There is at least the illusion of achieving control over the influences that impinge on our free will. This is a good starting point in my book, and I think Tim Bayne might agree with me on this. Like with so many things in science, the solution usually comes down to a nuanced, middle-way view that does not invalidate the extremes that previously seemed so irreconcilable. I personally believe that reality is a multi-layered structure, and consciousness, including its multiple personal aspects, are native to each layer. They are at odds with each other due to layer separation, which is ultimately a consequence of the quantized nature of reality. More importantly, there is a communication barrier between the layers, further complicated by time distortion. In this framework, having free will and not having free will, are both valid statements at the extreme poles of the individual/unity spectrum, but in practical reality, when you sit inbetween, free will exists on a spectrum. And you can't ever have enough of it.
I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will. -Vonnegut
Reality is determined by our 5 senses. To let other people make choices for oneself, which we all do from time to time, is to make a choice. To argue about free will is also to make a choice. Once you bring in latin, you have confused everything. Best arguing to all!
"Forgive me. I couldn't help myself" is a pretty weak dodge. Free will must be earned. We are hostages to causation to the degree that we do not understand the causes of our actions. Once conscious of such causes we can grapple with responsibility and reform. Causes and actions arising from such causes are two separate things. Mad dogs among humankind are punished for violating the rights of others, even if they can't help being what they are.
@@stephenelliott7998 Imagine how irrational we would be if we just act on our feeling and emotions. God gave us Free Will, Consciousness and Willpower to save us from ourselves.
I don't know that such a finite being such as a human is capable of ultimately determining to what degree they have free will. It does seem that one's attitude or opinion towards the degree of free will they possess has an effect on their behavior. This does not necessarily mean they have free will, for ones attitude or opinion could be the result of an outside force.
Free will is an illusion. Humans are not uncaused causes. Free will does not exist whether or not determinism is true. If our actions are caused, then our actions are determined and thus no one is free. If our actions are randomly generated, then our actions are not really in our control and thus no one is free. I also take British philosopher Galen Strawson's 'Basic argument' to be correct. Strawson summarizes his argument as follows: "When one acts, one acts in the way one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible."
@@Marvin19661 I have no idea what you're talking about. If ideas are not subject to causal closure principle, then they're epiphenomenal and thus useless. But since they have causal powers, then they're not epiphenomenal or useless. If they exist separately and independently of brain processes, then you need to explain how they influence brain processes.
Every moment that appears in consciousness seems dependent on every moment that has occurred prior to it, one may need to change the past in order to change the future
Criminals now can claim that they had no control of their actions because they don't have free will and for that reason they can't be responsible for something they don't have control.
You've invented a false dichotomy. Why can't a person be held accountable for their actions, even if those actions were beyond their control? By accountable, I mean having some limitations or other outcomes from those behaviors. If someone becomes a homicidal maniac due to some biochemical imbalance, society could still deal with the matter to stop that person harming others while also recognizing that the behavior was not really the result of free will.
@@playpaltalk "Invented" was a poor choice of word. I should have written that you "presented a false dichotomy." That said, I have no idea what you're referring to in your second comment.
The reason this isn't true is that in normal social and legal contexts the concept of free will are purely about coercive or mitigating circumstances, and those concepts are entirely compatible with deterministic accounts of free will.
We do NOT experience ourselves as uncaused causes. A simple question like, "Where were you born?" reveals that we know where we came from. A simple question like, "Why did you order the Salad rather than the Steak?" reveals that we know the reasons that caused us to choose one thing rather than another. The delusion that causation forces us to do things that we'd rather not do is a delusion, a self-induced hoax, built from figurative language which we attempted to take literally. For example, when presented with the notion that we "could not have done otherwise" we experience that as a constraint. But the "could not" is a figurative statement falsely derived from the correct notion that we "would not have done otherwise", which is not experienced as a constraint, since we know exactly why we chose the Salad and would not have chosen the Steak tonight, and given those same reasons (for example, we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch) we would normally avoid the Steak dinner. Had we instead had fruit for breakfast and a salad for lunch, then we would have chosen the Steak. It was always the case that we "could have chosen either one" but that we "would have chosen only the Salad". And it was reliably caused by our own reasons, which is known to everyone as a choice of our own free will.
here's a premise: if there's no such thing as a purely random thought then there is also no such thing as a purely random action ...all actions therefore have a proximal cause
...The only thing I can observe here is: the greater the Free Will, the greater the responsibility to maintain my Free Will, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
I am starting to think that the question of free will isn't a big deal and can be replaced by the question of Heidegger's "being" or The Buddha's unbounded awareness. Free will is a matter of choice which is another word for an ability to choose from options; and I think the feeling of free will is mistaken for the volume of options. A machine with a circuit board and a computer, and large language model have a varying volume of options to choose from. I imagine that if these machines had the same awareness that human agents have, then they would feel that they have more free will proportionate to the amount of options they have to choose from at each point in time as their actions are initiated.
