I just got down showing my daughter Alex's video and this popped up. I appreciate how this video didn't use sarcasm or silly quips to try to prove a point. It was concise and respectful. Which is something that is missing in most debates these days. As far as the content goes I'm nowhere near knowledable on this subject to even begin to form an opinion. But I do appreciate this video. Thank you.
You say at the start of your example that "grant that at some level we can have control over our desires". That's called begging the question. You can't start with the assumption of control to then conclude that we have control.
Perhaps a lack of clarity on my part. The reason I grant that in my example was because Alex (cosmicskeptic) had already granted it in his argument. This isn't to say that this control = free will but rather that we often choose to change our desires. Alex argues that even when we are choosing to change our desires, we do so because we are following a higher desire and then he says that there will always be a higher desire that we can't control. This video mainly focuses on why his argument falls short, rather than affirming free will. Thank you for taking the time to watch :)
@@chaosphilosophorum I just rewatched Alex's vid there and he doesn't grant this. In fact he says at 7:14 "you can't control the strengths and objects of your desires" and also concludes @11:52 by saying that you can do whatever you want you just can't choose what you want" That's his whole point in that video, which is why I thought it was strange that you were just granting it. Maybe if you can could you write your position out in a syllogism. It might make it clearer for me. I agree with Alex's view on this although I'm always open to having my mind changed.
@@drpancake4103 Sure let me give it a go. I'll first just add that the claim you can't control the objects of your desires is dependent on his later claim that every time we change our mind, we do so at the influence of another desire. For example, if you choose to walk instead of taking the bus you do so because you are controlled by a deeper desire. The choice to walk or take the bus is the sort of superficial (but not free) level of control we both grant. 1. Alex states "so whenever you don't want to do something but do it anyway, this is only because of a stronger and equally uncontrollable desire". 2. He then claims that this means we cannot be free, since we can never choose to desire the object of our desire, because by doing this we are following the will of an existing 'want'. 3. Since we cannot have an infinite chain of desires, our actions must be taken in accordance to 1 or more 'highest desires', desires that govern all of our actions (at least at a given time). 4. Each of these desires has an opposite, e.g we may always seek pleasure but another may seek to suffer. 5. If free will existed then we would have a free choice between these 2 binaries, any choice to pursue suffering is done for the reason that we desire suffering, rather than a higher desire. We have already stated that all actions have come down to suffering or feeling pleasure, as this is what we have put as a placeholder for this highest desire that must exist. 6. Betraying our highest desire would be an action taken were the will creates the object of our desire rather than our will following the object of our desires. 5-6 is not really begging the question. Alex's argument is a reductio ad absurdum of sorts, he shows that free will is contradictory because any standard choice (chocolate instead of vanilla) is really just following the desire of our sugar tooth, which is in turn following our desire for pleasure etc. If free will existed we could replace our desire for pleasure with a desire for pain without this cost, since we have changed the object of our highest desire. Again I'm not affirming free will but rebutting Alex's argument against it. I hope this raised some points of interest to you, I look forward to hearing your thoughts :)
@@chaosphilosophorum "We have already stated that all actions come down to suffering or feeling pleasure" actually as you agreed with Alex in your video all actions come down to wanting to do them or being forced to do them (with the disclaimer about accidents on the side). This is an important distinction here because you say "any choice to pursue suffering is done for the reason that we desire suffering, rather than a higher desire." if you "choose" to pursue suffering that IS your highest desire, by definition. A desire which you have no control over. I think you might be mixing up Alex's vids on free will with his vids on morality or veganism, because there's further nuance to the way he talks regarding pleasure and suffering.
@@drpancake4103 I'm not actually claiming suffering is the highest desire because of Alex's beliefs, but it was a good example to use. In the video I claim that a highest desire must exist, what this highest desire actually is unknown but this doesn't matter. 'if you "choose" to pursue suffering that IS your highest desire, by definition. A desire which you have no control over.'. The problem is Alex claims that making this choice would require following a desire. But this choice could simply be free desire itself, it doesn't have to be the case that this desire was caused by ANOTHER desire. Free will entails desire, obviously, but Alex claims desire comes before choice. Here it's possible that free choice and desire are identical, or in other words the free choice is the first moment of desire. Likewise if our highest desire was something other than pleasure and pain, the ability to freely choose between it and it's opposite would still be logically possible.
High desire, low desire, whatever. We don't create nor do we control out wants. Any of em. And in the end, there is not even a real you who could control anything. You don’t make your blood flow, choose your interests, or create your understandings. You don't create your wants that direct what you want to choose, the urge to choose something or the urge to suppress another urge. Events happen by themselves. If you examine choice, you will find no experience of you initiating any action. If I ask you to think of two animals, right now, two animals will pop up in your thoughts. But you don't decide, beforehand, which animals will pop up. That simply happens. If I ask you to focus on only one of those animals, your focus goes to one of them, without you deciding which one. If there is a mental debate about which one to focus on, you don't decide to have that debate. And, out of that debate, when the focus eventually does go to one of them, it's because you simply want to focus on that particualr one. But you don't create that want. Right now, you are happening. The entire process that you are (includinfg the sense of there bekng a self in the first place) is happening. What are you doing to make yourself happen in the way you happen? The answer is simple. Nothing.
If anything influences your choices then the strongest influence wins. If anything influences your choice then your choice is not “free”. You still have will it just isn’t free from influence. Does that help clear things up?
Your arguments sound really interesting and logical. The only problem is that I am having difficulty understanding many of your and Alex's points (it's mostly becsuse english is not my first language and i have not studied philosophy that much) so it's hard for me to pick a side. But I will still try to understand you both. Good job, have a good day
To say that we can choose between desires with free will, is to say that we can act without reason/motivation, for that is precisely what a desire is. However, even granted one can act for no reason at all, this would not support free will. "No reason" by definition means void of any influence, and that is precisely what the chooser would be.
What about the good and evil aspect of a desire and the efficacy of acting upon that desire to bring about said good or evil? Is it possible we choose good for goodness sake or evil for our own selfish sake? It seems as though desires and how well one can rationalize and what one takes as rational varies from person to person greatly. It seems ones more apt to concede that they were being immoral in a situation because of the ostensible nature of objective morals, but less apt in conceding that they were being irrational or unreasonable. It’s difficult to see how one can be considered good until he has chosen to be good, so it’s hard to give credit to some pre-existing desire or reason to bring about said goodness if you want to consider including reasons and desires as part of the person. I guess then you would have to get rid of the entire notion of good and evil at that point which seems impossible. Nonetheless, free will is a very tricky issue and paradoxical in many aspects. I think to even began to try and untangle knots of the problem, you have to first come to a sort of consensus on what this “I” having free will is. Just my quick thoughts.
I guess what I was kind of trying to hint at was the fact that people usual consider themselves as being rational in a situation or reasonable in a situation intuitively and intrinsically within themselves. But we usual always admit within ourselves when we are wrong or right morally in a given situation and I think to equate desire and reason to choice is merely a fallacy of equivocation. Perhaps we chose good or evil just for the sake of us understanding what they undoubtedly are. And to give credit of our choosing one or the other to prior desires and reasons by which we have no control over not only distinguishes the self entirely but the concept of good and evil all together which seems equally incorrect as claiming 2+2=5. That is not to say we must have control over our desires and reason to have free will, but rather we must have at least control over what we chose as far as things being morally good or evil.
The ability to choose what we want to do doesn't mean we have to constantly change what we want or somehow choose both options simultaneously. If I must make a choice between two things and I choose one thing, it just confirms that I had a choice between two things and made a choice. The whole scenario begins by assuming that a choice must be made and once a choice is made it confirms that premise - that I really had a choice between two things. Alex claims that making a choice somehow proves I didn't have a choice, but it proves the opposite. Whatever may have influenced the particular choice is not part of the scenario - Alex needs to smuggle that in after a choice is made in order to argue that there really was no choice to be made.
i don't know if you understand the argument. Why did you write this comment? The only logical reason is you wanted to. therefore you did it. If you chose not to you would have had a reason to do so and that reason would have to be desired more than your desire to comment. you think you have the choice but it ultimately will aline with whichever you desire more which is not controlable
@@Dont_Click_On_My_Video I'm pretty sure I understand the argument, and as I stated, it's flawed. I commented because I wanted to comment and I chose to comment. To claim I didn't have a choice would require identifying that which forced me to comment against my will.
@@davidreinker5600 you said you chose the comment but the entire reason you did was because you wanted to. How do you not realize you didn't actually have a choice in the matter.
Every aspect of our cognitive tapestry [determines / tethers] our actions/choices/considerations. This precludes our actions/choices/considerations of ever being [free / untethered]. So, IF one insists that there must be "free will", I am left to ask *"How can one's will be free/untethered from how such is formed and how such operates?"*
It feels like experiences you’ve had throughtout life will shape your personality and wants to a point where your reactions come from previous causes, like if someone rejected you when you are young you may become a person who is afraid to put themselves out there, as well as all the other experiences that help shape your actions. To change the way you react to things you would need an outside influence like a therapist, friend, philosophy video, etc to change how you perceive and react to things in the future. You don’t just decide without an outside stimulus to be different.
When understanding decision making, one must look at the decision within a specific context to be able to determine whether or not the suffering was a conscious decision made as a result of inherent detest of one’s self or low self worth as you described it in the video. Take, for instance, the decision to undergo chemotherapy vs letting the cancer run its course. One could argue that the decision to undergo the pains of chemotherapy for a slight chance of survival and longevity could be viewed as a “conscious willful decision to suffer”. But when you take the decision to suffer in the context of the larger picture, it dispels the logic explained in this video. The conscious INTENTION of the decision dictates the desire, not the desire itself. When you look at the psychological implications of free will within the amalgamation of all other sciences- including anthropology, mythology, religion, human physiology, and evolutionary biology, you understand that free will is of Spirit and decision is of man. The ultimate problem, I’m finding, is that we are both deterministic (classical physics) and completely random (quantum physics) simultaneously and at the same time. And for whatever reason, people insist that it is one or the other.
Interesting comment! To defend what I said in this video slightly, for the sake of argument I was assuming that the desire for pleasure was the highest desire. In this case all actions would be conducive to increasing pleasure, but I argued that this does not mean we wouldn't be free to abandon this value in the future. In the chemotherapy situation the highest desire seems to be something more like continuing life, or creating something for the future, in which case the subject would be free to follow this desire or abandon it. I'm interested in what you had to say in that last sentence, what are your views on philosophies like determinism and materialism?
