Freewill Vs Determinism. Why I'm a "hard determinist".
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 6. 07. 2020
- A brief video explaining why I don't think free will exists. I shot this because I often get into discussions with my friends about this, and often fail to articulate my thinking clearly. Hopefully, I've explained it better here. đ” Check out the research on subconscious decision making here đ”
đwww.sciencedaily.com/releases...
The cool thing about it is even a hard determinist will wake up tomorrow and be faced with the perception of choice. For all intents and purposes life just goes on with that perception of free will. It serves us well enough in our day-to-day lives that the thought experiment of determinism doesn't really have much of an impact in our lives. Some people think determinism is depressing to think about but in a way it's freeing and fascinating.
Determinists tend to be more empathetic, because of the observation nobody chooses to be criminal, even if they did...
@@acex222 That's not why it is believed even though why a crime was committed has a more extensive explanation. This has no correlation to how much punishment should be given. I often think punishments should be more than I often see for crimes.
@@alittleofeverything4190All arguments for lower or higher punishments still apply: it will effect how people act (Extremely simplified: will I steal? - no because I might end up in jail for 10 years/ yes because I will not go to jail) and that was the whole idea in the first place.
yes to punishment no to morral indictment
â@@alittleofeverything4190 things looks diffrent when you are on the receiving end... lack of free will have a huge impact over how we deal with proprietors. Rehabilitation and development in programs to correct the neurological function or behavior of a person should be the main focus of authorities now. People who say oh it has no implications don't even understand what lack of freewill actually implies.
Nicely done and thank you.
Amazing brother.... Keep it up
Many thanks and greetings from Cancun MĂ©xico!
I'm pondering if we are either in a hard deterministic universe or if we have like a tiny bit of leeway to make momemnt to moment choices and decisions, but are still entirely completely influenced and moved and propulsed by our environment and circumstances and our hormones/human nature/ sub-conscious etc..
So I think of it like a river...1. either we're like an eddy in a raging river, actually an energetic manifestation and part of that river, molecules or atoms witin the river as it gushes along it's course (that would be the hard determinist ) or 2. we are like protist flailing it's flaggella in a swirling eddy within a huge gushing river. The second model would indicate that w are still carried along the course of river but we are an organism within the river and we can maneuver a little bit in the stream to grab a bit of food or reproduce if another protist is near, but ultimately it is just survival and reacting to an environment as it carries us toward a final destination. Even if it is the second mode I still don't think we have really much choice in life and that the outcome of peoples' circumstance is mostly outside of their control.
Great video very well spoken a little tip get a cheap 20$ boya mic or if you have one in adobe premium drag and drop the denoise effect on your audio
There is a, or multiple, studies that showed how decisions where made before the neurons firing. Can someone please share the name of this, or these studies?
I believe in Determinism. I am shy, withdrawn and stutter and I applied to 5 colleges. I wanted to interview at the colleges as I thought it would help. All schools were equally selective but I was unable to visit one school due to a family emergency. I was only accepted to one college and that was the one I did not visit.
No there might be things which are determined as a result of influence and environmental factors but you still have wants that you voluntarily act upon. I donât think we understand everything but we become stuck and accept âfate.â Rather there is still some choice on the matter of you voluntarily acting or not acting on your wants, but you canât choose your wants.
Excellent explanation on the debate of Determinism Vs. Freewill, thank you đđŸ
get this man some more recognition!