I served in Vietnam with many men that were drafted and most if not any at all were there by their own free will. Many were wounded (some mortally) losing limbs, hearing, vision, not to mention their phycological and mental well being . . . . totally against their will. (The only ones with free will burned their draft card and fled to Canada. LOL!) I'm quite sure no person 'free wills' themselves into a heart attack, breast cancer, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's disease. Free will is much more constrained than just deciding whether to turn left or right at the stop light. Or whether to order steak or seafood in a restaurant. For many people free will is just an illusion because many decisions in their life are made for them by somebody else, such as a parent, a spouse, an employer, a judge, or an administrative law. So yeah, go ahead . . . and choose which shirt you want to wear!
The block-timers would say there is no free-will. Common sense says that many if not most decisions are the answer to or the consequence of previous events or decisions. So when does free-will come into it? We feel we have it. Do we? These guys burn a lot of words to say very little.
1:31 I've said this a few times already about other videos on this channel concerning free will, WHY is it that those who believe in free will never or hardly ever use their other hand to eat, drink, brush their teeth and other bathroom things? If people have free will they should freely choose to use either hand and not just one all or most of the time. Anyway the bible tells us that we DO NOT have free will and that it is God who does his good pleasure through us and we can't do anything without him. Philippians 2:13 *“For it is God which worketh in you* both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” John 15:5 King James Version 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: *for without me ye can do nothing.* Isaiah 46:10 King James Version 10 *Declaring the end from the beginning,* and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and *I will do all my pleasure:*
The biblical Jesus was fortold including his death and resurrection. That's enough to tell you that things are predetermined/determined. Buddhist monks find their senior successor by searching for a child who is believed to be the next reincarnation of the previous one. This indicates they believe in predetermination which is the same as determinism. High level Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, have likened Jesus Christ to a high level enlightened Buddhist, because there is indication in the Bible that he lived previous lives. It's as though life itself is a novel that has already been written and everyone is acting out their determined roles. It's weird.
@@realitycheck1231 All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts... -William Shakespeare
"Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan." - Ephesians 1:11
@@treasurepoem Even Peter denying Jesus three times before the rooster crows, which was before Peter became enlightened. Determinism is even in the minute details. Once again, weird.
The search for causes is an artifact of the human proclivity to find agency in everything. Assigning a cause in nature is to seek out blame, and the things in nature just happen, there is no cause and no blame. Only an agent can cause something to happen, or determine what an outcome will be.
@@simonhibbs887 There are no "states of nature", everything that happens in nature is continuous, this is just a human projection onto reality. Causation is also just a human projection when it comes to nature. Only an agent can be a cause or determine an outcome. Nature just happens.
Are there infinite prior states, or is there a state of the universe that has no cause, and was there for eternity, or did it come into existence from nothing. How could something come from nothing.
@@1GTX1 That’s a matter of much debate. I think most philosophers don’t believe a true state of nothing is a viable concept. I think whatever we can say about our universe, or whatever its prior states were, they must always have been compatible with the emergence of our universe. So our universe must always have been possible. A possibility isn’t nothing, so true nothingness is excluded, IMHO. One issue is whether there is a meaningful distinction between the physical world, its phenomena and processes, and the principles or ‘laws’ we imagine govern it. Maybe the physical is a consequence of such laws, so the laws somehow exist independently of the physical itself. Thats a kind of Platonism, and popular with Idealists. It’s the main reason I give idealism some credence, though personally I’m a physicalist. Another intriguing theory is that there is no distinction between the possible and the actual. Our universe is logically consistent, as are its processes, and that’s all we can say. Calling it actual or real as well as possible is redundant. There may be other possible universes that are also logically consistent. In this way the ‘laws’ are the physical, there’s no distinction to be made between them.
@@1GTX1Both infinite regression and something emerging from nothing are absurd, so therefore there must be a prime mover, or an uncaused cause, if you will.
5:27 no. Science doesn't give the reality, it's only a tool, not a deity. Theology is the reality. And I'm not sorry if you can't handle this fact. Pls, prove me wrong. I do listen to Reason.
Sure. There's no freewill. Neither is there strict 100% determinism. He who thinks all is determined and has no ability for reason and contemplation and realization, may we take a moment of silence for. Thank you. Men who are more worried about being seen as wrong than risking so seeking Truth. Freewill is potential and it's of the Intellect.