Seemed to be a circle that made the same point but focused on the journey instead of the end conclusion. I'm still undecided but rather leaning towards the impossibly of free will. This subject is worthy of much debate and I appreciate this contribution.
‼️But the whole point is we do stuff we don't want to all the time. How many of us WANT to get up every day and go to work. None of us (except the lucky few who like and enjoy their jobs but we're not talking about them) WANT to do that but we do WANT to have a roof over our heads and food eat. There are plenty of people who also want a roof over their heads and food to eat who still CHOOSE not to work and instead CHOOSE to be deadbeats or mooches or live on the streets. To me that is proof of free will. At the end of the day freewill is how much suffering are you willing to put yourself through for an end goal. So even though there is technically a want behind going to work, there are plenty of people who every single day choose to take the chance of being homeless just so they don't have to do that. Even though their wants are the same as ours. Someone could have the exact same wants as you and still make completely different choices. THAT is freewill.
@@WhitneyDahlin I’d assume the argument Alex would make is that they do have different wants. They want to live on the street more than they want to go to work and have a roof over their head. People don’t have the same wants, and that is what influences our decision making
6:12 You can’t just simply this case for the sake of argument. What is the one ultimate desire pulling the strings behind the scenes? I think we change all the time and in some moments we actually don’t particularly want anything. Having the ability to separate from our own desires is very helpful.
The only good argument here is the one about conflicting desires, because it might be that free will is the capacity to evaluate them and choose which one to act upon (unless one assumes that there is always one desire that is "stronger", but that's just an unproven assumption). The arguments about hierarchy of desires and on maximising pleasure vs. other motivations don't hold up, because even if there is a hierarchy or if one fails to uphold one's highest desire, it /can/ still be the case that both the hierarchy and the moral failures are determined by which desire is the strongest at any given moment. In the end, I am "agnostic" about free will on the grounds of reason alone, as I think that all proposed solutions rely on unproven (and unprovable, objectively speaking) assumptions. There is no objectively measurable fact that can say whether my final choice was due to my higher freedom or to my strongest desire. But on practical grounds, I do consider it possible objectively, I do experience it as a subjective fact (whenever I am faced with a choice), and above all I do consider it essential for my own sense of motivation, self-worth, and morality.
I think the argument about hierarchy of desires holds up. You point out that it /can/ still be the case that desires overthrow the current order of things. It could also be that a new desire is integrated by choice, as long as this is a possibility then it can't be said that acting according to your desires debunks free will. I would also point out the difficulty of claiming that desires usurp other desires because of external influence (which sounds like the logical extension of what you said). For the new desire to be integrated into the psyche, it must do so from an already existing value structure. I'd argue that it's likely that this can never change unless from an internal cause, which leaves room on the table for the *possibility* of free will. If one were to manage to prove free will, I would suspect it could only be done through deep introspection. "In the beginning there was the world" could translate to "the will brought consciousness into the world", but this would be far harder to argue for.
@@chaosphilosophorum Yes, I think I misrepresented my own objection or misunderstood the purpose of your arguments. They all show that free will is a *possibility* that has at least equal likelihood to Cosmic Skeptic's own arguments. They are definitely good as refutations. I just don't think they are conclusive as positive proofs. They do have the advantage of being concordant with our inner sense, though. The "inner conflict" argument is, to me, the most persuasive anyway. Not 100% probative, but very sound. I might be biased because I'm a sort of Platonist, though, haha!
@@TheWheelsMaster Impossible to answer given current knowledge on though formation in our brains. No one knows how thoughts are formed. That's the reason Im undecided on the whole free will debate. Until we understand what drives our thought processes which in turn drive our actions, no one can make any claim about the existence or absence of free will.
Actions can only be taken by force or due to some motivation. If one has more of a motivation to commit y over h, he is bound to do y. 40% motive for h and 60% for y, is no different than 0% for h and 20% for y. So unless you grant the possibility for one to act for no reason (without any motivation), and yet still be free, we cannot have free Will.
Thanks for the interesting comment. I find it interesting that we can distinguish these different levels of motivation, do you think there is a difference in carrying out one of our desires strongly or weakly? I know the adversary of free will would say something like the strength of our motivation is what determines our drive, but I don't see why this would HAVE to be the case in all situations. What does effort boil down to in your opinion?
@@chaosphilosophorum I think how strongly one carries out their desire is dependent on there capability to do so, and the amount of other desires that are in the way. I may prefer chocolate over vanilla all together, but I would give up some vanilla for some smaller amount of chocolate.
@S_K C Presumably our actions come about as a result as something. Call it X. If we didn't choose X, the action isn't free, if we did choose X, the question is pushed back. What did that choice come as a result of. Our actions aren't proceeded by an infinite number of choices, so we bottom out somewhere. For every action there's an X such that we didn't choose X, and X accounts for that action.
@S_K C Our choices can come as a result of any number of potential causes. The relevant point being that every single one of them is out of our control. Our actions are reducible to factors we did not have a choice over having.
As Schopenhauer puts it, "Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills". This logic is solid, i don't think you have been successiful in this video. The fact that we are not infinite beings is precisely the reason for why we don't have free will. Imagine that i try to acknowledge what my highest desire is. If i'm not able to do it, i means there is some unknown desire outside my conscious control and awareness. If i could do such thing, i would then ask myself why i have such desire. If i don't know the reason, it means this desire was put there by something beyond of my conscious control (no free will). If i do know the reason, and this reason is outside of me, then no free will; and if the reason is within me, it means that such desire must have been put there by another desire, and that one by another one, and so on and so forth, until i reach the previous case again. That definiton of free will from Carl Young can't even be called free will. That is more like acceptance of fate.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. "Man can do what he wills" and "Man cannot will what he wills" are completely compatible statements. The second statement does not debunk the first. Therefore, man can do what he wills.
The objection CS "rebuts" debunks his position. Exercise vs. junk food. You objectively do want junk food more than exercise but you choose exercise. He just broadens the scale of what exercise is and claims that you wanted that. If you do that to junk food, you can achieve the same effect. We want exercise and junk food because there is some good that we perceive in them. Nothing is SO good however that we MUST choose it.
@@chaosphilosophorum and just to expound on it further, you can broaden the two choices to be the same thing, which would force CS to conclude that no choice was made at all, which is clearly false. Exercise is health is longevity is good for man. Junk food is momentary pleasure, is relaxation is... good for man.
This completely ignores the distinction between short term pleasure and long term fulfillment. If you desire long term fulfillment more than short term pleasure then you will choose exercise. If you want short term pleasure more than long term fulfillment you will continuously choose junk food. No debunking here
To me, free wil is the ability to act according to one's will, without being forced to act against it. I'll grant that we can't choose our desires, but why are we assuming the desires are outside of the self? To me, my desires are a part of my nature. As long as I'm acting in accordance with that nature and its desires, I consider that free will, because it's a part of myself imposing my wants on me. I think asking for free will to choose to change your essential nature is absurd and not what "free will" means in common parlance anyway.
Your ‘highest desire’ as a finite being sounds like each desire which is motivated by some other, higher desire is a pyramid where the apex governs all other desires. So then can we argue free will exists in the smaller desires such as, how to fulfil that highest desire? Furthermore, where do reflexs fall into this argument? They are not conscious, forced or accidental. Within the meaning of free will define here and in the video by cosmic skeptic, all actions are taken because of desire or force, but I think reflexs are outside of this.
@@CarnevalOne huh? The arguement says that you aren't in control of your desires or "wants". In order to want something you don't want you would have to "want to want" it and this would go on forever.
Its good to hear many philosophical arguments about freewill and determinism but i prefer to believe that freewill is true. If freewill is not true then many things in our lifetime are just a bunch of gibberish.
Let's say we COULD somehow magically step outside of ourselves and pick our fundamental desires. We would simply choose the exact same things, because those are the things WE desire. If you're talking about changing my fundamental desires, then the person you would end up with would not be me, but a different person.
I think your last sentence hits on the issue, it seems to allow for the possibility of ourselves to be self constituting, but even if your action changes who you are as a person this does not negate the idea of freedom, the freedom to not be, for example. My most recent video deals more directly with the causal implications of this.
You've failed - Alex's points on our actions being dictated by wants-for which we don't get to decide-still, robustly, holds up. As Alex pointed out; in order to choose a want; such a choice would require a motivating factor for selecting that want... As Alex said, "We'd have to want to want it"... But if we choose our wants, then wanting to want it would require a want for the want for the want.... Ad infinitum. Even if Alex is wrong, we still don't get to decide which thoughts pop into our heads next, because in order to author our thoughts would require those thoughts to be based on already existing thoughts -- but those thoughts would _also_ require already existing thoughts, ad infinitum... And, in the same way, we don't decide what will occur to us; example: "it just occured to me that if we use this piece of wood that the structure will be more sound"... So we're lucky when such things occur to us. The same goes for memory: we're at the mercy of whatever we remember... We don't _decide_ to forget things... We simply forget things or we do not (such as names, or where we put something). So it doesn't really matter if we have "free will"....
Here's a simple representation of the regress problem regarding the formulation of Free Will as requiring complete independence from any and all prior causes, in the form of a logical syllogism: Premise 1: Free Will requires independence from all prior causes. Premise 2: Our existence is contingent on prior causes, including our birth. Conclusion: Therefore, if Free Will necessitates independence from all prior causes, we wouldn't exist to have any form of will, free or otherwise. This syllogism highlights the potential absurdity or self-defeating nature of a definition of Free Will that demands complete independence from all prior causes; ie, this formulation of Free Will results in the commission of a fallacy of proving too much.
Here's a more recent video I made on the problem, stressing how a free will could react to events in the world in the moment is definitely problematic, but I wonder if we can get around the problem by understanding a free will as something which doesn't necessarily change in time - th-cam.com/video/Xni5mjn40Ak/w-d-xo.html
It seems from my understanding right now that we have our wants from our cells which are determined by a random universe which makes our decisions absolutely random. If we're made by God we are given our will by God and can't be held accountable which is calvinistic. Either one, I despise both. Or I guess my cells do, or I was predetermined to....
This reminds me of something I read about Noam Chomsky, where he used the mind of a baby. The factor of knowledge, they said something in regards to the human brain being "pre-programmed" to receive data that will fill up overtime like a hard drive. Unfortunately our consious compared to our unconscious thought is drastically different, about 2% of our decisions are consious and the remaining 98% is subconscious. So everything you think is you isn't actually you, it's what was already there and developed with its surroundings (relating to Chomsky's perspective) and from this "development" and influence, we obtain a unique view point that can be changed and modified by others if we choose too. But it's contradicted by the point in which that is what our brain wants us to do because when "we" decide, unfortunately when it comes to mental health, you can't choose to stop a mental breakdown.
