One of my favorite topics out of the many that Robert investigates. He poses some of the most insightful questions some of which are beyond my poor intellect. Love the vids.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: OPENING PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I decided to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!!! Cont...
Though others views may seem “Extreme to you” in no way does that change if the view is correct. Not believing in free will doesn’t mean there are no repercussions for behaviors that hurt others. Great series. Subscribed.
But we do have free will depending on how it's defined. That was his point about the semantics. Libertarian free will obviously isn't real. Compatibilist free will obviously is real.
That the state intervenes to apply punishment to a criminal is typical of the Middle Ages. The state must try to correct the damage caused by a criminal and at the same time prevent him from continuing to commit crimes. That should be the goal. Social revenge against the offender is an absurd idea. From that point of view, the fact that humans do not have free will does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. That being so, responsibility is similar to the moral judgment that people make when a tiger attacks them. One does not want the tiger to hurt someone but one does not want to take revenge on the tiger. The rational action is to prevent its attack, minimize the damage when it occurs and also take steps to prevent it from happening again. It is irrational to punish the tiger by confinement in the cruelest conditions so that society considers itself compensated for the damage caused. This is equivalent in humans. One must intervene to prevent a "responsible" human from committing an inconvenient or harmful act. Being responsible means that if one acts in a certain way, society has permission to manipulate him to restrict such actions. But that has nothing to do with assuming that locking someone up in cruel conditions will be a moral lesson that will improve the criminal. If free will is to interpret that a conscious being is a "selector" who chooses between a group of possible options, in a type of expression of his will without any type of conditioning, that interpretation is contradictory to logic. The selector can only choose for some reason or no reason at all. Neither of the two cases corresponds to the exercise of will without conditions. In the first case, the selector obeys some factor and in the second case it was chance and not the will of the agent who motivated the selection.
I don't think free will should be a factor in deciding about punishment. What difference does it make? (The debate about punishment in general is a separate debate.)
There can be no absolute free will where there is more than one will involved. Free Will is a moral issue and therefore there has to be a universal moral standard to spell out our individual free wills.
No, free will transcends morals both above and below morals. Free will includes mundane choices like which bathroom you night use in a house, when to take out the trash, and also includes high-level choices like discovery and intelligent learning. Morals are a mid range governance set by society but have nothing to do with individual choices outside the law or mores and norms.
I think that even though people don’t have free will like they think they do, however people still have to be held accountable. Part of the game. We’ve all been a victim to some degree of that standard of being responsible for your actions
Held accountable only if caught. We are all the inmates and the guards in this prison planet. We all obey each other. Government s are never held accountable. The vikings were never held accountable.
In regards to free will or no free will, would it plausible that a person makes a decision in regards to what available tools ( brain functions / neuron networks etc ) the person has ? And what do they mean by supernatural ? I personally wouldn’t regard any kind of quantum entanglement of sorts as supernatural if that’s what they mean. I certainly wouldn’t regard freedom of thought or free will related to the likes of psychic abilities, so the word supernatural is a confusing one mentioned in the video.
In the physicalist view, the mind is the activity of the brain integrating, synthesising and processing information. Since it’s a process on information it can have all the characteristics of such processes. It can be descriptive, be about something, it can refer or be compared to other information such as memories, and it can be self referential in the way that this sentence now refers to itself. We don’t understand this process fully yet, but physicalism is just the view that this seems to be the most plausible explanation so far.
Before we can discuss if we have free will, we should first establish a rigorous definition of what free will actually is. I have never seen or heard of any such definition.
There are two main views in this. What we might call autonomous free will is the belief that we are physical beings. We evaluate information on a situation according to a set of cognitive systems such as beliefs, preferences, dislikes, analytical skills, memories, etc. Then we make a decision based on these, maybe with some random factor. So free will in this account is the freedom to choose independently of external coercion, but the decisions involved are determined by physical processes. What we might call libertarian free will is the idea that regardless of any of that, when we finally choose, we can do otherwise. That no causal factors constrain the choice. This view is most often associated with dualism, the idea that ‘we’, the true self, is not material. While autonomous free will is most often associated with the view that we are our physical bodies.
@@bozo5632 I gave a basic account of determinism in my description of what I called autonomous free will. They’re not always associated, but most determinists accept some form of autonomous free will. It’s just the idea that the only processes we have solid evidence for are physical processes and that humans are most likely to be purely physical beings, with the activity in our bodies including the brain determined by the ‘laws’ of physics.
