scornfully and claim their obviousness. I hope in the future you take this topic more seriously, demand more logical rigor from yourself, and express your ideas in a way more appropriate to dispassionate inquiry.
@@rob.parsnips”ought” he be rigorous?
Why?
@@rob.parsnips I believe he's citing the great thinker renowned for fearless exploration of the Seven Seas, an undying love for his sweetheart Olive Oyl, and the irrefutable wisdom summarized as: "I yams what I yams and that's all that I yams."
You can apply all the fancy education and argumentation you want but you cannot refute the truth laid down by Popeye the Sailor Man.
"Free Will", per se is merely a religious term. Reason with me: IF your god is Omni a) Did he know what was going to happen before it did? b) Can you go against the Will of God? c) If Either A OR B is true then "Free Will" does NOT exist. If either A OR B are False, then your god is NOT Omni!
When you are attempting an internal critique, you have to be careful to do so accurately
The problem with your critique is that the God you are supposing would be subject to the laws of logic rather than the creator of the laws of logic
This fatal flaw renders your argument invalid
God = consciousness God and free will require consciousness.
@@stephengee4182 are you saying humans are gods because of our consciousness? Do other animals not display this trait?
Free will is not a religious term. Where did you pull that from?
Also, that argument seems to argue against the conjunction of god and free will, that is to say, god and free-will are incompatible. Nowhere does it show there is no free will.
@@deanodeboSo according to your view god is not subject to laws of logic? Can god make square circles? Lol