Man's graftin' here! I've got a new channel with more content if you'd like to check it out. czcams.com/channels/93JlTJ4jfcF9y_VAW9IXVQ.html
Your video proves compatibilism or âsoft determinismâ is true. I was in the camp of believing âhard determinismâ for around 15 years. We would have to really analyze what the implications of true hard determinism would be and there are many. For one, if human choice was true hard determinism a concept of determinism or free will would not have arisen in the mind. In order for a measurement to be made there has to be change. For example letâs say in the universe it was a uniform 70°F everywhere at all times and nothing could be done to change the temperature. If this were true a concept of temperature would have never arisen because it couldnât be known since itâs unchanging. If hard determinism was actually true it would be impossible to find truth since error or non error could not be differentiated. Even if evidence and logic could arise from determinism the results could never be taken seriously because truths could never be known objectively since the observations to find truths, could never be trusted even if the evidence appears to lean one way or the other. Statements such as âIâ or âyouâ would be impossible because there would be nobody there to make a choice. If hard determinism was true anyone could commit any crime and be innocent since they couldnât have done otherwise. Going to the opposition end of the spectrum, libertarian free will, if this were true a concept of free will or determinism would also not have arisen. True libertarian free will would equal infinity.
A mind damaged by tumors or brain injury lowers free, just as hunger or caffeine withdrawals etc. These leaves the third but very boring third option, soft determinism⊠If true hard determinism was true a CZcams video describing it could never be taken seriously but then again under hard determinism there would be no one there to make or view the video.
Seeing brains make decisions early before we physically show evidence that we have made them doesnât actually count as evidence for hard determinism. Since we can do the experiment and observe the results negates hard determinism. The choice to agree on evidence itâs self is rendered meaningless if hard determinism is true and would negate not only that experiment but all sensory input for being evidence of anything. We put faith that our senses arenât totally lying to us and these concepts would be totally impossible if hard determinism was true.
Thank you for this. One of the clearest explanations.
Glad it was helpful!
Extremely enlightening. Thank you.
It's not just external factors that determine our lives. It's our desire. Our desire determines what we do, from when we wake, to when we close our eyes again. And we have no control over desire.
We can go against our desires if we choose to.
How do you think you acquired a desire?
@@plumber1874, That's cuz you have stronger desire to go against your desire
our of the trees are out of the water?
Ive stumbled apon the idea of determanism and im starting to get it but at the same time it leaves me feeling dreadful and hopeless that I have no control over what happens in my life and I should give up my question to you is how did you handle this if you have ever felt it before?
It is hard, I know Iâm not the video author but it is something Iâve been grappling with for a while now. I think due to cultural entrenchment it will take a while to see the free will illusion weaken and some people will get angry about its weakening but over time views on situations will change. I think the area where it counts most of on human judgments of each other at any level aka on the court room right down to why two siblings had a fight or some says something rude to someone and accepting the truth of determinism we can show more forgiveness and reconciliation in all things especially from an emotional standpoint. Obviously a violent madman would still need to be contained as this is the often the first example people bring up as a âwell what about this scenarioâ
Determinism is self-contradictory. You proved that in your first sentence: "I've stumbled upon the *idea* of determinism". If determinism is an idea, then it is not determined but chosen as an option by one's mind, e.g., a free-will choice to be a determinist.
If you want to see a real philosophy video on free-will see Dr. Harry Binswanger
@@ExistenceUniversity thatâs not how it works, politely itâs that we have assigned a the word determinism to the very fundamentally real reality of cause and effect and understood it. Your inability or refusal to understand is not your fault and ironically couldnât be prevented. It doesnât mean that free will isnât an illusion though.
@@ExistenceUniversity just looked him up and conveniently his work had elements of creationism and religion in it immediately on the first search. Nearly everyone who refutes neurobiological determinism believes in some sort of part of us that itself isnât metaphysical like a soul or divine power. Metaphysical science show us our mind is mainly determined by neurobiological and environmental factors mixed with subatomic indeterminism aka randomness which is by definition not within our control.
@@jamespaternoster7354 "assigned" how?
"Inability"? "Refusal"? What are those to a determined computer brain?
"Illusion"? To what, and how?
"Not my fault?" How can you know its not you that is "programmed wrong"?
Every sentence you utter reaffirms free will exists and determinism is the illusion. I have a video even called that on my channel
Iâm not seeing why the last example about subconscious choice preceding an apparent conscious choice precludes free will. Regardless of which part of the mind makes the choice you, as an agent (a mind) made that choice. Maybe Iâm missing something but that still seems like free will and agency to me.