@@simonhibbs887 Leave brains out of it, I say. If determinism is true about non-living things, then it's true about us too. (As we are fancified assemblages of non-living things.) Inserting yourself, or the self, or human perspectives just adds layers (upon layers) of confusion. But it might not be true. For instance, there doesn't seem to be evidence of anything that determines which direction the photon will go after an electron drops down an energy state. If that's not rigidly determined, then nothing is.
We have free will, but we dont have free will. If the many world's interpretation of quantum theory is right, every outcome is laid out before us. Whatever one we choose is our decision, therefore giving us free will, but seeing as every outcome is a part of our future and exists in our future we can't deviate from doing what is laid out before us.
The misnomer question of free will when humanity resides in: systems, orders, hierarchy, constraints of economy, state, geography, politics, society, mobility…
So glad you are investigating all these things! There are natural forces that dictate how the molecules move. We are made of these molecules. A materialist would say that our consciousness in on the level of that matter (or created by it) If you believe that, there is no free will- everything is dictated by the natural forces. So unless you believe there is something else (the undifferentiated consciousness, a soul, a life force, any of those) that can superimpose its will over the will of the natural forces then you do not believe in free will, how could you? It wouldn't make sense. The current thinking is off, consciousness creates the physical, not the other way around. Consciousness has free will and acts of its own accord, the physical follows- not the other way around.
That’s a popular view at the moment, but it still has all the same problems. There’s no evidence for it, we have no precise formal, verifiable account of mental causal effects separate from observable physical processes, and it still has an explanatory gap. If the physical doesn’t explain the mental, how does the mental explain the physical?
@@simonhibbs887right. But I believe the physical does explain the mental. I believe the shape of a brain determines the way a person thinks. This is so obvious to me. The key to understanding it all is knowing how memory works. The rest will fall in line from there. - consciousness, will, intuition, feelings, and agency. Memory + physical experience = thought
@@dr_shrinker I tend to agree, in that we have physical explanations for almost all mental behaviours and aspects of the content of experience. Sense data, memory, motor control, spatial positioning, the procedural evaluation of information against objectives, even self referentiality. They’re all informational, and we have a thorough physical account of information. The only gap is consciousness itself, though it’s being worked on. Meanwhile I’m not aware of any experimentally verifiable, actionable explanation of any aspect of the physical in terms of mental activity whatsoever.
@@simonhibbs887 👍🏻👍🏻great reply! I think all of consciousness can be narrowed down to the term “thought.” Thoughts are memories and how they mirror present experiences/sensory awareness. I think the key to understanding consciousness is just fining out how experiences trigger memories. The rest can then be quantified and predicted.
How much are they spending on this study and ones like it ? On something that can argued for or against as any 7th grader on a debate team will tell you ? When millions of people many of them children are starving to death right now ? Maybe all these great minds , scientists should be working on ways to solve that ?
Excellent !!! I LUV the line from the movie PLANET OF THE APES. Where Dr. Zaius says *MAN HAS NO UNDERSTANDING.* Yes that includes me. I see everything idiosyncratically. haha
I have a problem with Machiavellian political theory primarily because today we have digital technology. Free will in this context forces a change without reason because the good has to be understood in a different way. So now we have to consider global in its highest form and even though freewill is not obvious to those who have picked a side i.e. good or bad, the shift is a choice of inconvenient necessity for those who understand the position of a highest good. Science must follow, politics by default of evidence and results must eventually agree. As for the people, even those holding roles of responsibility, they can reason with cause and effect or reason with soul purpose. The choice in this context of free will is probably a feature in the very long human story.
does the transition from quantum randomness to classic determinism require free will? how else could quantum randomness and classic determinism go from one to the other? can quantum randomness just turn into classic determinism, or the other way around?
@@bozo5632I don’t see how a person can determine the operation of its structure. If I lift my arm to scratch my nose, I could say “but I could have lifted my OTHER arm, to scratch my nose.’ -but! That statement is unprovable. It is an illusion to think we chose against our predetermined preferences or fate. To me, every thought is beyond our control. We react to thoughts, and we cannot decide what thoughts we have, nor when we have them. As our brains travel through space-time, the universe forces 14 trillion choices a second on us, Planck time. There is no way we can make 14,000,000,000 choices a second based on freewill.