This was interesting, do you think we have any control over our minds however? I would agree that most of you is stuff you are unaware of, but I don't see why this has to be much of an issue, or why this real you couldn't be acting freely, materialism aside. Take the phrase "sabotaging yourself", something that the culprits may not be aware that they are doing. However the action is still being taken by them, and it's changed by their own willingness to face the fear holding them back. What are your thoughts? Thanks for watching.
I agree with you but not for the reasons you stated. 1) Feelings and the will are two separate phenomenal. There is a big difference between feeling hungry and wanting to eat. Sometimes you have to stop something you feel like doing, like sleeping, to do something you don't feel like doing, like going to work. There is no positive emotion guiding you, feelings are not the will. 2) It's stupid to consider a want (will, not feeling) as something separate from yourself. Free will is a power of the self much like movement of the power of the atom. Your wants are your natural powers, not something external to you causing you to do what you want. 3) The burden of proof is in the sceptic. Just like it would be absurd to believe me if I told you that you have a second blind spot without evidence, the burden is on the free will denier since it's clearly experienced directly by our consciousness just like every other scientific fact, and the effects are also observed. The cities didn't build themselves, someone wanted to build them. Not only is this overwhelming positive evidence for free will, they have zero evidence against free will. All brain studies of free will are fundamental understandings of what free will actually is.
I feel like this entire argument falls apart on both sides solely based on the fact that this is just ALEX's opinion of what free will is and therefore he's arguing to his definition and I find both sides to be unsatisfying to my personal definition because they just don't make sense
Yeah, these assertions about acting contrary to our top level desire because (for example) one may feel unworthy of pleasure or something...for the truly few ppl that would even act in ways that seem to fit this description outwardly it will be the case that denying a want in one sense fulfills some deeper want at a conscious or subconscious level. I appreciate the attempt but nothing in this video describes a plausible, realistic way in which ppl would ever act contrary to their strongest desires. Also, the narrator seems to contradict himself in originally agreeing with Alex that desire or duress are the ONLY 2 reasons anyone does anything then flatly refuting that several minutes later. I don't think Alex has been refuted at all.
The assertion was not made that we can ever act contrary to our highest level desire, I would grant Alex that this is true. I am simply pointing out that it is possible for us to have a highest desire, and that our reason of 'wants' reaches a limit in the highest desire. When we act in accordance to a different desire, we simply want something else, our desire has changed because our preferences have changed, not because of some pre-existing desire. This simply stops some sort of regress which Alex uses to debunk free will. Rather than wanting something because we want something else, we can want things because we want that thing in of itself. Alex's argument against free will depends solely on the former.
@@chaosphilosophorum "we can want things because we want that thing in and of itself." It hasn't been apparent to some of the leading thinkers of all time either how this is the case or how it equals free will. Of course, just because I can point to sone smart persons that don't believe in free will and either didn't find these arguments convincing or just didn't think of them at all doesn't prove anything. Except that how any of this equals free will still needs to be made clear. If we can want something for its own sake so what??
@@paulnejtek6588 Except, as someone who is debunking Alex's argument, I am not entitled to show free will = wanting something for its own sake. Alex argues free will =/= wanting something because we want something else, which he argues is what is always the case. By showing that it does not always have to be the case, Alex's argument has failed to debunk free will, thus I have debunked Alex. I am not arguing for free will here, hope this helps.
@@chaosphilosophorum "rather than wanting something because we want something else, we can want things because we want that thing in itself." Ummm. Not sure what you mean by that??? Alex's argument doesn't seem to rely on the former at all. If you want something for itself how does that place the want under your volition anyhow??
I doubt that pleasures is the sole primary goal. More likely I'd say there are a myriad of primaries competing with each other. Nevertheless, I still don't think that gets you to free will. It only complicates the problem. Maximizing two variables that depend on each other is still a maxing problem. I can grand that the self loathing person isn't acting out of a desire for pleasure, but they still want to act in accordance with what the believe they deserve. This is desire can be boiled down to some primary, and for whatever reason that overruled their desire for pleasure. Another person may value pleasure more highly and therefore would choose pleasure anyways evennif the think they don't deserve it. The only way around this I see is to somehow act contrary to what you believe will maximize your primary desires, but you already conceded that we only act according to what we want or what we're being forced to do, so I don't see how you get to free will.
Could you elucidate me on something: does Alex believe that moral responsibility exists in the absence of free will, or that the absence of free will necessitates the absence of moral responsibility? I personally believe the former, but am curious as to his opinion since I can't find it stated anywhere
Alex conducted a discussion with Rationality Rules from roughly five years ago, in which they both stated that under their view of Hard Determinism "Moral Responsibility" is not possible to assign, as we are not free agents and could not have chosen otherwise due to the way our atoms/functions were arranged to produce certain outcomes or effects from the beginning. He cited the lack of free will as a reason to reform the criminal justice system as well as compel society to adjust their view of criminals, viewing them as unfortunate victims of circumstance rather than deliberate agents of chaos and harm. Although he does not subscribe to moral responsibility, he stated that there is still reason to "punish" the guilty, by separating them from society, preventing further tragedy and promoting rehabilitation. Elements of his view disturb me, as he demonstrated more compassion for a hypothetical rapist and murder as opposed to the victims of the crime, one of which was a fictitious nine year old girl used as an illustrative point. I am also concerned about the implications of this view. Widely adopting a Hard Determinist standpoint may lead people to feelings of hopelessness, a lack of accountability and surrendering to an entirely external locus of control, causing society to devolve into a depressive, automated state in which no one accepts responsibility for their failures or rejoices in their achievements.
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc Agreed, I think there are a lot of unfortunate positions that one must take to accommodate a hard determinist position. I would probably classify myself as a compatibilist, though I’m not sure if that really captures the essence of my position. I believe that the universe is deterministic such that it wouldn’t allow for free will. There might be quantum indeterminacy, but that still isn’t the result of some free agent. Despite the fact that there is no free will, I still believe one can be held morally responsible. This is because every action that an “agent” performs is what they believe to be their choice, and every choice that is made is ubiquitously made because said choice was the most desirable to the agent. So even if the choice was actually predetermined by a host of physiological interactions, it would still appear to the agent as their choice. I always struggle to put it into words well but let me know what issues are agreements you have, if you’d like.
@@zookboy5714 that's my position too, if humans believe that they feel they have a choice and this is almost an undeniable objective truth for all humans cuz nobody goes around living there life basing there choices randomly or maybe every time they want to make a choice they throw a coin so they would ignore the feeling and base there choice on the result of the coin that is based on the constant physical state of the word, no body does that , so if we all agree that we have that feeling coming from our conscious being or intuition to chose between A and B then we should not care about the unknown motives and get punished based on that feeling that "i feel that I'm the one choosing" otherwise life would practically be not good for us to coexist cuz nothing gonna make sense and nothing will have value which is not a good idea to have in my opinion cuz the world would be HELL,
Ummm. Yeah....I'ma hafta rewatch this tomorrow to be sure, but it seems like there's a few claims simply asserted here as if undeniable which are not remotely obvious. Of course, it doesn't mean too much if they're obvious to some ordinary amateur like myself. They also seem to not be obvious to a few of the leading philosophers/scientists in history. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but certainly need more backing. Some of the stuff about choice, at least in the manner stated in this video, makes no sense at all.
I don’t think you ever addressed what’s at the philosophical heart of the matter in Alex’s arguments or determinism in general. You took an axiom, which in this case was ethical egoism and tried to make it incompatible with determinism but you never actually jumped over the hurdle of “free choice” you kind of just started with your conclusion and then worked your way back. For instance, in your example of someone who “chooses” to see themselves worthy of hate , you just made the assumption that one has the ability to “choose” to adopt a posture like that as a matter of free will which would imply that they could just “choose” to view themselves worthy of love but they simply don’t. In either scenario you find yourself in in a perspective that you fundamentally have no control over. Where’s the free will ?
Thanks for your comment. A few things to say about the video, I never addressed any argument from determinism. This argument responds to one specific egoist argument Alex puts forward. When I spoke about having at least a binary of choices one could make, I did so because I believed such a possibility was compatible with the points Alex brought up, not necessarily because I was arguing that it was true. Hope this cleared some things up.
I think your argument from higher order desires is rather one made by modern compatibilists describing the “types of freedom” one is susceptible to. Though these higher order desires can be independent of wellbeing and feel conceptually freer, they don’t get rid of the problem within the propositional logic of incompatibilist reasoning. If you have the “strength” to follow your highest desire, that strength will be in line with a predetermined ability to act it out (Because you have the necessary force to align yourself to your highest desire that is not in your control). It is rather an intuition of what is free, rather than what is “actually” free, because any desire will still cause your action with regards to your ability to act. Peter Van Inwagen would describe your ability to act in accordance to a desire as a touchable fact. Both the factor of ability to and order of desire will always only cause one alternative outcome. Desire & Ability one and only one action. However, Alex argument relies on the fact that desires cause our actions D & abilitiesA, “you only do something because you want to” or “if you are forced to”. The logical structure however could be that the scope of your ability to decide an action could precede the desire. So that you could chose or are the first cause of different possible desires YouDesire1 or D2 or D3 Action1 or A2 or A3 I have covered Alex’s position in a video myself. If you’d like to check it out. And nonetheless a great video!
Around 8:16 you say that 'if someone is trying to maximise their pleasure and chooses to consider themselves worthy of hate......' This is self contradictory. The problem is you assume in the given example that someone chooses to cause suffering despite having a want for pleasure as the highest desire. You consider (in the mentioned example) the 'highest desire' as permanant and unchangeable. People choosing to cause suffering don't have the want to maximise the pleasure (at least in the time period they have that particular want). This is actually a psychological condition called chronical unhappiness (besides being associated with other mental conditions such as depression, low self esteem etc.) P.S: It is quite difficult to discern the illusion of freewill if we first identify the uncontrolled want and check if the action matches to it. It becomes obvious only if we identify the action and search for the corresponding want. (Connecting the dots backward rather than looking forward)
I wouldn't consider a highest desire as necessarily permanent, but you make a good point. I agree that every action has a corresponding want, but why can a want not be correspondent to the desire of the free agent? What is stopping desire being free? I think the missing part of the equation is character. We may genuinely want to be successful but our fear in the moment prevents us. In this sense we are full of conflicting wills, but what is stopping one part of you conquer your fears in the same way an athlete overcomes his competition. I think this is most often rejected because of deterministic belief.