This comes to the nature of reason. Logic for example is deterministic, given certain axioms and rules of inference all possible conclusions are inevitable. The very term reasoning implies that choices are made for reasons. If they don’t determine the outcome, what role do reasons play?
4:40 "…you have to change one or change the other…some work on changing the science away from a deterministic point of view or some work towards undermining the free will..." We should give strong presumptive weight to common sense. In cases of dispute between the output of our more speculative or theoretical endeavors and these facts available to us in everyday experience, the common-sense view should win out. This is true both because theoretical conclusions are less reliable than it is commonly believed and that because the nature of evidence supports the view that we should trust the reliability of our foundational judgments. Free will is built into the conception of human nature used in everyday life, and therefore qualifies as a tenet of common sense. This fact gives a strong presumption to it. Those who reject free will belong in the same category as those who through scientific reasoning or philosophical deliberations come to believe that there is no external world, just sensory impressions, or that thoughts and feelings do not exist, or that there is no such thing as morality or truth or pain.
@@simonhibbs887 --- The uncaused causer of all the "caused" "uncaused causes" has no causer; the backward regression chain stops with HIM and HIS magisterium.
@@JohnQPublic11 Thats the problem with the Kalam, it wears the clothes of a chain of reasoning but underneath is just a flat claim. I’ve no objection to someone just finding a particular set of propositions attractive, including theism, but all the bait and switch gets tiring. At least you just come out and say what you think. I can respect that.
Because there is not reason to do so. It's a perfectly good everyday term we use in conversation and legal contexts, and in those contexts it's entirely consistent with determinism. For some reason hard determinists are happy to allow metaphysical libertarians to define it as some nonsense magic power we can't possibly have and just roll over. Compatibilists like me say it's a useful term and we should argue for a definition of it that means something real.
@@simonhibbs887 It’s not a useful term, at all; it’s just an outdated fiction … and we have useful legal definitions of undue influence, coercive control etc that cover what you are referring to …
@@kierenmoore3236 >and we have useful legal definitions of undue influence, coercive control etc that cover what you are referring to Sure, and when people use the term free will in everyday language or legal contexts this is what they mean. I don't see why anyone needs to language police people out of doing that. The English language has always been defined by it's usage in the wild, and this is how people use it.
@@simonhibbs887 Except that it has a very long, problematic usage … which as a ‘compatibilist’, you may well be happy with … and you’re of course welcome to it …
You lay down your will in life and pick up Jesus christ will daily in life and you secseed in the site of God your father who is always there watching you go forward.
Are will is the only way God can test us before you can get to the kingdom of God to make sure you won't to be with my father God and Jesus christ my bro and the grace the helper to teach you everything you need for God's kingdom.
Life-Desire is Motor/Force of Life, in direct extension We have Will, Life-side and Gravity Stuff-side, Developing goes in Developing-Circuits, in beginning of a new Developing-Circuit, Will is at its minimum performance, and in the end at the maximum. You can low your Will by addiction, and stay wiill-less for few incarnations, but the Life-Desire will surely bring You back on the right track.
@@ninenineninezero Free Will is philosophy fallacies Unpredictable consciousness keep out figure out random reality. This video dont figure out Free Will. It is completely rambling. Thank you
@@ninenineninezero This video keep out figure out Free Will. It is rubbish and rambling. Unpredictable consciousness NOT figure out random reality. It means Free Will It is wortheless philosophy.
if free will didn't exist as a "problem", philosophers would have to invent it to keep themselves ungainfully employed oh wait, that's how free will became a "problem"! never mind
we don't experience ourselves as "uncaused causes" we experience ourselves as biological and social beings who act on biological and social causes like hunger and cold and status and peer pressure so "manifest" free will is not a real issue only philosophers can imagine it is
@@rossw1365I agree with you that philosophy today, especially the academic one is kind of stupid... but true philosophy is still needed, the problem is that true philosophy is more like a scientific hypothesis that anything else so if you're not a scientist you cannot practice truth philosophy...
A lack of moral responsibility in no way means a lack of responsibility. If a piece of farm equipment malfunctions and causes harm, you don't claim it has moral responsibility; but you also don't ignore the problem. You would try to fix the malfunction or take that piece of equipment out of service. For human behavior, what constitutes malfunction is determined by society in the form of social mores and laws. This is not in any way complicated to understand. Yes, we're machines. Have a sniffle about it and then put on your big boy pants and carry on.