This is one of the better videos on the nuances of Free Will. As Mele alluded to, it's a semantic issue with the operative word being "Free." Those who claim there is no Free Will define the word "Free" as _"Unconstrained in any way."_ Then they toss out questions like, _"Can you choose what you desire?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose not to think about (fill in the blank)?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose to choose what you choose to choose."_ as if the word "choose" is somehow impervious to infinite regression. The word "Free" in "Free Will" only means that you have the freedom to choose between a series of options with a global option being the ability to choose none of the options. *Example:* _"Do I want chocolate, vanilla, ....... or neither?"_ There are no constraints to your choosing one of those two ice cream options (or neither), and the mere fact that options are present within human existence does not negate your free will to choose. It's merely how "Existence" generates new information in the form of *value judgments.* Each choice you make over something else establishes a specific degree of *value* to whatever it is you have chosen. "Existence" then uses this value-based data as a framework for future evolution.
@@dr_shrinker *"You always chose your preference. You have no choice."* ... Semantic buffoonery. If I have no choice, then I have no preferences. *"Freewill is the illusion you can chose differently than you do."* ... Someone who chooses to write *three different revisions* of the same reply before settling on a final version has no business lecturing anyone about how "free will" is just an illusion.
You said….’Semantic buffoonery. If I have no choice, then I have no preferences.” Who said you don’t have a choice? The universe presents us with 14 trillion choices a second. You’re presented choices all the time. Making a choice is different than being presented choices. I said you cannot control/determine which choices you make because you’ll always pick your preferences and your preferences are not yours to decide. You can’t choose what they are. You always pick your preferences. You cannot pick AGAINST your will. Ergo it’s not free. The universe forces 14 trillion choices a second on you. (Planck time) and yet you cannot possibly make 14 trillion choices a second, based on freewill. You go where the universe wants you. - determined. Also, I’ll edit as much as I see fit you should try it. “ buffoonery?’’ Lol. Talk about condescending…..😮
@@tomjackson7755 *"As usual you either don't understand the problem or are just strawmanning."* ... Without backing up your claim, it's just an empty reply.
5:00 ... if Gid is perfect then doesn't he always have to do what's best uh and if he always has to do what's best hten hwo can he ever act freely or abuot God's connection to human beings uh if God is omninsecent then what does't he know everything you're ever going to do and if he knows it in advances uh how can you do fillingly. 5:16
A little flirtation is harmless but you're dealing with fire here. The fidelity bank and trust is a tough creditor. You make a deposit somewhere else, they close your account - FOREVER. Arnie in The Famiy Man movie...
I can agree that, if all variables are exactly the same at the exact same moment, I would make the same decision. I do not agree that that happens because we are just a bunch of dead matter interacting with each other. Even if I would repeat everything exact same, ultimately I am the one that moves the machinery. So, I do believe there is a lack of free will, but not the hardcore (atoms interacting/deterministic) theory. But I accept and understand all other arguments, and it is very possible that deterministic theory will be proven. Also, there is no need for supernatural. Light has no mass, but it can interact with the matter using energy. It is possible that "soul" is some form of energy with no mass, unknown to us yet.
>”ultimately I am the one that moves the machinery” A central issue in all this is what we mean by “I”. In the physicalist view, you are the machinery, and the information in the form of knowledge, beliefs, preferences, etc that the machinery operates on. The issue if whether there is a ‘separate self’ from those things is a central issue.
*"The issue if whether there is a ‘separate self’ from those things is a central issue."* .... I gather up the exact same organic and inorganic material that I'm made of and place it all in a wheelbarrow. I then roll it 100 feet away and dump it back onto the ground. The exact same material that I am made of has thus been moved from one location to another by a *compelling force* that the material itself did not possess. *Q:* If the material that I moved and I are identical in quantity, volume, and substance, then what is the *compelling force* that allowed "me" to move it while the exact same material being moved was unable to do the same on its own?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Basically the same as the ‘forces’ that allow an autonomous robot to navigate a maze, while a box of its disassembled parts can’t.
*"Basically the same as the ‘forces’ that allow an autonomous robot to navigate a maze, while a box of its disassembled parts can’t."* ... How did your autonomous robot obtain the same type of "compelling force" that I have that was able to move the wheelbarrow full of stuff? Wasn't the *outside programmer/builder* of your autonomous robot exhibiting the actual "compelling force" behind your autonomous robot's ability to navigate a maze? An "autonomous robot" is just a secondary vestibule of someone else's "compelling force," so any force it may appear to exhibit is in reality just the *outside programmer/builder's* force being exhibited via proxy.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC We’ve discussed this before. It’s been demonstrated that evolution through reproduction, random variation and environmental selection can produce intentional, goal seeking behaviour. Even altruistic behaviour.