No, its because you cannot want what you want. You can't control your wants. Whatever you do is what you are compelled to do. You don’t make your blood flow, choose your interests, or create your understandings. You don't create your wants that direct what you want to choose, the urge to choose something or the urge to suppress another urge. Events happen by themselves. If you examine choice, you will find no experience of you initiating any action.
I think you are getting bogged down in this notion of choosing among "highest" desires. You never actually rebut Alex's argument that you cannot control what it is you ultimately want to do -- i.e. you *cannot* actually choose your highest desire. Whatever you choose - to suffer (in the conventional sense) or to feel pleasure (in the coventional sense) - that is by definition a choice attributable to your highest desire at that moment, which you did not choose. You can't even freely choose how to make the choice, because any such choice must be due to a further want that you did not choose.
Alex attempts to argue that we are not free to control our wants. He does this by suggesting a sort of infinite regress, if I could control my want it would only be because of another want. By positing the possibility of a universal highest want, this chain can end and the desired thing can at least possibly be desired for its own sake. This does not mean I have constructed an argument that this is true, merely that Alex's argument fails to debunk this possibility, which is how most people conceptualise free will. The burden of proof lies with Alex since his claim was that he could debunk free will entirely. He is wrong.
@@chaosphilosophorum Alex's point is that if you ever make a decision, by definition there is a want you are fulfilling. If you try to avoid that want by choosing something else, there is another want that you also didn't choose. It is not an infinite regress -- it just goes back to your conception as a fetus / and the development of your brain. You can never choose your way out of determinism, because every choice is being controlled by the want you are fulfilling, and you can't choose that want -- it emerges from the physical structure of your brain, however you want to talk about it or conceive of it.
@@patrickanderson9973 These are your assumptions. They may seem likely to yourself but they are not rigorous enough for a proof like Alex was attempting. Akex's proof did rely on a regress of sorts, if I choose ice cream because I want ice cream, even if I choose to want ice cream it is because I want sweetness, etc. If I choose to pursue goodness because I want happiness, and choose happiness because I want goodness, I have made this choice for its own sake. My wants are not by default controlling me.
So free will doesn't exist bc we react off of what we desire??? But our desires already proves Free will. Kinda seem like an circular argument bc if there is no Free will. There is no desire. Just pure reaction. Now this argument doesn't work against Free will being an Illusion, bc even if it's still an Illusion, free will still exist. We would still be free willed, just not sufficiently justified, especially for Hell
@@nbeutler1134 Desire is a Want. A want is purely of your choice/desire. You can deny your want. So instead of free will there's also free won't. In that case it's just not the same to say Desire or wanting disproves freewill, even on a naturalistic perspective.
@@nbeutler1134 Well think AB this. As the more you try to defend this idea. You inescapably run back to the same argument. If there is no free will in which we are controlled by our own desires. Then you have to ask yourself this. If you are controlled by your own desires. Doesn't that mean are desires are illusions themselves bc we can't choose them?
@@xpflowexclusive4313 not being able to choose something doesnt make it an illusion. An illusion means thinking something is there when it isnt. We know we have desires, we feel them and thiknk about them all the time. The illusion is free will because its something many of us think or feel like we have but in fact (or at least in my opinion, based off the definition "being able to do otherwise") we dont have it.
"A book in every home" also supports free will. 🙄 1:56 Before Age of Consent we have needs and after Age of Consent we can control our desires and wants. 🙄
"All humans desire happiness Therefore no free will" This is what I think he(O'Connor) is trying to say. This man is trying to disprove a fundamental concept by attacking another fundamental concept... Might as well say we dont have freewill because we cant have that initial choice not to exist.
It is a folly, he also has to justify why what makes us happy is not due to our freedom. There is actually another video on my channel against this type of egoism.
This is going to be a long one. Hello TH-cam Commenters and Chaos Philosophorum, My name is Richard. about a year and a half ago 10/31/2020 I attempted suicide because I was conivnced that determinism was correct. since then I have been totally devoid of energy and will power. today 06/17/2022 I decided to finally look up an argument against determinism. I'm sorry to say but I was extremely disapointed by this video and I didn't even watch it. CosmicSkeptic's arguments were so stupid that I didn't even bother to hear the rebuttals, I guess i believe in a different meaning of determinism. I guess it's just nihilism. 1 in order to have free will we would need to be aware of everything influensing our actions? what? No, just no, there are too many factors and too many of them don't even matter. 2 if we do something we don't want to prove we can it then we are still just doing what we want. Well yeah but that's also irrelovent, we always have multiple things we want at the same time and we absolutly can choose between them. HOWEVER. the determinism comes in that it doesn't actually matter because what we choose is already chosen. I have been convinced that we are all on a set path. Furthermore I say with complete belief that I don't Want to write this comment but I am anyway because that's just who I am. what brought Me to the conclusion of determinism was the factor of personality. If you fellow TH-cam commentors would like to debate me in this then we must first agree on 1 axiom. the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is that there is indeed a spiritual consciousness separate from, but still interacting with, the physical world. I have come to the conclusion that everything you can do, will do, and will not be able to do, is set at birth by 1 your genes, which predetermines what you will physically be able to do. 2 your PERSONALITY, which predetermines what you will be able to accomplish with those genes. 3 your upbringing, what your parents and siblings instil in you. the personality was the final terrible piece for me, it is because of my personality and conscience which is making me write this comment despite my active desire to not. I feel as though I am a puppet on a string playing a role I don't want. I believe that everything I do tomorrow is predetirmined to a point. what I eat is determined by what is available and what I in a lightly free will sense choose but what I Accomplish tomorrow is entirely out of my hands. I hate determinism, I always have, and I determined that if I was ever convinced of it that I would Force that path to kill me on that day. sadly when the day came I was still un able to slit my throat. I would be most appreciative if any of you could change my mind. the we have power over our personalities to shape them as we desire and that all people have the ability to change their own destiny.
One thing that I believe determinism cannot explain is the beginning of the universe/existance since nothing can have caused it to happen. Therefore some things can happen without any causation which I belive could make free will possible.
@@tkog2526 that is an interesting point. It seems based on the belief that there is no God. I do believe in a God so that is a reason that the universe would be created though it still seems not just possible but likely that things happen without causation. There is certainly true randomness in the world even without God, simply in the realm of quantum mechanics in which particles pick which of the slits to enter when observed, or when one of a particular pair chooses which orientation to have when observed. But now I have to wonder if we (macro scale) humans can really take advantage of those cause-less events. Because that's what I actually care about do we have any true influence over our world or are our outcomes predetermined. If a random, cause-less, event creates an avalanche are the fates of the people in its path in there own hands, or are some doomed to die before it starts only because they are lazy and are others already safe when it starts since they are smart and fast enough already to survive. Thank you for the response, I will continue thinking about it
Your personality doesn't also unfold from your genes (with determined contributions from environmental factors) as well? Why would you consider killing yourself because of determinism? Like....for real? This thing was kinda wtf.
I disagree. People tend to make this argument: 1. God knows everything that will happen 2. God knows that you will choose to do x 3. Therefore you will necessarily do x The conclusion has a gap in its logic, it will follow that you will do x but it is not a necessity. I'm thinking of making a video soon about the idea of a vulnerable/shifting God soon and this will probably tie into it all.
What's wrong with this kid? Does he want ice cream or not? Does it matter what flavor? Is he experiencing guilt for consuming the ice cream? Is it really ice cream we're talking about?
You wanted to make this video and you didnt have any free will when you made it, you now may WANT to respond to my comment, I WANTED to write this, if you reading this dont want to responde anymore to my comment, YOU WANT TO NOT DO IT
The problem is you suppressed the truth in irrationality. Deep down you know that God doesn’t exist because you can’t know anything without that understanding of the fundamental truth of the universe.
@@vanessadesire7 The problem is you suppressed the truth in irrationality. Deep down you know that God doesn’t exist because you can’t know anything without that understanding of the fundamental truth of the universe.
@@OsirusIrdia Deep down you know that He does exist cus like cmon I know you can’t seriously think that a bunch of particles came together & BOOM 💥 we’re here... that’s something else.. allll this design & it’s all just an accident in your world view 🤦🏻♀️
@@vanessadesire7 You're correct! I do not believe what you say because you have no knowledge of atheistic beliefs. It parallels saying the bible is a rose by the church to dominate society.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
I just got down showing my daughter Alex's video and this popped up. I appreciate how this video didn't use sarcasm or silly quips to try to prove a point. It was concise and respectful. Which is something that is missing in most debates these days. As far as the content goes I'm nowhere near knowledable on this subject to even begin to form an opinion. But I do appreciate this video. Thank you.
Just found this as an ad on a rationality rules video. Was surprised to see how little views this has.
Same
I saw it as an ad on a cosmic skeptic vid lol
Same saw this as an ad
All women under 30 must get abortions.
Wtf
You say at the start of your example that "grant that at some level we can have control over our desires". That's called begging the question. You can't start with the assumption of control to then conclude that we have control.
Perhaps a lack of clarity on my part.
The reason I grant that in my example was because Alex (cosmicskeptic) had already granted it in his argument. This isn't to say that this control = free will but rather that we often choose to change our desires.
Alex argues that even when we are choosing to change our desires, we do so because we are following a higher desire and then he says that there will always be a higher desire that we can't control. This video mainly focuses on why his argument falls short, rather than affirming free will.
Thank you for taking the time to watch :)
@@chaosphilosophorum I just rewatched Alex's vid there and he doesn't grant this. In fact he says at 7:14 "you can't control the strengths and objects of your desires"
and also concludes @11:52 by saying that you can do whatever you want you just can't choose what you want"
That's his whole point in that video, which is why I thought it was strange that you were just granting it.
Maybe if you can could you write your position out in a syllogism. It might make it clearer for me.
I agree with Alex's view on this although I'm always open to having my mind changed.
@@drpancake4103 Sure let me give it a go. I'll first just add that the claim you can't control the objects of your desires is dependent on his later claim that every time we change our mind, we do so at the influence of another desire. For example, if you choose to walk instead of taking the bus you do so because you are controlled by a deeper desire. The choice to walk or take the bus is the sort of superficial (but not free) level of control we both grant.