The subconscious mind is not our ego. Human's like to think that we're consciously pondering a decision, and then choosing A or B. But the truth is, that never actually happens. It's already decided. It's not the free will that we think we have. Sure, our subconscious mind is part of "our" body, and it's technically "us", but it's not the us that we think we are.
could the same thing be appled to when henry the 8th had that jousting accident in 1536, afer that accident he wasn't the same and never healed from this injuries. like Finneas Guage they could have heen forced on him by the events of that day?
Very well articulated.
Actually , Plato and Aristotle never directly tackled this question . Aristotle made the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions , and probably believed in what we would now call âfree willâ . But I believe Epicurus was the first to actually tackle the question by talking about how men could act freely despite living in a mechanical , atomistic world . His solution was the âindeterministic swerveâ which led to some freedom in a deterministic world .
What does it mean to make a decision?
It started with the moment of the big bang. That's the real decision. Everything after that just followed like dominoes. We're automatons at the end of the day. Just because it's distasteful, doesn't mean it's not true
Isnât it obvious that there are many factors that determine how we decide? If you know all the variables and a ruleset you can predict what choice will be made (or need to add in a variable or rule you missed).
Humans are just complex robots
A response for each of your major premises:
1. The sand question : "The free will is removed by external factors..."
a. This doesn't sound like it genuinely considers the premise of Libertarianism. Your choice must be determinant on external factors to be sure, but there comes a clear distinction between the finity of possible choices to select from, and the ability to select at all. Nothing in this has demonstrated either a paradox for Libertarianism, or a necessity for Hard Determinism. The free will in this example was not "removed by external factors", but modified by external factors, some of which may have also been results of other choices made by free actors.
2. Essentially, "Some environmental factors are beyond individual control, therefore you have no capability to change them."
a. This is circular reasoning. "Because somethings cannot be changed by you, you cannot change them." To be clear, environmental causation certainly exists - that is, some things are determined completely independently of agency or free will -- a tree falls not because someone willed it to happen, but because of the environmental factors that caused the tree to fall. That isn't the same as saying, "all outcomes are outcomes of strict environmental factors"
3. "Did you choose to be conceived/born/etc.?"
a. This is a straw man to be sure. Libertarianism is not the belief that the individual is responsible for all things that happen to or about them. I did not choose to be born, but to the Libertarian, clearly my parents chose to engage in activities which happened to conceive me. Did I or they choose my genetics? No. Again, not all things are strictly caused by agency, this seems like the straw man you're attempting to deconstruct, which I can't think of a rational supporter for.
4. "When did you make your first choice? I don't think anybody can answer that. I think there's a simple reason for that: because you were never in charge of anything..."
a. Another straw man here, followed by an assumption of the conclusion. "The proof that you were never in charge of anything is: you cannot remember the first thing you were in charge of." I know this isn't intended to be a strictly logical argument, but the rationale fails demonstrably. The number of times you say the answer is hard determinism does not make for a stronger argument - I've yet to hear a claim that refutes or supports the underlying assumptions you're making.
5. Essentially, "The decisions you make are the only decisions that could have been made by you."
a. Clearly your strongest point yet, and the one it seems like you've been building up to. The issue with this statement is that it relies on its own premise and is therefore circular reasoning. "This happened, therefore this must have happened." Unverifiable hypotheses like many-worlds aside, this only provides one explanation to what could have happened and relies on the lack of ability to test such a claim to be true. I can make an antithetical claim quite easily: "This happened, but many things could have happened depending upon your will at the time." However, this doesn't prove the statement's authenticity, only its viability as a potential explanation. Since the only way we can experience time is as a temporal phenomenon, assumptions about the unobservable past are merely philosophical. I'm also tempted to say this potentially borders on the stolen concept fallacy wherein the explanation that no events can be chosen relies on the assumption that choice exists in the first place. Otherwise, if the only point is to say that past events must have been past events, this is trivially true, but doesn't really prove one side or the other. Compatibilists and Libertarians accept that past outcomes cannot be changed as we understand them.