Good point after all our brain is in fact a very complicated "meat computer". For the moment there is no evidence of any supernatural power or magic that gives us the power to change the physical laws of nature in our own brains. Nevertheless the belief in free will seems to be very reassuring. Just like I'd like to believe that evil people will be punished in the afterlife. Comforting, but for now no evidence that a judicial afterlife exists.
Those who live and die cannot have free will. Everything is predesigned by existence itself. That which has subject and object dependency cannot have free will. 😊 Without Knowledge of Existence there cannot be Existence and Without Existence there cannot be Knowledge of Existence. That knowledge can only be achieved through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it. Thanks 😊
Love these videos and I’m not trying to sound rude when I say this but it seemed like the majority of what he was saying is they are just trying to define what free will is
If there is no freewill, then how does karma work? and where in karma, or from what, is this impetus had - what is acknowledged as Will - that drives the subject, so to experience this karma, this procession of determinism? Because the ancient Wiseman teached about overcoming the mind - which is very difficult - where then does this "freewill" come from, and too, the idea, the very resolute decision, so overcoming the mind, therefore no longer subject to karma? Freewill is potiential. We may not have, as in possession, this 'freewill', but the potiential is always there, though requires Intellect, a disciplined mind, and Spiritual direction, and to even strive towards this Spiritual path, which requires discipline & Will, we do see, here, the very potiential that is Freewill in effect. Because we don't "have" freewill, like we have a car, doesn't deny or preclude the fact that we do have Will and the ability to direct our Will. We have the potiential, and this is, freewill.
Freewill is a potential I come to understand. And this is all we need. And yet, people do not like change. What becomes the 'familiar' is what mankind latches onto. Thus, the mind rules man and mankind. The exercising of Will by a disciplined mind has much potential. 'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he' - KJV Don't allow the mind, emotions, passions, impulses, desires, hopes, traumas, pasts to govern or rule you. Break out of it. Realize the Self. It's easy to get fat. The hard work is losing it. We put on the mind, passions, desires.... Regarding the judicial system and criminality: no man has a right to get away with crime & evil by claiming man doesn't have freewill. The potiential, that is Freewill, man has a faculty so directing it, making choices. We are the sum of our choices & decisions.
The crime angle doesn't change anything if you are predetermined to something like say, lying like you are. Shouldn't you be delt with permanently? You know since you will do it again as you are predetermined to do that.
The creation of x and y axes that builds leave form as the last resort. If you like, don't be a great being to self and your neighbours. You can't expect the hair of a woman to be plait from the top rather than from the root.
i enjoy free will if topped up on health like now can do anything for employment so if we commit we have free will as we all need life for relationship lying none
If there is no will, frequency, space and time won't exist. You won't even be able to utter words of kindness, inspiration, and distaste. The fact that most of you don't know how to converse reasonably is appalling.
Can we talk for a moment about how Alfred Mele doesn't blink until the 4:18 mark of the video?
Yes even I thought that and seems even Robert noticed that 😊
If and when you act like something wrong is good, I will also observe and apply what I know to be true and right ✅️.
One of my favorite topics out of the many that Robert investigates. He poses some of the most insightful questions some of which are beyond my poor intellect. Love the vids.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
OPENING PREMISE:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
STANDARD DEFINITIONS:
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know.
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
FREEDOM OF CHOICE:
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph).
ACADEMIC STUDIES:
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE:
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I decided to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!!!
Cont...
Though others views may seem “Extreme to you” in no way does that change if the view is correct.
Not believing in free will doesn’t mean there are no repercussions for behaviors that hurt others.
Great series. Subscribed.
But we do have free will depending on how it's defined. That was his point about the semantics. Libertarian free will obviously isn't real. Compatibilist free will obviously is real.
But, it does mean you don't have any ability to stop yourself in that moment, because, it was pre-destined to be that way.
Free will is how good you are at doing things you don't wanna do.
Free will is an emergent skill which needs to be developed. The Theory of Holistic Perspective explains this well.
That the state intervenes to apply punishment to a criminal is typical of the Middle Ages.
The state must try to correct the damage caused by a criminal and at the same time prevent him from continuing to commit crimes. That should be the goal. Social revenge against the offender is an absurd idea.