1. Alex states "so whenever you don't want to do something but do it anyway, this is only because of a stronger and equally uncontrollable desire".
2. He then claims that this means we cannot be free, since we can never choose to desire the object of our desire, because by doing this we are following the will of an existing 'want'.
3. Since we cannot have an infinite chain of desires, our actions must be taken in accordance to 1 or more 'highest desires', desires that govern all of our actions (at least at a given time).
4. Each of these desires has an opposite, e.g we may always seek pleasure but another may seek to suffer.
5. If free will existed then we would have a free choice between these 2 binaries, any choice to pursue suffering is done for the reason that we desire suffering, rather than a higher desire. We have already stated that all actions have come down to suffering or feeling pleasure, as this is what we have put as a placeholder for this highest desire that must exist.
6. Betraying our highest desire would be an action taken were the will creates the object of our desire rather than our will following the object of our desires.
5-6 is not really begging the question. Alex's argument is a reductio ad absurdum of sorts, he shows that free will is contradictory because any standard choice (chocolate instead of vanilla) is really just following the desire of our sugar tooth, which is in turn following our desire for pleasure etc. If free will existed we could replace our desire for pleasure with a desire for pain without this cost, since we have changed the object of our highest desire. Again I'm not affirming free will but rebutting Alex's argument against it.
I hope this raised some points of interest to you, I look forward to hearing your thoughts :)
@@chaosphilosophorum "We have already stated that all actions come down to suffering or feeling pleasure"
actually as you agreed with Alex in your video all actions come down to wanting to do them or being forced to do them (with the disclaimer about accidents on the side). This is an important distinction here because you say
"any choice to pursue suffering is done for the reason that we desire suffering, rather than a higher desire."
if you "choose" to pursue suffering that IS your highest desire, by definition. A desire which you have no control over.
I think you might be mixing up Alex's vids on free will with his vids on morality or veganism, because there's further nuance to the way he talks regarding pleasure and suffering.
@@drpancake4103 I'm not actually claiming suffering is the highest desire because of Alex's beliefs, but it was a good example to use. In the video I claim that a highest desire must exist, what this highest desire actually is unknown but this doesn't matter.
'if you "choose" to pursue suffering that IS your highest desire, by definition. A desire which you have no control over.'.
The problem is Alex claims that making this choice would require following a desire. But this choice could simply be free desire itself, it doesn't have to be the case that this desire was caused by ANOTHER desire.
Free will entails desire, obviously, but Alex claims desire comes before choice. Here it's possible that free choice and desire are identical, or in other words the free choice is the first moment of desire.
Likewise if our highest desire was something other than pleasure and pain, the ability to freely choose between it and it's opposite would still be logically possible.
High desire, low desire, whatever.
We don't create nor do we control out wants. Any of em. And in the end, there is not even a real you who could control anything.
You don’t make your blood flow, choose your interests, or create your understandings. You don't create your wants that direct what you want to choose, the urge to choose something or the urge to suppress another urge. Events happen by
themselves. If you examine choice, you will find no experience of you initiating any action.
If I ask you to think of two animals, right now, two animals will pop up in your thoughts. But you don't decide, beforehand, which animals will pop up. That simply happens.
If I ask you to focus on only one of those animals, your focus goes to one of them, without you deciding which one.
If there is a mental debate about which one to focus on, you don't decide to have that debate.
And, out of that debate, when the focus eventually does go to one of them, it's because you simply want to focus on that particualr one. But you don't create that want.
Right now, you are happening. The entire process that you are (includinfg the sense of there bekng a self in the first place) is happening. What are you doing to make yourself happen in the way you happen? The answer is simple. Nothing.
Another video about free will:
th-cam.com/video/A6iMWRVYCqo/w-d-xo.html
Dumbest sh8t written on the internet
Pls give me my 15 sec back
Our desires _influence_ our choices.
They do not _determine_ them.
Very true
They do
If anything influences your choices then the strongest influence wins. If anything influences your choice then your choice is not “free”. You still have will it just isn’t free from influence. Does that help clear things up?
If they are the only thing that influences them, and they are, then they do indeed determine them
@@KrypticSpiderMan not sure why the quote has bad grammar but that is a compatibilist stance. I do not think it is coherent.
Your arguments sound really interesting and logical. The only problem is that I am having difficulty understanding many of your and Alex's points (it's mostly becsuse english is not my first language and i have not studied philosophy that much) so it's hard for me to pick a side. But I will still try to understand you both. Good job, have a good day
To say that we can choose between desires with free will, is to say that we can act without reason/motivation, for that is precisely what a desire is. However, even granted one can act for no reason at all, this would not support free will. "No reason" by definition means void of any influence, and that is precisely what the chooser would be.
What about the good and evil aspect of a desire and the efficacy of acting upon that desire to bring about said good or evil? Is it possible we choose good for goodness sake or evil for our own selfish sake? It seems as though desires and how well one can rationalize and what one takes as rational varies from person to person greatly. It seems ones more apt to concede that they were being immoral in a situation because of the ostensible nature of objective morals, but less apt in conceding that they were being irrational or unreasonable. It’s difficult to see how one can be considered good until he has chosen to be good, so it’s hard to give credit to some pre-existing desire or reason to bring about said goodness if you want to consider including reasons and desires as part of the person. I guess then you would have to get rid of the entire notion of good and evil at that point which seems impossible. Nonetheless, free will is a very tricky issue and paradoxical in many aspects. I think to even began to try and untangle knots of the problem, you have to first come to a sort of consensus on what this “I” having free will is. Just my quick thoughts.
I guess what I was kind of trying to hint at was the fact that people usual consider themselves as being rational in a situation or reasonable in a situation intuitively and intrinsically within themselves. But we usual always admit within ourselves when we are wrong or right morally in a given situation and I think to equate desire and reason to choice is merely a fallacy of equivocation. Perhaps we chose good or evil just for the sake of us understanding what they undoubtedly are. And to give credit of our choosing one or the other to prior desires and reasons by which we have no control over not only distinguishes the self entirely but the concept of good and evil all together which seems equally incorrect as claiming 2+2=5. That is not to say we must have control over our desires and reason to have free will, but rather we must have at least control over what we chose as far as things being morally good or evil.
The ability to choose what we want to do doesn't mean we have to constantly change what we want or somehow choose both options simultaneously. If I must make a choice between two things and I choose one thing, it just confirms that I had a choice between two things and made a choice. The whole scenario begins by assuming that a choice must be made and once a choice is made it confirms that premise - that I really had a choice between two things. Alex claims that making a choice somehow proves I didn't have a choice, but it proves the opposite. Whatever may have influenced the particular choice is not part of the scenario - Alex needs to smuggle that in after a choice is made in order to argue that there really was no choice to be made.
i don't know if you understand the argument. Why did you write this comment? The only logical reason is you wanted to. therefore you did it. If you chose not to you would have had a reason to do so and that reason would have to be desired more than your desire to comment. you think you have the choice but it ultimately will aline with whichever you desire more which is not controlable
@@Dont_Click_On_My_Video I'm pretty sure I understand the argument, and as I stated, it's flawed. I commented because I wanted to comment and I chose to comment. To claim I didn't have a choice would require identifying that which forced me to comment against my will.
@@davidreinker5600 you said you chose the comment but the entire reason you did was because you wanted to. How do you not realize you didn't actually have a choice in the matter.
Every aspect of our cognitive tapestry [determines / tethers] our actions/choices/considerations. This precludes our actions/choices/considerations of ever being [free / untethered]. So, IF one insists that there must be "free will", I am left to ask *"How can one's will be free/untethered from how such is formed and how such operates?"*
It feels like experiences you’ve had throughtout life will shape your personality and wants to a point where your reactions come from previous causes, like if someone rejected you when you are young you may become a person who is afraid to put themselves out there, as well as all the other experiences that help shape your actions. To change the way you react to things you would need an outside influence like a therapist, friend, philosophy video, etc to change how you perceive and react to things in the future. You don’t just decide without an outside stimulus to be different.
When understanding decision making, one must look at the decision within a specific context to be able to determine whether or not the suffering was a conscious decision made as a result of inherent detest of one’s self or low self worth as you described it in the video.
Take, for instance, the decision to undergo chemotherapy vs letting the cancer run its course. One could argue that the decision to undergo the pains of chemotherapy for a slight chance of survival and longevity could be viewed as a “conscious willful decision to suffer”. But when you take the decision to suffer in the context of the larger picture, it dispels the logic explained in this video. The conscious INTENTION of the decision dictates the desire, not the desire itself.
When you look at the psychological implications of free will within the amalgamation of all other sciences- including anthropology, mythology, religion, human physiology, and evolutionary biology, you understand that free will is of Spirit and decision is of man. The ultimate problem, I’m finding, is that we are both deterministic (classical physics) and completely random (quantum physics) simultaneously and at the same time. And for whatever reason, people insist that it is one or the other.
Interesting comment!
To defend what I said in this video slightly, for the sake of argument I was assuming that the desire for pleasure was the highest desire. In this case all actions would be conducive to increasing pleasure, but I argued that this does not mean we wouldn't be free to abandon this value in the future. In the chemotherapy situation the highest desire seems to be something more like continuing life, or creating something for the future, in which case the subject would be free to follow this desire or abandon it.
I'm interested in what you had to say in that last sentence, what are your views on philosophies like determinism and materialism?
What do mean by "The conscious intention of the decision dictates the desire, not the desire itself"
Seemed to be a circle that made the same point but focused on the journey instead of the end conclusion. I'm still undecided but rather leaning towards the impossibly of free will. This subject is worthy of much debate and I appreciate this contribution.
Follow the journey!
‼️But the whole point is we do stuff we don't want to all the time. How many of us WANT to get up every day and go to work. None of us (except the lucky few who like and enjoy their jobs but we're not talking about them) WANT to do that but we do WANT to have a roof over our heads and food eat. There are plenty of people who also want a roof over their heads and food to eat who still CHOOSE not to work and instead CHOOSE to be deadbeats or mooches or live on the streets. To me that is proof of free will. At the end of the day freewill is how much suffering are you willing to put yourself through for an end goal. So even though there is technically a want behind going to work, there are plenty of people who every single day choose to take the chance of being homeless just so they don't have to do that. Even though their wants are the same as ours. Someone could have the exact same wants as you and still make completely different choices. THAT is freewill.