6. "Physical change in the brain can remove your free will."
a. True. If you physically remove my brain altogether, or just manually scramble it up, you can point to my inability to do anything other than stare ahead lifelessly as the removal of my free will. In Gage's case, I'd prefer to think that the environmental factors which regulate his free will effectively modified his ego/consciousness/agency/spirit/whatever you'd like to call it, making him more likely to choose other outcomes. The issue here is it relies on an understanding of our consciousness which we really don't have. Whether you subscribe to dualism, monism, or pluralism cannot come from rationalism or material reductionism because they inherently describe phenomena that are extra-material. I imagine as a hard-determinist you also accept the idea that the mind/consciousness is purely an effect of perception or something of the sort. That is, you don't believe that subjective experience exists anywhere outside of objective reality, but that statement in and of itself would likely take me weeks to unpack... so let's just both not go there... If I'm wrong (which I'm pretty sure I'm not), then it follows you must subscribe to some idea where the mind and subjective experience exists as well as objective reality.
With that being said... I've fairly overstayed my welcome and I strongly doubt anyone will get this far. So I'll call it here and see if there's any good discussion to be had. Thanks!
Hi there, how would you back determinism, or hard determinism properly?
An amazing response, I appreciate your time and substantial expertise and clear thinking on this comment. I've started a new channel, for just this type of constructive dialogue. If you would like to check it out, please visit : czcams.com/channels/93JlTJ4jfcF9y_VAW9IXVQ.html
@@CharlesHodson I appreciate it! Definitely consider myself a novice when it comes to things like these, but I'm always excited for these thought-provoking conversations. I'll take a look at your other channel you mentioned!
@@dot5816 I don't think I should be the one to make that argument as my biases personally favor free will. That being said, my belief is that this issue is theological rather than strictly rational, so while you may choose to believe one or the other (and with good reason for each side), that answer is something of an a priori -- not a strict conclusion. I think the same is true of the antinatalism debate -- some things one must choose using best judgment when neither side can be proven outright.
The reason we cannot have free will as ordinarily understood is because of this:
To have done otherwise always circumstances we did not choose would have had to have been different. This is something we can check and see by going through possible scenarios.
Don't get me wrong. Though believing in free will would be comforting, I'm 100% a determinist. However, I take issue with the pysiological-psychology experiment you referenced. It's a moot point and doesn't in my opinion bolster the argument for a deterministic world at all. It doesn't matter whether choice is made in the conscious or the pre-conscious, it can be just as free and undetermined whether made before or after the decision maker is aware of making the decision. Whether conscious of it or not, the person making the choice is still the "agent" of that choice, the only relevant question is whether his choosing was determined or "free". The only germane arguments on the issue are those rooted in an exercise of logic. The issue cannot be "proven" one way or the other.
JMHO, but I'm right. :)
The free will that we think that we have, is in our conscious mind. It's our ego. We think that "we", that voice in our head, is making the decision. Instead, it's a super computer in our brain that makes the decision, and then we play a little game in our conscious mind to give ourselves the illusion of agency. Yes, the super computer in our brain is part of us, but our ego has no control over it.
Think of it this way, if we eventually all have Neuralink chips implanted into our brains, and these chips are running calculations and making decisions, is that "our" decision? Well, we do have Neuralink chips in our brain in a way, we have our own quantum super computer inside our brains making the decision. No difference from a Neuralink chip if you really think about it
The universe is largely deterministic. Free will exists but its not what you think it is. We exist in an ever collapsing probability cloud. As time unfolds the permutations decrease. The ideas that you get are not your own, they arise from your environment. So where does free will exist if we are determined to have ideas that originate from outside ourselves? When was the first time you exercised free will? It is and was free will when you reject the ideas and impulses that come to you. The first time you said "No" was your first act of free will.