From that point of view, the fact that humans do not have free will does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. That being so, responsibility is similar to the moral judgment that people make when a tiger attacks them. One does not want the tiger to hurt someone but one does not want to take revenge on the tiger. The rational action is to prevent its attack, minimize the damage when it occurs and also take steps to prevent it from happening again. It is irrational to punish the tiger by confinement in the cruelest conditions so that society considers itself compensated for the damage caused.
This is equivalent in humans. One must intervene to prevent a "responsible" human from committing an inconvenient or harmful act. Being responsible means that if one acts in a certain way, society has permission to manipulate him to restrict such actions. But that has nothing to do with assuming that locking someone up in cruel conditions will be a moral lesson that will improve the criminal.
If free will is to interpret that a conscious being is a "selector" who chooses between a group of possible options, in a type of expression of his will without any type of conditioning, that interpretation is contradictory to logic.
The selector can only choose for some reason or no reason at all. Neither of the two cases corresponds to the exercise of will without conditions. In the first case, the selector obeys some factor and in the second case it was chance and not the will of the agent who motivated the selection.
I don't think free will should be a factor in deciding about punishment. What difference does it make?
(The debate about punishment in general is a separate debate.)
I agree, Life is about functionality. We punish as its a way of behaviour correction.
There can be no absolute free will where there is more than one will involved. Free Will is a moral issue and therefore there has to be a universal moral standard to spell out our individual free wills.
No, free will transcends morals both above and below morals.
Free will includes mundane choices like which bathroom you night use in a house, when to take out the trash, and also includes high-level choices like discovery and intelligent learning. Morals are a mid range governance set by society but have nothing to do with individual choices outside the law or mores and norms.
@@mtshasta4195 That is a limited understanding of morality
I think that even though people don’t have free will like they think they do, however people still have to be held accountable. Part of the game. We’ve all been a victim to some degree of that standard of being responsible for your actions
Held accountable only if caught. We are all the inmates and the guards in this prison planet. We all obey each other. Government s are never held accountable. The vikings were never held accountable.
@@ModernAdventures-w1u don’t get caught and if you do. Wasn’t me🕺🏼
In regards to free will or no free will, would it plausible that a person makes a decision in regards to what available tools ( brain functions / neuron networks etc ) the person has ? And what do they mean by supernatural ? I personally wouldn’t regard any kind of quantum entanglement of sorts as supernatural if that’s what they mean. I certainly wouldn’t regard freedom of thought or free will related to the likes of psychic abilities, so the word supernatural is a confusing one mentioned in the video.
Where does a conscious decision originate? How does the mind interact with the physical brain to tell it what to do?
In the physicalist view, the mind is the activity of the brain integrating, synthesising and processing information. Since it’s a process on information it can have all the characteristics of such processes. It can be descriptive, be about something, it can refer or be compared to other information such as memories, and it can be self referential in the way that this sentence now refers to itself.
We don’t understand this process fully yet, but physicalism is just the view that this seems to be the most plausible explanation so far.
Benjamin Libet test
Before we can discuss if we have free will, we should first establish a rigorous definition of what free will actually is. I have never seen or heard of any such definition.
There are two main views in this. What we might call autonomous free will is the belief that we are physical beings. We evaluate information on a situation according to a set of cognitive systems such as beliefs, preferences, dislikes, analytical skills, memories, etc. Then we make a decision based on these, maybe with some random factor. So free will in this account is the freedom to choose independently of external coercion, but the decisions involved are determined by physical processes.
What we might call libertarian free will is the idea that regardless of any of that, when we finally choose, we can do otherwise. That no causal factors constrain the choice. This view is most often associated with dualism, the idea that ‘we’, the true self, is not material. While autonomous free will is most often associated with the view that we are our physical bodies.
And before that, I want to know whether (and how) determinism is true.
@@simonhibbs887 Thanks for this explanation. I therefore choose to belive in autonomous free will.
@@bozo5632 I gave a basic account of determinism in my description of what I called autonomous free will. They’re not always associated, but most determinists accept some form of autonomous free will. It’s just the idea that the only processes we have solid evidence for are physical processes and that humans are most likely to be purely physical beings, with the activity in our bodies including the brain determined by the ‘laws’ of physics.
@@simonhibbs887 Leave brains out of it, I say. If determinism is true about non-living things, then it's true about us too. (As we are fancified assemblages of non-living things.) Inserting yourself, or the self, or human perspectives just adds layers (upon layers) of confusion.