@@milannesic5718 No free will =/= no desires, perceptions, or ability to problem-solve. Even a robot can be programmed to scan its environment for problems and try to fix them. Of course, what the robot identifies as a problem and what abilities the robot has when it comes to trying to solve it will be determined by its programming and the sophistication of its computing hardware and mechanical components. The same is true of biological organisms too though.
@@sensereference2227 A robot has a purpose though. We don't. Everything is completely pointless, as it is all just particles moving around by themselves.We are not doing anything. It is all an illusion. Fix for whom exactly? We don't exist. At least, that is the argument of those that don't believe in free will in the slightest
@@milannesic5718 Try to think beyond the superficial. We, as in an evolved social species, have evolved behaviors that improved the ecological fitness of our species. We are programmed by evolution to behave in ways that are consistent with the behaviors that made us ecologically successful. Just because we don't have free will doesn't mean that we don't have some capacity to modify behaviors of members of our social group (society) in ways that match the behaviors that made the species successful thus far. Sheesh, this isn't complicated.
One opinion.. Many physicists have bought into this NO free will idea.. As if the universe was a fully deterministic machine whose components have been locked in place by immutable and predictable particle causes and effects..INSTEAD, and according to Qm, particle locations are randomized within a probability wave.. There are NO particle waves whose position can be known BEFORE a measurement and time plays into where the particle might be WHEN measured, yes? I am currently convinced that our sense of free will is genuine.. Peace to all..
We don't actually live in a deterministic universe. Determinism is a philosophical idea about what can be known about the future, it is not a force in nature that controls everything. Luckily, we do live in a universe that features reliable causation which allows life to maintain itself and for humans to manipulate nature and create wonderful technologies. So if determinism isn't a thing, then there should be no problem with the idea of free will.
While it's true that the outcomes of quantum measurements can only be understood in probabilistic terms, quantum mechanics itself _is_ still very much deterministic. However, even if you thought that it wasn't, I don't see how quantum randomness helps one to believe in free will. How would your actions being either fully determined by external events, or being fully determined by random processes over which you can have no control, give you any feeling of free will? Sayin'.
@@simesaid You're still using the word "determined" even though when you look it up it doesn't mean what you are using it to mean. Are your actions completely controlled by external events? In other words, given a particular set of external events, are you compelled to only one response? This is patently untrue, but the word "determine" will make any nonsense seem true.
@caricue That's exactly what Qm suggests as well, friend.. The future is not deterministic. The universe is not deterministic.. Yet somehow, our sense of free will is not real because it is SOLELY PREdetermined ? Odd to me.. Peace.
@simesaid I humbly say that NEARLY reads like someone who is an apologist for no free will.. Everything can LEGITIMATELY be imagined as quantum objects.. I know YOU know that everything has a wave function, even the universe, my friend.. Wave functions are non deterministic, ALL wave functions are.. NOT just photons or electrons.. You are a bright guy and we have talked before. I am sure you are aware that none of us can speak with certainty because future scientific insights have a way of scrambling old beliefs, true?
We are not consciously aware of all of our own internal cognitive processes. We can't introspect the cognitive machinery that generates our speech on the fly, for example. We can consciously reason about choices of words, but that's an incredibly slow process, in free flowing speech we just talk, we don't have to think about picking words, they just come to us. This means that we don't actually experience ourselves as un-caused causes, we are just not entirely consciously aware of all the subconscious cognitive processes that are the causes of many of our choices.
There is at least the illusion of achieving control over the influences that impinge on our free will. This is a good starting point in my book, and I think Tim Bayne might agree with me on this.
Like with so many things in science, the solution usually comes down to a nuanced, middle-way view that does not invalidate the extremes that previously seemed so irreconcilable.
I personally believe that reality is a multi-layered structure, and consciousness, including its multiple personal aspects, are native to each layer. They are at odds with each other due to layer separation, which is ultimately a consequence of the quantized nature of reality.
More importantly, there is a communication barrier between the layers, further complicated by time distortion. In this framework, having free will and not having free will, are both valid statements at the extreme poles of the individual/unity spectrum, but in practical reality, when you sit inbetween, free will exists on a spectrum. And you can't ever have enough of it.
I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will. -Vonnegut
Robert Sapolsky is confused about the neurons that run free will.
Reality is determined by our 5 senses. To let other people make choices for oneself, which we all do from time to time, is to make a choice. To argue about free will is also to make a choice. Once you bring in latin, you have confused everything. Best arguing to all!
"Forgive me. I couldn't help myself" is a pretty weak dodge. Free will must be earned. We are hostages to causation to the degree that we do not understand the causes of our actions. Once conscious of such causes we can grapple with responsibility and reform. Causes and actions arising from such causes are two separate things. Mad dogs among humankind are punished for violating the rights of others, even if they can't help being what they are.