@@WhitneyDahlin I’d assume the argument Alex would make is that they do have different wants. They want to live on the street more than they want to go to work and have a roof over their head. People don’t have the same wants, and that is what influences our decision making
6:12 You can’t just simply this case for the sake of argument. What is the one ultimate desire pulling the strings behind the scenes? I think we change all the time and in some moments we actually don’t particularly want anything. Having the ability to separate from our own desires is very helpful.
The only good argument here is the one about conflicting desires, because it might be that free will is the capacity to evaluate them and choose which one to act upon (unless one assumes that there is always one desire that is "stronger", but that's just an unproven assumption).
The arguments about hierarchy of desires and on maximising pleasure vs. other motivations don't hold up, because even if there is a hierarchy or if one fails to uphold one's highest desire, it /can/ still be the case that both the hierarchy and the moral failures are determined by which desire is the strongest at any given moment.
In the end, I am "agnostic" about free will on the grounds of reason alone, as I think that all proposed solutions rely on unproven (and unprovable, objectively speaking) assumptions. There is no objectively measurable fact that can say whether my final choice was due to my higher freedom or to my strongest desire.
But on practical grounds, I do consider it possible objectively, I do experience it as a subjective fact (whenever I am faced with a choice), and above all I do consider it essential for my own sense of motivation, self-worth, and morality.
I think the argument about hierarchy of desires holds up. You point out that it /can/ still be the case that desires overthrow the current order of things. It could also be that a new desire is integrated by choice, as long as this is a possibility then it can't be said that acting according to your desires debunks free will.
I would also point out the difficulty of claiming that desires usurp other desires because of external influence (which sounds like the logical extension of what you said). For the new desire to be integrated into the psyche, it must do so from an already existing value structure. I'd argue that it's likely that this can never change unless from an internal cause, which leaves room on the table for the *possibility* of free will.
If one were to manage to prove free will, I would suspect it could only be done through deep introspection. "In the beginning there was the world" could translate to "the will brought consciousness into the world", but this would be far harder to argue for.
@@chaosphilosophorum Yes, I think I misrepresented my own objection or misunderstood the purpose of your arguments.
They all show that free will is a *possibility* that has at least equal likelihood to Cosmic Skeptic's own arguments.
They are definitely good as refutations. I just don't think they are conclusive as positive proofs.
They do have the advantage of being concordant with our inner sense, though.
The "inner conflict" argument is, to me, the most persuasive anyway. Not 100% probative, but very sound. I might be biased because I'm a sort of Platonist, though, haha!
I think free will exist, but it is limited. Like I get bad thoughts I don’t want. I can choose not act on it and rebuke those thought.
But can you not choose to not have those thoughts?
@@TheWheelsMaster Impossible to answer given current knowledge on though formation in our brains. No one knows how thoughts are formed. That's the reason Im undecided on the whole free will debate. Until we understand what drives our thought processes which in turn drive our actions, no one can make any claim about the existence or absence of free will.
@@E_Clip If something drives your thought process, how could you possibly think free will is possible?
Actions can only be taken by force or due to some motivation. If one has more of a motivation to commit y over h, he is bound to do y. 40% motive for h and 60% for y, is no different than 0% for h and 20% for y. So unless you grant the possibility for one to act for no reason (without any motivation), and yet still be free, we cannot have free Will.
Thanks for the interesting comment. I find it interesting that we can distinguish these different levels of motivation, do you think there is a difference in carrying out one of our desires strongly or weakly? I know the adversary of free will would say something like the strength of our motivation is what determines our drive, but I don't see why this would HAVE to be the case in all situations. What does effort boil down to in your opinion?
@@chaosphilosophorum I think how strongly one carries out their desire is dependent on there capability to do so, and the amount of other desires that are in the way. I may prefer chocolate over vanilla all together, but I would give up some vanilla for some smaller amount of chocolate.
@S_K C Presumably our actions come about as a result as something. Call it X. If we didn't choose X, the action isn't free, if we did choose X, the question is pushed back. What did that choice come as a result of. Our actions aren't proceeded by an infinite number of choices, so we bottom out somewhere. For every action there's an X such that we didn't choose X, and X accounts for that action.
@S_K C I admid I used the term "motivation" too broadly. It was meant to refer to any competing forces we might have that can result in action.
@S_K C Our choices can come as a result of any number of potential causes. The relevant point being that every single one of them is out of our control. Our actions are reducible to factors we did not have a choice over having.
As Schopenhauer puts it, "Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills". This logic is solid, i don't think you have been successiful in this video.
The fact that we are not infinite beings is precisely the reason for why we don't have free will.
Imagine that i try to acknowledge what my highest desire is. If i'm not able to do it, i means there is some unknown desire outside my conscious control and awareness. If i could do such thing, i would then ask myself why i have such desire. If i don't know the reason, it means this desire was put there by something beyond of my conscious control (no free will). If i do know the reason, and this reason is outside of me, then no free will; and if the reason is within me, it means that such desire must have been put there by another desire, and that one by another one, and so on and so forth, until i reach the previous case again.
That definiton of free will from Carl Young can't even be called free will. That is more like acceptance of fate.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. "Man can do what he wills" and "Man cannot will what he wills" are completely compatible statements. The second statement does not debunk the first. Therefore, man can do what he wills.
@@001variation yes, i guess you missed the point
@@gabri41200 You are trying to define free will as omnipotence. I’m showing you that the real definition of free will is to do what you will.
The objection CS "rebuts" debunks his position. Exercise vs. junk food. You objectively do want junk food more than exercise but you choose exercise. He just broadens the scale of what exercise is and claims that you wanted that. If you do that to junk food, you can achieve the same effect.
We want exercise and junk food because there is some good that we perceive in them. Nothing is SO good however that we MUST choose it.
You're right, I like your thinking :)
@@chaosphilosophorum and just to expound on it further, you can broaden the two choices to be the same thing, which would force CS to conclude that no choice was made at all, which is clearly false. Exercise is health is longevity is good for man. Junk food is momentary pleasure, is relaxation is... good for man.
Finally someone gets it
This completely ignores the distinction between short term pleasure and long term fulfillment. If you desire long term fulfillment more than short term pleasure then you will choose exercise. If you want short term pleasure more than long term fulfillment you will continuously choose junk food. No debunking here
To me, free wil is the ability to act according to one's will, without being forced to act against it. I'll grant that we can't choose our desires, but why are we assuming the desires are outside of the self? To me, my desires are a part of my nature. As long as I'm acting in accordance with that nature and its desires, I consider that free will, because it's a part of myself imposing my wants on me. I think asking for free will to choose to change your essential nature is absurd and not what "free will" means in common parlance anyway.
Your ‘highest desire’ as a finite being sounds like each desire which is motivated by some other, higher desire is a pyramid where the apex governs all other desires. So then can we argue free will exists in the smaller desires such as, how to fulfil that highest desire? Furthermore, where do reflexs fall into this argument? They are not conscious, forced or accidental. Within the meaning of free will define here and in the video by cosmic skeptic, all actions are taken because of desire or force, but I think reflexs are outside of this.
Was hoping for some insight. Alex is still reignning on this.
Do you think his argument still debunks free will? Perhaps you could clarify why my thinking falls short for me.
@@chaosphilosophorum he can't.
So, because I don't wanna hit my mother, this proves I have no free will? Have you and Alex gone completely mad?
@@CarnevalOne huh? The arguement says that you aren't in control of your desires or "wants". In order to want something you don't want you would have to "want to want" it and this would go on forever.
@@samuryebread1065 Agreed
Its good to hear many philosophical arguments about freewill and determinism but i prefer to believe that freewill is true.
If freewill is not true then many things in our lifetime are just a bunch of gibberish.
Let's say we COULD somehow magically step outside of ourselves and pick our fundamental desires. We would simply choose the exact same things, because those are the things WE desire. If you're talking about changing my fundamental desires, then the person you would end up with would not be me, but a different person.
I think your last sentence hits on the issue, it seems to allow for the possibility of ourselves to be self constituting, but even if your action changes who you are as a person this does not negate the idea of freedom, the freedom to not be, for example. My most recent video deals more directly with the causal implications of this.
You've failed - Alex's points on our actions being dictated by wants-for which we don't get to decide-still, robustly, holds up. As Alex pointed out; in order to choose a want; such a choice would require a motivating factor for selecting that want... As Alex said, "We'd have to want to want it"... But if we choose our wants, then wanting to want it would require a want for the want for the want.... Ad infinitum.
Even if Alex is wrong, we still don't get to decide which thoughts pop into our heads next, because in order to author our thoughts would require those thoughts to be based on already existing thoughts -- but those thoughts would _also_ require already existing thoughts, ad infinitum... And, in the same way, we don't decide what will occur to us; example: "it just occured to me that if we use this piece of wood that the structure will be more sound"... So we're lucky when such things occur to us. The same goes for memory: we're at the mercy of whatever we remember... We don't _decide_ to forget things... We simply forget things or we do not (such as names, or where we put something). So it doesn't really matter if we have "free will"....
Here's a simple representation of the regress problem regarding the formulation of Free Will as requiring complete independence from any and all prior causes, in the form of a logical syllogism:
Premise 1: Free Will requires independence from all prior causes.
Premise 2: Our existence is contingent on prior causes, including our birth.
Conclusion: Therefore, if Free Will necessitates independence from all prior causes, we wouldn't exist to have any form of will, free or otherwise.
This syllogism highlights the potential absurdity or self-defeating nature of a definition of Free Will that demands complete independence from all prior causes; ie, this formulation of Free Will results in the commission of a fallacy of proving too much.
Here's a more recent video I made on the problem, stressing how a free will could react to events in the world in the moment is definitely problematic, but I wonder if we can get around the problem by understanding a free will as something which doesn't necessarily change in time - th-cam.com/video/Xni5mjn40Ak/w-d-xo.html
It seems from my understanding right now that we have our wants from our cells which are determined by a random universe which makes our decisions absolutely random. If we're made by God we are given our will by God and can't be held accountable which is calvinistic. Either one, I despise both. Or I guess my cells do, or I was predetermined to....
This reminds me of something I read about Noam Chomsky, where he used the mind of a baby. The factor of knowledge, they said something in regards to the human brain being "pre-programmed" to receive data that will fill up overtime like a hard drive. Unfortunately our consious compared to our unconscious thought is drastically different, about 2% of our decisions are consious and the remaining 98% is subconscious. So everything you think is you isn't actually you, it's what was already there and developed with its surroundings (relating to Chomsky's perspective) and from this "development" and influence, we obtain a unique view point that can be changed and modified by others if we choose too. But it's contradicted by the point in which that is what our brain wants us to do because when "we" decide, unfortunately when it comes to mental health, you can't choose to stop a mental breakdown.