But it might not be true. For instance, there doesn't seem to be evidence of anything that determines which direction the photon will go after an electron drops down an energy state. If that's not rigidly determined, then nothing is.
how might time and energy be used to demonstrate free will?
"Free Will " (begins & ends ) with knowledge
We have free will, but we dont have free will. If the many world's interpretation of quantum theory is right, every outcome is laid out before us. Whatever one we choose is our decision, therefore giving us free will, but seeing as every outcome is a part of our future and exists in our future we can't deviate from doing what is laid out before us.
The misnomer question of free will when humanity resides in: systems, orders, hierarchy, constraints of economy, state, geography, politics, society, mobility…
25% behaviorism, 25% chance, 25% knowledge and 25% understanding.
@@brettsokoloski3772 the partial list I have are inherent in the human environment.
So glad you are investigating all these things!
There are natural forces that dictate how the molecules move. We are made of these molecules. A materialist would say that our consciousness in on the level of that matter (or created by it) If you believe that, there is no free will- everything is dictated by the natural forces. So unless you believe there is something else (the undifferentiated consciousness, a soul, a life force, any of those) that can superimpose its will over the will of the natural forces then you do not believe in free will, how could you? It wouldn't make sense.
The current thinking is off, consciousness creates the physical, not the other way around. Consciousness has free will and acts of its own accord, the physical follows- not the other way around.
That’s a popular view at the moment, but it still has all the same problems. There’s no evidence for it, we have no precise formal, verifiable account of mental causal effects separate from observable physical processes, and it still has an explanatory gap. If the physical doesn’t explain the mental, how does the mental explain the physical?
Is there a single universal consciousness or are there billions/trillions of consciousnesses each operating independently?
@@simonhibbs887right. But I believe the physical does explain the mental. I believe the shape of a brain determines the way a person thinks. This is so obvious to me. The key to understanding it all is knowing how memory works. The rest will fall in line from there. - consciousness, will, intuition, feelings, and agency.
Memory + physical experience = thought
@@dr_shrinker I tend to agree, in that we have physical explanations for almost all mental behaviours and aspects of the content of experience. Sense data, memory, motor control, spatial positioning, the procedural evaluation of information against objectives, even self referentiality. They’re all informational, and we have a thorough physical account of information. The only gap is consciousness itself, though it’s being worked on. Meanwhile I’m not aware of any experimentally verifiable, actionable explanation of any aspect of the physical in terms of mental activity whatsoever.
@@simonhibbs887 👍🏻👍🏻great reply!
I think all of consciousness can be narrowed down to the term “thought.”
Thoughts are memories and how they mirror present experiences/sensory awareness. I think the key to understanding consciousness is just fining out how experiences trigger memories. The rest can then be quantified and predicted.
How much are they spending on this study and ones like it ? On something that can argued for or against as any 7th grader on a debate team will tell you ? When millions of people many of them children are starving to death right now ? Maybe all these great minds , scientists should be working on ways to solve that ?
Why are you watching TH-cam? Shouldn't you be performing CPR on an orphan or something?
Excellent !!! I LUV the line from the movie PLANET OF THE APES. Where Dr. Zaius says *MAN HAS NO UNDERSTANDING.* Yes that includes me. I see everything idiosyncratically. haha
I have a problem with Machiavellian political theory primarily because today we have digital technology. Free will in this context forces a change without reason because the good has to be understood in a different way. So now we have to consider global in its highest form and even though freewill is not obvious to those who have picked a side i.e. good or bad, the shift is a choice of inconvenient necessity for those who understand the position of a highest good. Science must follow, politics by default of evidence and results must eventually agree. As for the people, even those holding roles of responsibility, they can reason with cause and effect or reason with soul purpose. The choice in this context of free will is probably a feature in the very long human story.
does the transition from quantum randomness to classic determinism require free will? how else could quantum randomness and classic determinism go from one to the other? can quantum randomness just turn into classic determinism, or the other way around?
The apparent determinism at large scales might be a phantom effect, like entropy. Not fundamental but emergent.
Determinism and chaos both disprove freewill. Neither one is a decision based on freedom.
@@dr_shrinker Is it chaos though? Is quantumness really random? We dunno.
@@dr_shrinker If emergent structures can determine the operation of their components (feedback stuff), then there's room for free will.
@@bozo5632I don’t see how a person can determine the operation of its structure. If I lift my arm to scratch my nose, I could say “but I could have lifted my OTHER arm, to scratch my nose.’ -but! That statement is unprovable.