Nice , logical , sensible one...
There is NO free will, my wife forced me to eat fish at lunch yesterday....
😄👍🏼
@@guidance_seeker_55 Raw tuna🤔
No free will, no agency.
@stephenelliott7998 If that is ones assumption, perhaps we should stop thinking so much?
Definitely have free will
@@stephenelliott7998 no free will no conscience no responsibility and no remorse.
wrong, you can have agency without free will
@@stephenelliott7998 Imagine how irrational we would be if we just act on our feeling and emotions. God gave us Free Will, Consciousness and Willpower to save us from ourselves.
I don't know that such a finite being such as a human is capable of ultimately determining to what degree they have free will. It does seem that one's attitude or opinion towards the degree of free will they possess has an effect on their behavior. This does not necessarily mean they have free will, for ones attitude or opinion could be the result of an outside force.
Free will is an illusion. Humans are not uncaused causes. Free will does not exist whether or not determinism is true. If our actions are caused, then our actions are determined and thus no one is free. If our actions are randomly generated, then our actions are not really in our control and thus no one is free. I also take British philosopher Galen Strawson's 'Basic argument' to be correct. Strawson summarizes his argument as follows:
"When one acts, one acts in the way one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible."
If our ideas are randomely generated then we have free will if causal course is false. Causal clousre is false. We have free will.
@@Marvin19661 How is randomness of ideas compatible with free will? If ideas are randomly generated, how can you have any control over them?
they are not in a causal chain that is closed. Ideas are not physical. They are products of mentation.
@@Marvin19661 I have no idea what you're talking about. If ideas are not subject to causal closure principle, then they're epiphenomenal and thus useless. But since they have causal powers, then they're not epiphenomenal or useless. If they exist separately and independently of brain processes, then you need to explain how they influence brain processes.
Every moment that appears in consciousness seems dependent on every moment that has occurred prior to it, one may need to change the past in order to change the future
Criminals now can claim that they had no control of their actions because they don't have free will and for that reason they can't be responsible for something they don't have control.
You've invented a false dichotomy. Why can't a person be held accountable for their actions, even if those actions were beyond their control? By accountable, I mean having some limitations or other outcomes from those behaviors. If someone becomes a homicidal maniac due to some biochemical imbalance, society could still deal with the matter to stop that person harming others while also recognizing that the behavior was not really the result of free will.
@@mikel5582 Robert Sapolsky invented that and his cult members are 💯% behind him please don't give me credit for someone else invention.
@@playpaltalk "Invented" was a poor choice of word. I should have written that you "presented a false dichotomy." That said, I have no idea what you're referring to in your second comment.
The reason this isn't true is that in normal social and legal contexts the concept of free will are purely about coercive or mitigating circumstances, and those concepts are entirely compatible with deterministic accounts of free will.
We do NOT experience ourselves as uncaused causes. A simple question like, "Where were you born?" reveals that we know where we came from. A simple question like, "Why did you order the Salad rather than the Steak?" reveals that we know the reasons that caused us to choose one thing rather than another.
The delusion that causation forces us to do things that we'd rather not do is a delusion, a self-induced hoax, built from figurative language which we attempted to take literally. For example, when presented with the notion that we "could not have done otherwise" we experience that as a constraint. But the "could not" is a figurative statement falsely derived from the correct notion that we "would not have done otherwise", which is not experienced as a constraint, since we know exactly why we chose the Salad and would not have chosen the Steak tonight, and given those same reasons (for example, we had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch) we would normally avoid the Steak dinner. Had we instead had fruit for breakfast and a salad for lunch, then we would have chosen the Steak.
It was always the case that we "could have chosen either one" but that we "would have chosen only the Salad". And it was reliably caused by our own reasons, which is known to everyone as a choice of our own free will.
experiments on split brain patients reveal that we constantly lie to ourselves.
here's a premise: if there's no such thing as a purely random thought then there is also no such thing as a purely random action ...all actions therefore have a proximal cause
We want free will because we want to survive. To give away free will is to give in.
Bayne is so good.
...The only thing I can observe here is: the greater the Free Will, the greater the responsibility to maintain my Free Will, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
I am starting to think that the question of free will isn't a big deal and can be replaced by the question of Heidegger's "being" or The Buddha's unbounded awareness. Free will is a matter of choice which is another word for an ability to choose from options; and I think the feeling of free will is mistaken for the volume of options. A machine with a circuit board and a computer, and large language model have a varying volume of options to choose from. I imagine that if these machines had the same awareness that human agents have, then they would feel that they have more free will proportionate to the amount of options they have to choose from at each point in time as their actions are initiated.