This was interesting, do you think we have any control over our minds however? I would agree that most of you is stuff you are unaware of, but I don't see why this has to be much of an issue, or why this real you couldn't be acting freely, materialism aside. Take the phrase "sabotaging yourself", something that the culprits may not be aware that they are doing. However the action is still being taken by them, and it's changed by their own willingness to face the fear holding them back.
What are your thoughts? Thanks for watching.
I agree with you but not for the reasons you stated.
1) Feelings and the will are two separate phenomenal. There is a big difference between feeling hungry and wanting to eat. Sometimes you have to stop something you feel like doing, like sleeping, to do something you don't feel like doing, like going to work. There is no positive emotion guiding you, feelings are not the will.
2) It's stupid to consider a want (will, not feeling) as something separate from yourself. Free will is a power of the self much like movement of the power of the atom. Your wants are your natural powers, not something external to you causing you to do what you want.
3) The burden of proof is in the sceptic. Just like it would be absurd to believe me if I told you that you have a second blind spot without evidence, the burden is on the free will denier since it's clearly experienced directly by our consciousness just like every other scientific fact, and the effects are also observed. The cities didn't build themselves, someone wanted to build them. Not only is this overwhelming positive evidence for free will, they have zero evidence against free will. All brain studies of free will are fundamental understandings of what free will actually is.
I feel like this entire argument falls apart on both sides solely based on the fact that this is just ALEX's opinion of what free will is and therefore he's arguing to his definition and I find both sides to be unsatisfying to my personal definition because they just don't make sense
What do you personally think tho ?
Yeah, these assertions about acting contrary to our top level desire because (for example) one may feel unworthy of pleasure or something...for the truly few ppl that would even act in ways that seem to fit this description outwardly it will be the case that denying a want in one sense fulfills some deeper want at a conscious or subconscious level. I appreciate the attempt but nothing in this video describes a plausible, realistic way in which ppl would ever act contrary to their strongest desires. Also, the narrator seems to contradict himself in originally agreeing with Alex that desire or duress are the ONLY 2 reasons anyone does anything then flatly refuting that several minutes later. I don't think Alex has been refuted at all.
The assertion was not made that we can ever act contrary to our highest level desire, I would grant Alex that this is true. I am simply pointing out that it is possible for us to have a highest desire, and that our reason of 'wants' reaches a limit in the highest desire. When we act in accordance to a different desire, we simply want something else, our desire has changed because our preferences have changed, not because of some pre-existing desire. This simply stops some sort of regress which Alex uses to debunk free will. Rather than wanting something because we want something else, we can want things because we want that thing in of itself. Alex's argument against free will depends solely on the former.
@@chaosphilosophorum "we can want things because we want that thing in and of itself." It hasn't been apparent to some of the leading thinkers of all time either how this is the case or how it equals free will. Of course, just because I can point to sone smart persons that don't believe in free will and either didn't find these arguments convincing or just didn't think of them at all doesn't prove anything. Except that how any of this equals free will still needs to be made clear. If we can want something for its own sake so what??
@@paulnejtek6588 Except, as someone who is debunking Alex's argument, I am not entitled to show free will = wanting something for its own sake. Alex argues free will =/= wanting something because we want something else, which he argues is what is always the case. By showing that it does not always have to be the case, Alex's argument has failed to debunk free will, thus I have debunked Alex.
I am not arguing for free will here, hope this helps.
@@chaosphilosophorum "rather than wanting something because we want something else, we can want things because we want that thing in itself." Ummm. Not sure what you mean by that??? Alex's argument doesn't seem to rely on the former at all. If you want something for itself how does that place the want under your volition anyhow??
I doubt that pleasures is the sole primary goal. More likely I'd say there are a myriad of primaries competing with each other. Nevertheless, I still don't think that gets you to free will. It only complicates the problem. Maximizing two variables that depend on each other is still a maxing problem. I can grand that the self loathing person isn't acting out of a desire for pleasure, but they still want to act in accordance with what the believe they deserve. This is desire can be boiled down to some primary, and for whatever reason that overruled their desire for pleasure. Another person may value pleasure more highly and therefore would choose pleasure anyways evennif the think they don't deserve it. The only way around this I see is to somehow act contrary to what you believe will maximize your primary desires, but you already conceded that we only act according to what we want or what we're being forced to do, so I don't see how you get to free will.
This began a 12 year old with a life expectancy of 80 years making decisions when going through puberty. Yes shocking… a lawsuit is required.
Could you elucidate me on something: does Alex believe that moral responsibility exists in the absence of free will, or that the absence of free will necessitates the absence of moral responsibility? I personally believe the former, but am curious as to his opinion since I can't find it stated anywhere
Alex conducted a discussion with Rationality Rules from roughly five years ago, in which they both stated that under their view of Hard Determinism "Moral Responsibility" is not possible to assign, as we are not free agents and could not have chosen otherwise due to the way our atoms/functions were arranged to produce certain outcomes or effects from the beginning. He cited the lack of free will as a reason to reform the criminal justice system as well as compel society to adjust their view of criminals, viewing them as unfortunate victims of circumstance rather than deliberate agents of chaos and harm.
Although he does not subscribe to moral responsibility, he stated that there is still reason to "punish" the guilty, by separating them from society, preventing further tragedy and promoting rehabilitation.
Elements of his view disturb me, as he demonstrated more compassion for a hypothetical rapist and murder as opposed to the victims of the crime, one of which was a fictitious nine year old girl used as an illustrative point. I am also concerned about the implications of this view. Widely adopting a Hard Determinist standpoint may lead people to feelings of hopelessness, a lack of accountability and surrendering to an entirely external locus of control, causing society to devolve into a depressive, automated state in which no one accepts responsibility for their failures or rejoices in their achievements.
Here is the link to their discussion.
th-cam.com/video/lks1MfZ8gQU/w-d-xo.html
Here is the link to their discussion.
th-cam.com/video/lks1MfZ8gQU/w-d-xo.html
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc
Agreed, I think there are a lot of unfortunate positions that one must take to accommodate a hard determinist position. I would probably classify myself as a compatibilist, though I’m not sure if that really captures the essence of my position.
I believe that the universe is deterministic such that it wouldn’t allow for free will. There might be quantum indeterminacy, but that still isn’t the result of some free agent.
Despite the fact that there is no free will, I still believe one can be held morally responsible. This is because every action that an “agent” performs is what they believe to be their choice, and every choice that is made is ubiquitously made because said choice was the most desirable to the agent. So even if the choice was actually predetermined by a host of physiological interactions, it would still appear to the agent as their choice.
I always struggle to put it into words well but let me know what issues are agreements you have, if you’d like.
@@zookboy5714 that's my position too, if humans believe that they feel they have a choice and this is almost an undeniable objective truth for all humans cuz nobody goes around living there life basing there choices randomly or maybe every time they want to make a choice they throw a coin so they would ignore the feeling and base there choice on the result of the coin that is based on the constant physical state of the word, no body does that , so if we all agree that we have that feeling coming from our conscious being or intuition to chose between A and B then we should not care about the unknown motives and get punished based on that feeling that "i feel that I'm the one choosing" otherwise life would practically be not good for us to coexist cuz nothing gonna make sense and nothing will have value which is not a good idea to have in my opinion cuz the world would be HELL,
Ummm. Yeah....I'ma hafta rewatch this tomorrow to be sure, but it seems like there's a few claims simply asserted here as if undeniable which are not remotely obvious. Of course, it doesn't mean too much if they're obvious to some ordinary amateur like myself. They also seem to not be obvious to a few of the leading philosophers/scientists in history. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but certainly need more backing. Some of the stuff about choice, at least in the manner stated in this video, makes no sense at all.
I don’t think you ever addressed what’s at the philosophical heart of the matter in Alex’s arguments or determinism in general. You took an axiom, which in this case was ethical egoism and tried to make it incompatible with determinism but you never actually jumped over the hurdle of “free choice” you kind of just started with your conclusion and then worked your way back. For instance, in your example of someone who “chooses” to see themselves worthy of hate , you just made the assumption that one has the ability to “choose” to adopt a posture like that as a matter of free will which would imply that they could just “choose” to view themselves worthy of love but they simply don’t. In either scenario you find yourself in in a perspective that you fundamentally have no control over. Where’s the free will ?
Thanks for your comment. A few things to say about the video, I never addressed any argument from determinism. This argument responds to one specific egoist argument Alex puts forward. When I spoke about having at least a binary of choices one could make, I did so because I believed such a possibility was compatible with the points Alex brought up, not necessarily because I was arguing that it was true.
Hope this cleared some things up.
I think your argument from higher order desires is rather one made by modern compatibilists describing the “types of freedom” one is susceptible to. Though these higher order desires can be independent of wellbeing and feel conceptually freer, they don’t get rid of the problem within the propositional logic of incompatibilist reasoning. If you have the “strength” to follow your highest desire, that strength will be in line with a predetermined ability to act it out (Because you have the necessary force to align yourself to your highest desire that is not in your control). It is rather an intuition of what is free, rather than what is “actually” free, because any desire will still cause your action with regards to your ability to act. Peter Van Inwagen would describe your ability to act in accordance to a desire as a touchable fact. Both the factor of ability to and order of desire will always only cause one alternative outcome. Desire & Ability one and only one action.
However,
Alex argument relies on the fact that desires cause our actions D & abilitiesA, “you only do something because you want to” or “if you are forced to”.
The logical structure however could be that the scope of your ability to decide an action could precede the desire. So that you could chose or are the first cause of different possible desires
YouDesire1 or D2 or D3 Action1 or A2 or A3
I have covered Alex’s position in a video myself. If you’d like to check it out.
And nonetheless a great video!
Around 8:16 you say that 'if someone is trying to maximise their pleasure and chooses to consider themselves worthy of hate......'
This is self contradictory.
The problem is you assume in the given example that someone chooses to cause suffering despite having a want for pleasure as the highest desire. You consider (in the mentioned example) the 'highest desire' as permanant and unchangeable. People choosing to cause suffering don't have the want to maximise the pleasure (at least in the time period they have that particular want). This is actually a psychological condition called chronical unhappiness (besides being associated with other mental conditions such as depression, low self esteem etc.)
P.S: It is quite difficult to discern the illusion of freewill if we first identify the uncontrolled want and check if the action matches to it. It becomes obvious only if we identify the action and search for the corresponding want. (Connecting the dots backward rather than looking forward)
I wouldn't consider a highest desire as necessarily permanent, but you make a good point.