It is an illusion to think we chose against our predetermined preferences or fate.
To me, every thought is beyond our control. We react to thoughts, and we cannot decide what thoughts we have, nor when we have them. As our brains travel through space-time, the universe forces 14 trillion choices a second on us, Planck time. There is no way we can make 14,000,000,000 choices a second based on freewill.
This is one of the better videos on the nuances of Free Will. As Mele alluded to, it's a semantic issue with the operative word being "Free." Those who claim there is no Free Will define the word "Free" as _"Unconstrained in any way."_ Then they toss out questions like, _"Can you choose what you desire?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose not to think about (fill in the blank)?"_ ... and ... _"Can you choose to choose what you choose to choose."_ as if the word "choose" is somehow impervious to infinite regression.
The word "Free" in "Free Will" only means that you have the freedom to choose between a series of options with a global option being the ability to choose none of the options. *Example:* _"Do I want chocolate, vanilla, ....... or neither?"_
There are no constraints to your choosing one of those two ice cream options (or neither), and the mere fact that options are present within human existence does not negate your free will to choose. It's merely how "Existence" generates new information in the form of *value judgments.*
Each choice you make over something else establishes a specific degree of *value* to whatever it is you have chosen. "Existence" then uses this value-based data as a framework for future evolution.
You always chose your preference. You have no freedom of choice. Freewill is the illusion you can chose differently than you do.
@@dr_shrinker *"You always chose your preference. You have no choice."*
... Semantic buffoonery. If I have no choice, then I have no preferences.
*"Freewill is the illusion you can chose differently than you do."*
... Someone who chooses to write *three different revisions* of the same reply before settling on a final version has no business lecturing anyone about how "free will" is just an illusion.
You said….’Semantic buffoonery. If I have no choice, then I have no preferences.”
Who said you don’t have a choice? The universe presents us with 14 trillion choices a second. You’re presented choices all the time. Making a choice is different than being presented choices.
I said you cannot control/determine which choices you make because you’ll always pick your preferences and your preferences are not yours to decide. You can’t choose what they are. You always pick your preferences. You cannot pick AGAINST your will. Ergo it’s not free.
The universe forces 14 trillion choices a second on you. (Planck time) and yet you cannot possibly make 14 trillion choices a second, based on freewill. You go where the universe wants you. - determined.
Also, I’ll edit as much as I see fit you should try it. “ buffoonery?’’ Lol. Talk about condescending…..😮
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC As usual you either don't understand the problem or are just strawmanning.
@@tomjackson7755 *"As usual you either don't understand the problem or are just strawmanning."*
... Without backing up your claim, it's just an empty reply.
5:00 ... if Gid is perfect then doesn't he always have to do what's best uh and if he always has to do what's best hten hwo can he ever act freely or abuot God's connection to human beings uh if God is omninsecent then what does't he know everything you're ever going to do and if he knows it in advances uh how can you do fillingly. 5:16
if i am excersising free will is change well then stuck unless good old health
A little flirtation is harmless but you're dealing with fire here. The fidelity bank and trust is a tough creditor. You make a deposit somewhere else, they close your account - FOREVER. Arnie in The Famiy Man movie...
TODAY IM DOING WHAT I WANT TO.
Jesus christ ! Alfred brain seems to be different than most of people. His eyes doesn't blink like normal people 😊
Even Robert continuously notices that 😅
I have to pay for mine
I can agree that, if all variables are exactly the same at the exact same moment, I would make the same decision. I do not agree that that happens because we are just a bunch of dead matter interacting with each other. Even if I would repeat everything exact same, ultimately I am the one that moves the machinery. So, I do believe there is a lack of free will, but not the hardcore (atoms interacting/deterministic) theory. But I accept and understand all other arguments, and it is very possible that deterministic theory will be proven.
Also, there is no need for supernatural. Light has no mass, but it can interact with the matter using energy. It is possible that "soul" is some form of energy with no mass, unknown to us yet.
>”ultimately I am the one that moves the machinery”
A central issue in all this is what we mean by “I”. In the physicalist view, you are the machinery, and the information in the form of knowledge, beliefs, preferences, etc that the machinery operates on. The issue if whether there is a ‘separate self’ from those things is a central issue.