If it's not free, it's not a will, by definition.
Free in what sense though? That’s the issue.
Consciousness and Free Will is fundamental.
I served in Vietnam with many men that were drafted and most if not any at all were there by their own free will. Many were wounded (some mortally) losing limbs, hearing, vision, not to mention their phycological and mental well being . . . . totally against their will. (The only ones with free will burned their draft card and fled to Canada. LOL!)
I'm quite sure no person 'free wills' themselves into a heart attack, breast cancer, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's disease. Free will is much more constrained than just deciding whether to turn left or right at the stop light. Or whether to order steak or seafood in a restaurant. For many people free will is just an illusion because many decisions in their life are made for them by somebody else, such as a parent, a spouse, an employer, a judge, or an administrative law.
So yeah, go ahead . . . and choose which shirt you want to wear!
The block-timers would say there is no free-will. Common sense says that many if not most decisions are the answer to or the consequence of previous events or decisions. So when does free-will come into it? We feel we have it. Do we? These guys burn a lot of words to say very little.
1:31 I've said this a few times already about other videos on this channel concerning free will, WHY is it that those who believe in free will never or hardly ever use their other hand to eat, drink, brush their teeth and other bathroom things? If people have free will they should freely choose to use either hand and not just one all or most of the time. Anyway the bible tells us that we DO NOT have free will and that it is God who does his good pleasure through us and we can't do anything without him.
Philippians 2:13
*“For it is God which worketh in you* both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
John 15:5
King James Version
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: *for without me ye can do nothing.*
Isaiah 46:10
King James Version
10 *Declaring the end from the beginning,* and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and *I will do all my pleasure:*
The biblical Jesus was fortold including his death and resurrection. That's enough to tell you that things are predetermined/determined. Buddhist monks find their senior successor by searching for a child who is believed to be the next reincarnation of the previous one. This indicates they believe in predetermination which is the same as determinism. High level Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, have likened Jesus Christ to a high level enlightened Buddhist, because there is indication in the Bible that he lived previous lives. It's as though life itself is a novel that has already been written and everyone is acting out their determined roles. It's weird.
@@realitycheck1231 All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts...
-William Shakespeare
"Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan." - Ephesians 1:11
@@treasurepoem Even Peter denying Jesus three times before the rooster crows, which was before Peter became enlightened. Determinism is even in the minute details. Once again, weird.
The search for causes is an artifact of the human proclivity to find agency in everything. Assigning a cause in nature is to seek out blame, and the things in nature just happen, there is no cause and no blame. Only an agent can cause something to happen, or determine what an outcome will be.
How is it that scientific theories can predict future states in nature from prior states, if prior states do not cause future states?
@@simonhibbs887 There are no "states of nature", everything that happens in nature is continuous, this is just a human projection onto reality. Causation is also just a human projection when it comes to nature. Only an agent can be a cause or determine an outcome. Nature just happens.
Are there infinite prior states, or is there a state of the universe that has no cause, and was there for eternity, or did it come into existence from nothing. How could something come from nothing.
@@1GTX1 That’s a matter of much debate. I think most philosophers don’t believe a true state of nothing is a viable concept. I think whatever we can say about our universe, or whatever its prior states were, they must always have been compatible with the emergence of our universe. So our universe must always have been possible. A possibility isn’t nothing, so true nothingness is excluded, IMHO.
One issue is whether there is a meaningful distinction between the physical world, its phenomena and processes, and the principles or ‘laws’ we imagine govern it. Maybe the physical is a consequence of such laws, so the laws somehow exist independently of the physical itself. Thats a kind of Platonism, and popular with Idealists. It’s the main reason I give idealism some credence, though personally I’m a physicalist.
Another intriguing theory is that there is no distinction between the possible and the actual. Our universe is logically consistent, as are its processes, and that’s all we can say. Calling it actual or real as well as possible is redundant. There may be other possible universes that are also logically consistent. In this way the ‘laws’ are the physical, there’s no distinction to be made between them.
@@1GTX1Both infinite regression and something emerging from nothing are absurd, so therefore there must be a prime mover, or an uncaused cause, if you will.
5:27 no. Science doesn't give the reality, it's only a tool, not a deity. Theology is the reality.
And I'm not sorry if you can't handle this fact.
Pls, prove me wrong. I do listen to Reason.
Science and theology are fields of study, so they are both descriptive. Neither is proscriptive.
Science describes the physical world, it does not explain the world.
Sure. There's no freewill. Neither is there strict 100% determinism.
He who thinks all is determined and has no ability for reason and contemplation and realization, may we take a moment of silence for. Thank you.