I agree that every action has a corresponding want, but why can a want not be correspondent to the desire of the free agent? What is stopping desire being free?
I think the missing part of the equation is character. We may genuinely want to be successful but our fear in the moment prevents us. In this sense we are full of conflicting wills, but what is stopping one part of you conquer your fears in the same way an athlete overcomes his competition. I think this is most often rejected because of deterministic belief.
So...because I don't want to hit my mother means I have no free will? Some philosopher, this Alex.
Ikr lmao he thinks having desires means we must do the strongest one which is bullshit lmao
No, its because you cannot want what you want. You can't control your wants.
Whatever you do is what you are compelled to do.
You don’t make your blood flow, choose your interests, or create your understandings. You don't create your wants that direct what you want to choose, the urge to choose something or the urge to suppress another urge. Events happen by
themselves. If you examine choice, you will find no experience of you initiating any action.
"so....because I don't want to hit my mother means I have no free will?" Huh? If that's what you took from it, time to look again.
I think you are getting bogged down in this notion of choosing among "highest" desires. You never actually rebut Alex's argument that you cannot control what it is you ultimately want to do -- i.e. you *cannot* actually choose your highest desire. Whatever you choose - to suffer (in the conventional sense) or to feel pleasure (in the coventional sense) - that is by definition a choice attributable to your highest desire at that moment, which you did not choose. You can't even freely choose how to make the choice, because any such choice must be due to a further want that you did not choose.
Alex attempts to argue that we are not free to control our wants. He does this by suggesting a sort of infinite regress, if I could control my want it would only be because of another want. By positing the possibility of a universal highest want, this chain can end and the desired thing can at least possibly be desired for its own sake.
This does not mean I have constructed an argument that this is true, merely that Alex's argument fails to debunk this possibility, which is how most people conceptualise free will. The burden of proof lies with Alex since his claim was that he could debunk free will entirely. He is wrong.
@@chaosphilosophorum Alex's point is that if you ever make a decision, by definition there is a want you are fulfilling. If you try to avoid that want by choosing something else, there is another want that you also didn't choose. It is not an infinite regress -- it just goes back to your conception as a fetus / and the development of your brain. You can never choose your way out of determinism, because every choice is being controlled by the want you are fulfilling, and you can't choose that want -- it emerges from the physical structure of your brain, however you want to talk about it or conceive of it.
@@patrickanderson9973 These are your assumptions. They may seem likely to yourself but they are not rigorous enough for a proof like Alex was attempting. Akex's proof did rely on a regress of sorts, if I choose ice cream because I want ice cream, even if I choose to want ice cream it is because I want sweetness, etc. If I choose to pursue goodness because I want happiness, and choose happiness because I want goodness, I have made this choice for its own sake. My wants are not by default controlling me.
CosmicSkeptic’s juvenile determinist bullshit did not dignify your response.
tbh, I found this attempted rebuttal incredibly unconvincing.
Care to explain why
@@chaosphilosophorum sure, are you on discord?
@@ben_alfred Yeah, feel free to share and I will add you
@@chaosphilosophorum sorry for the delayed response
@@chaosphilosophorum I look forward to the conversation👍
So free will doesn't exist bc we react off of what we desire???
But our desires already proves Free will. Kinda seem like an circular argument bc if there is no Free will. There is no desire. Just pure reaction.
Now this argument doesn't work against Free will being an Illusion, bc even if it's still an Illusion, free will still exist. We would still be free willed, just not sufficiently justified, especially for Hell
How does having desire prove free will?
@@nbeutler1134 Desire is a Want. A want is purely of your choice/desire. You can deny your want. So instead of free will there's also free won't. In that case it's just not the same to say Desire or wanting disproves freewill, even on a naturalistic perspective.
@@xpflowexclusive4313 but you don't control your wants, your wants control you, so you don't have free will by acting off your wants
@@nbeutler1134 Well think AB this.
As the more you try to defend this idea. You inescapably run back to the same argument.
If there is no free will in which we are controlled by our own desires. Then you have to ask yourself this.
If you are controlled by your own desires. Doesn't that mean are desires are illusions themselves bc we can't choose them?
@@xpflowexclusive4313 not being able to choose something doesnt make it an illusion. An illusion means thinking something is there when it isnt. We know we have desires, we feel them and thiknk about them all the time. The illusion is free will because its something many of us think or feel like we have but in fact (or at least in my opinion, based off the definition "being able to do otherwise") we dont have it.
"A book in every home" also supports free will. 🙄 1:56 Before Age of Consent we have needs and after Age of Consent we can control our desires and wants. 🙄
"All humans desire happiness
Therefore no free will"
This is what I think he(O'Connor) is trying to say.
This man is trying to disprove a fundamental concept by attacking another fundamental concept...
Might as well say we dont have freewill because we cant have that initial choice not to exist.
It is a folly, he also has to justify why what makes us happy is not due to our freedom. There is actually another video on my channel against this type of egoism.
This is going to be a long one.
Hello TH-cam Commenters and Chaos Philosophorum, My name is Richard.
about a year and a half ago 10/31/2020 I attempted suicide because I was conivnced that determinism was correct.
since then I have been totally devoid of energy and will power.
today 06/17/2022 I decided to finally look up an argument against determinism.
I'm sorry to say but I was extremely disapointed by this video and I didn't even watch it.
CosmicSkeptic's arguments were so stupid that I didn't even bother to hear the rebuttals, I guess i believe in a different meaning of determinism. I guess it's just nihilism.
1 in order to have free will we would need to be aware of everything influensing our actions? what? No, just no, there are too many factors and too many of them don't even matter.
2 if we do something we don't want to prove we can it then we are still just doing what we want. Well yeah but that's also irrelovent, we always have multiple things we want at the same time and we absolutly can choose between them. HOWEVER.
the determinism comes in that it doesn't actually matter because what we choose is already chosen.
I have been convinced that we are all on a set path. Furthermore I say with complete belief that I don't Want to write this comment but I am anyway because that's just who I am.
what brought Me to the conclusion of determinism was the factor of personality.
If you fellow TH-cam commentors would like to debate me in this then we must first agree on 1 axiom.
the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is that there is indeed a spiritual consciousness separate from, but still interacting with, the physical world.
I have come to the conclusion that everything you can do, will do, and will not be able to do, is set at birth by
1 your genes, which predetermines what you will physically be able to do.
2 your PERSONALITY, which predetermines what you will be able to accomplish with those genes.
3 your upbringing, what your parents and siblings instil in you.
the personality was the final terrible piece for me, it is because of my personality and conscience which is making me write this comment despite my active desire to not.
I feel as though I am a puppet on a string playing a role I don't want. I believe that everything I do tomorrow is predetirmined to a point. what I eat is determined by what is available and what I in a lightly free will sense choose but what I Accomplish tomorrow is entirely out of my hands.
I hate determinism, I always have, and I determined that if I was ever convinced of it that I would Force that path to kill me on that day. sadly when the day came I was still un able to slit my throat. I would be most appreciative if any of you could change my mind.
the we have power over our personalities to shape them as we desire and that all people have the ability to change their own destiny.
One thing that I believe determinism cannot explain is the beginning of the universe/existance since nothing can have caused it to happen. Therefore some things can happen without any causation which I belive could make free will possible.
@@tkog2526 that is an interesting point.
It seems based on the belief that there is no God.
I do believe in a God so that is a reason that the universe would be created though it still seems not just possible but likely that things happen without causation. There is certainly true randomness in the world even without God, simply in the realm of quantum mechanics in which particles pick which of the slits to enter when observed, or when one of a particular pair chooses which orientation to have when observed.
But now I have to wonder if we (macro scale) humans can really take advantage of those cause-less events. Because that's what I actually care about do we have any true influence over our world or are our outcomes predetermined. If a random, cause-less, event creates an avalanche are the fates of the people in its path in there own hands, or are some doomed to die before it starts only because they are lazy and are others already safe when it starts since they are smart and fast enough already to survive.
Thank you for the response, I will continue thinking about it
Your personality doesn't also unfold from your genes (with determined contributions from environmental factors) as well? Why would you consider killing yourself because of determinism? Like....for real? This thing was kinda wtf.
Okay. Let's we say we have free will. Then it means that God CAN'T know all. If he knows all, then we CAN'T have free will. You can't have both.
I disagree. People tend to make this argument:
1. God knows everything that will happen
2. God knows that you will choose to do x
3. Therefore you will necessarily do x
The conclusion has a gap in its logic, it will follow that you will do x but it is not a necessity.
I'm thinking of making a video soon about the idea of a vulnerable/shifting God soon and this will probably tie into it all.
@@chaosphilosophorum My necessity is already predetermined by God. So again, how can you have both?
@@AlexanderCheong The foreknowledge dilemma does, in my opinion, disprove the existence of free will in tandem with an omniscient God
What's wrong with this kid? Does he want ice cream or not? Does it matter what flavor? Is he experiencing guilt for consuming the ice cream?
Is it really ice cream we're talking about?
Wrong try again. Infinite knowledge what is that?
What do you mean?
You wanted to make this video and you didnt have any free will when you made it, you now may WANT to respond to my comment, I WANTED to write this, if you reading this dont want to responde anymore to my comment, YOU WANT TO NOT DO IT
Childish..
Oh no
man's attempts to fathom the infinite LOL
The fact that Alex can even think is because of God.
The problem is you suppressed the truth in irrationality. Deep down you know that God doesn’t exist because you can’t know anything without that understanding of the fundamental truth of the universe.
@@OsirusIrdia I do know that it required a creator.
@@vanessadesire7 The problem is you suppressed the truth in irrationality. Deep down you know that God doesn’t exist because you can’t know anything without that understanding of the fundamental truth of the universe.
@@OsirusIrdia Deep down you know that He does exist cus like cmon I know you can’t seriously think that a bunch of particles came together & BOOM 💥 we’re here... that’s something else.. allll this design & it’s all just an accident in your world view 🤦🏻♀️
@@vanessadesire7 You're correct! I do not believe what you say because you have no knowledge of atheistic beliefs. It parallels saying the bible is a rose by the church to dominate society.
Go away Christian.
@Joseph all women under 30 must get abortions.
@@OsirusIrdia wait what?
Why should christians go away?
@@webslinger527 your husband doesn’t beat you enough.
@@OsirusIrdia I don't have a husband nor am I gay so I ask again why does Christians have to go away