*"The issue if whether there is a ‘separate self’ from those things is a central issue."*
.... I gather up the exact same organic and inorganic material that I'm made of and place it all in a wheelbarrow. I then roll it 100 feet away and dump it back onto the ground. The exact same material that I am made of has thus been moved from one location to another by a *compelling force* that the material itself did not possess.
*Q:* If the material that I moved and I are identical in quantity, volume, and substance, then what is the *compelling force* that allowed "me" to move it while the exact same material being moved was unable to do the same on its own?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Basically the same as the ‘forces’ that allow an autonomous robot to navigate a maze, while a box of its disassembled parts can’t.
*"Basically the same as the ‘forces’ that allow an autonomous robot to navigate a maze, while a box of its disassembled parts can’t."*
... How did your autonomous robot obtain the same type of "compelling force" that I have that was able to move the wheelbarrow full of stuff? Wasn't the *outside programmer/builder* of your autonomous robot exhibiting the actual "compelling force" behind your autonomous robot's ability to navigate a maze?
An "autonomous robot" is just a secondary vestibule of someone else's "compelling force," so any force it may appear to exhibit is in reality just the *outside programmer/builder's* force being exhibited via proxy.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC We’ve discussed this before. It’s been demonstrated that evolution through reproduction, random variation and environmental selection can produce intentional, goal seeking behaviour. Even altruistic behaviour.
If humans have free will then so do computers with AI/ML capability.
Good point after all our brain is in fact a very complicated "meat computer". For the moment there is no evidence of any supernatural power or magic that gives us the power to change the physical laws of nature in our own brains. Nevertheless the belief in free will seems to be very reassuring. Just like I'd like to believe that evil people will be punished in the afterlife. Comforting, but for now no evidence that a judicial afterlife exists.
Those who live and die cannot have free will. Everything is predesigned by existence itself. That which has subject and object dependency cannot have free will. 😊
Without Knowledge of Existence there cannot be Existence and Without Existence there cannot be Knowledge of Existence. That knowledge can only be achieved through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it.
Thanks 😊
I remember free willy
Love these videos and I’m not trying to sound rude when I say this but it seemed like the majority of what he was saying is they are just trying to define what free will is
If there is no freewill, then how does karma work? and where in karma, or from what, is this impetus had - what is acknowledged as Will - that drives the subject, so to experience this karma, this procession of determinism? Because the ancient Wiseman teached about overcoming the mind - which is very difficult - where then does this "freewill" come from, and too, the idea, the very resolute decision, so overcoming the mind, therefore no longer subject to karma?
Freewill is potiential. We may not have, as in possession, this 'freewill', but the potiential is always there, though requires Intellect, a disciplined mind, and Spiritual direction, and to even strive towards this Spiritual path, which requires discipline & Will, we do see, here, the very potiential that is Freewill in effect.
Because we don't "have" freewill, like we have a car, doesn't deny or preclude the fact that we do have Will and the ability to direct our Will. We have the potiential, and this is, freewill.
This is an easy one. Karma doesn't work. It is as imaginary as your god.
clearly this man is NPC with no free will because his eye-contact algorithm is just set to YES
Freewill is a potential I come to understand. And this is all we need.
And yet, people do not like change. What becomes the 'familiar' is what mankind latches onto. Thus, the mind rules man and mankind. The exercising of Will by a disciplined mind has much potential.
'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he'
- KJV
Don't allow the mind, emotions, passions, impulses, desires, hopes, traumas, pasts to govern or rule you. Break out of it. Realize the Self.
It's easy to get fat. The hard work is losing it.
We put on the mind, passions, desires....
Regarding the judicial system and criminality: no man has a right to get away with crime & evil by claiming man doesn't have freewill. The potiential, that is Freewill, man has a faculty so directing it, making choices. We are the sum of our choices & decisions.
The crime angle doesn't change anything if you are predetermined to something like say, lying like you are. Shouldn't you be delt with permanently? You know since you will do it again as you are predetermined to do that.
The creation of x and y axes that builds leave form as the last resort. If you like, don't be a great being to self and your neighbours. You can't expect the hair of a woman to be plait from the top rather than from the root.
i enjoy free will if topped up on health like now can do anything for employment so if we commit we have free will as we all need life for relationship lying none
We are all NPCs lol
The guy with glasses can't see
Free will is starving to death
Free will is if you have the will to be free.
Are you free?
NPCs walking around don't have free will.....
If there is no will, frequency, space and time won't exist. You won't even be able to utter words of kindness, inspiration, and distaste. The fact that most of you don't know how to converse reasonably is appalling.