Men who are more worried about being seen as wrong than risking so seeking Truth.
Freewill is potential and it's of the Intellect.
This comes to the nature of reason. Logic for example is deterministic, given certain axioms and rules of inference all possible conclusions are inevitable.
The very term reasoning implies that choices are made for reasons. If they don’t determine the outcome, what role do reasons play?
4:40 "…you have to change one or change the other…some work on changing the science away from a deterministic point of view or some work towards undermining the free will..."
We should give strong presumptive weight to common sense.
In cases of dispute between the output of our more speculative or theoretical endeavors and these facts available to us in everyday experience, the common-sense view should win out.
This is true both because theoretical conclusions are less reliable than it is commonly believed and that because the nature of evidence supports the view that we should trust the reliability of our foundational judgments.
Free will is built into the conception of human nature used in everyday life, and therefore qualifies as a tenet of common sense.
This fact gives a strong presumption to it.
Those who reject free will belong in the same category as those who through scientific reasoning or philosophical deliberations come to believe that there is no external world, just sensory impressions, or that thoughts and feelings do not exist, or that there is no such thing as morality or truth or pain.
The "uncaused cause" has a cause; and that cause is, and can only be the libertarian free-will given to us by Creator GOD YHVH.
So there's a cause of the un-caused cause.
What caused the cause of the un-caused cause?
@@simonhibbs887 --- The uncaused causer of all the "caused" "uncaused causes" has no causer; the backward regression chain stops with HIM and HIS magisterium.
pretty soon a "tomjackson" is going to start trolling you. He never trolls simon tho because simon is a nihilists atheist
@@JohnQPublic11 Thats the problem with the Kalam, it wears the clothes of a chain of reasoning but underneath is just a flat claim. I’ve no objection to someone just finding a particular set of propositions attractive, including theism, but all the bait and switch gets tiring. At least you just come out and say what you think. I can respect that.
The only question left, really, is when will humans give up the illusion of ‘free will’ … ?
Because there is not reason to do so. It's a perfectly good everyday term we use in conversation and legal contexts, and in those contexts it's entirely consistent with determinism. For some reason hard determinists are happy to allow metaphysical libertarians to define it as some nonsense magic power we can't possibly have and just roll over. Compatibilists like me say it's a useful term and we should argue for a definition of it that means something real.
@@simonhibbs887 It’s not a useful term, at all; it’s just an outdated fiction … and we have useful legal definitions of undue influence, coercive control etc that cover what you are referring to …
@@kierenmoore3236 >and we have useful legal definitions of undue influence, coercive control etc that cover what you are referring to
Sure, and when people use the term free will in everyday language or legal contexts this is what they mean. I don't see why anyone needs to language police people out of doing that. The English language has always been defined by it's usage in the wild, and this is how people use it.
@@simonhibbs887 Except that it has a very long, problematic usage … which as a ‘compatibilist’, you may well be happy with … and you’re of course welcome to it …
@@simonhibbs887 “out of dog that” = ?
That is why Jesus christ rent the Val in the temple so we can have access to our own temple with are willing to be his brother in God's family.
I suppose it all boils down to who YOU are. Are you an individual separate from everything going on around you, or are you just part of the universe?
You lay down your will in life and pick up Jesus christ will daily in life and you secseed in the site of God your father who is always there watching you go forward.
Are will is the only way God can test us before you can get to the kingdom of God to make sure you won't to be with my father God and Jesus christ my bro and the grace the helper to teach you everything you need for God's kingdom.
Life-Desire is Motor/Force of Life,
in direct extension We have
Will, Life-side and Gravity Stuff-side,
Developing goes in Developing-Circuits,
in beginning of a new Developing-Circuit,
Will is at its minimum performance,
and in the end at the maximum.
You can low your Will by addiction,
and stay wiill-less for few incarnations,
but the Life-Desire will surely bring
You back on the right track.
Guys keep out how figure out Free Will. He shows wortheless philosophy proceendings. Rubbish and rambling video about free Will.
Could you possibly rephrase that sentence?
Why bother commenting or coming here then
@@ninenineninezero Free Will is philosophy fallacies Unpredictable consciousness keep out figure out random reality. This video dont figure out Free Will. It is completely rambling. Thank you
@@ninenineninezero This video keep out figure out Free Will. It is rubbish and rambling. Unpredictable consciousness NOT figure out random reality. It means Free Will It is wortheless philosophy.
if free will didn't exist as a "problem", philosophers would have to invent it to keep themselves ungainfully employed
oh wait, that's how free will became a "problem"!
never mind
we don't experience ourselves as "uncaused causes"
we experience ourselves as biological and social beings who act on biological and social causes
like hunger and cold
and status and peer pressure
so "manifest" free will is not a real issue
only philosophers can imagine it is
@@rossw1365I agree with you that philosophy today, especially the academic one is kind of stupid...
but true philosophy is still needed, the problem is that true philosophy is more like a scientific hypothesis that anything else so if you're not a scientist you cannot practice truth philosophy...
Look at this video and you will never discuss about free will again.
A lack of moral responsibility in no way means a lack of responsibility. If a piece of farm equipment malfunctions and causes harm, you don't claim it has moral responsibility; but you also don't ignore the problem. You would try to fix the malfunction or take that piece of equipment out of service.
For human behavior, what constitutes malfunction is determined by society in the form of social mores and laws. This is not in any way complicated to understand.
Yes, we're machines. Have a sniffle about it and then put on your big boy pants and carry on.
"We should try to fix the problems". We don't have free will. Already forgot? We can now go into circular arguments about this forever
@@milannesic5718 No free will =/= no desires, perceptions, or ability to problem-solve. Even a robot can be programmed to scan its environment for problems and try to fix them. Of course, what the robot identifies as a problem and what abilities the robot has when it comes to trying to solve it will be determined by its programming and the sophistication of its computing hardware and mechanical components. The same is true of biological organisms too though.
@@sensereference2227 A robot has a purpose though. We don't. Everything is completely pointless, as it is all just particles moving around by themselves.We are not doing anything. It is all an illusion. Fix for whom exactly? We don't exist. At least, that is the argument of those that don't believe in free will in the slightest
@@milannesic5718 Try to think beyond the superficial. We, as in an evolved social species, have evolved behaviors that improved the ecological fitness of our species. We are programmed by evolution to behave in ways that are consistent with the behaviors that made us ecologically successful. Just because we don't have free will doesn't mean that we don't have some capacity to modify behaviors of members of our social group (society) in ways that match the behaviors that made the species successful thus far.
Sheesh, this isn't complicated.
@@milannesic5718 By the way, you misquoted me. Quotation marks are for direct speech, not what you *_think_* somebody meant.
One opinion.. Many physicists have bought into this NO free will idea.. As if the universe was a fully deterministic machine whose components have been locked in place by immutable and predictable particle causes and effects..INSTEAD, and according to Qm, particle locations are randomized within a probability wave.. There are NO particle waves whose position can be known BEFORE a measurement and time plays into where the particle might be WHEN measured, yes? I am currently convinced that our sense of free will is genuine.. Peace to all..
We don't actually live in a deterministic universe. Determinism is a philosophical idea about what can be known about the future, it is not a force in nature that controls everything. Luckily, we do live in a universe that features reliable causation which allows life to maintain itself and for humans to manipulate nature and create wonderful technologies. So if determinism isn't a thing, then there should be no problem with the idea of free will.
While it's true that the outcomes of quantum measurements can only be understood in probabilistic terms, quantum mechanics itself _is_ still very much deterministic.
However, even if you thought that it wasn't, I don't see how quantum randomness helps one to believe in free will. How would your actions being either fully determined by external events, or being fully determined by random processes over which you can have no control, give you any feeling of free will? Sayin'.
@@simesaid You're still using the word "determined" even though when you look it up it doesn't mean what you are using it to mean. Are your actions completely controlled by external events? In other words, given a particular set of external events, are you compelled to only one response? This is patently untrue, but the word "determine" will make any nonsense seem true.
@caricue That's exactly what Qm suggests as well, friend.. The future is not deterministic. The universe is not deterministic.. Yet somehow, our sense of free will is not real because it is SOLELY PREdetermined ? Odd to me.. Peace.
@simesaid I humbly say that NEARLY reads like someone who is an apologist for no free will.. Everything can LEGITIMATELY be imagined as quantum objects.. I know YOU know that everything has a wave function, even the universe, my friend.. Wave functions are non deterministic, ALL wave functions are.. NOT just photons or electrons.. You are a bright guy and we have talked before. I am sure you are aware that none of us can speak with certainty because future scientific insights have a way of scrambling old beliefs, true?
We are not consciously aware of all of our own internal cognitive processes. We can't introspect the cognitive machinery that generates our speech on the fly, for example. We can consciously reason about choices of words, but that's an incredibly slow process, in free flowing speech we just talk, we don't have to think about picking words, they just come to us.
This means that we don't actually experience ourselves as un-caused causes, we are just not entirely consciously aware of all the subconscious cognitive processes that are the causes of many of our choices.
sense of uncaused cause due to free will from God sovereignty?
free will from God sovereignty for moral agency?