Free will is a very realistic illusion. We don't control our thoughts, our thoughts just happen. That means we don't control our actions either. You might ask "why have a justice system or why should I apologise for things I ultimately didn't have control over" I see it as the universe sort of correcting itself. We're not separate from the universe since everything is linked by a chain of events. When you feel guilt over something or you feel wronged in some way, the mind sends signals that something needs correcting. It can be a disturbing realisation because it implies that every horrible thing someone ever does was destined to happen from the beginning of time and is an inherent part of who they are. Slavery was always going to happen, the holocaust, 9/11, war, famine, every single murder, rape and genocide was already written. Every decision ever made was the only decision. I didn't choose to write this comment and you didn't choose to read it. Life is just a very interactive movie pretty much.
@@clayton7993 You have my condolences, without free will you have demoted yourself to an NPC. The death of self comes with rejection of agency.
I, and many determinists, actually find the viewpoint brings more freedom, not less. The voice inside your head that you call 'you' will always seem free. Understanding what's behind the vail means I can enjoy life more and stopping blaming myself and others, and accept them for what they are - conditioned.
Rejecting impulses isn't free will. Because it is an impulse itself to reject the first impulse. If you have a thought that pops into your head "No, I shouldn't do that", when did you choose to have that thought? Did you choose for that thought to manifest itself, or did you simply become aware of that thought? Did you consciously decide "I am going to have an impulse to do something but then have a secondary impulse a second later to reject it"? Why didn't you choose not to have the first impulse to begin with? If your answer to that is "Well, I cannot control *those* impulses, but I can control how I respond to them" then what makes you think you're in control of the response impulse to reject it?
My take on determinism is a combination of the "buttefly effect" and the view that nothing is truly random but rather we don't understand it well enough to accurately predict it's behaviour.
So we can agree that simple things like rain originated from water evaporating and condesating so we can say the rain was a pre-determined butterfly effect of water evaporating and going back was pre-determined by the water being present so it could evaporate and so on. If you keep going back all the way to the start of time, you will see that the rain we speak of now was the result of consecutive events from the start of time up until that very moment when it rained. Due to that series of events the rain came about.
Now we can apply this to alot of other things around us like historical events such as the World Wars, the launch of the internet, covid, or your great great grand parent missing their train. All these thing will contribute to events that result in the events we are face and experience today. Todays event's were pre-determined by the event's of the past. Even your childhood and where/how you live your life will affect how your life will be in future so your future self is pre-determined by your past self and past event before you even existed.
As for how we think. I believe we have a "play book" in our brains. That's the set of methods/rules/steps your brain will follow for interpeting different things. Some of chapters in the "play book" are common across our minds which is how people can "think alike" or can be "predicteable" or put into psycological groups that match them. Mind illusionists, Media, Art/Music, Education systems, Politicians, fashion, use this to connect to a wide audiance. Then there are the chapters that are unique to you and gives you your unique personality and unique thought. But just because it's unique, it doesn't mean it's "tindependent". It was formulated as a result of past events externally as well as biological/genetic/chemical events in your body from the moment you were concieved till now. You had no "independent" influence on any of those things and yet they contribute to define and pre-determine how you think. So in other words the same way a computer is "programmed" to operate, meaning it's way of thinking was pre-determined/pre-defined, our minds were also pre-programmed to think and behave the way they do now from the point we were created. It was pre-determined. If you gave a computer a file to process, it's the same as asking someone to make a decision on something. In both cases an input is processed using a pre-determined "processor/play book/way of thinking" to create an outcome. Our "freewill" is the Playbook and if that is pre-determined then our choice is pre-determined as the result would have always been the same. Even the idea of making a random choice was actually a processed choice and is not as random as we think
To summarise, our brain has a playbook pre-determined by enviromental and biological factors while the input our brain processes for making our decisions, are also pre-determined events.So there is no true "free will". even our thought now are the results of processes based on pre-defined events and a pre-defined way of thininking. On a slightly different note, it also means everything is pre-determined all life events now and still to come is pre-determined.
nice
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I've got a new channel with more of this type of content, if you'd like to check it out : czcams.com/channels/93JlTJ4jfcF9y_VAW9IXVQ.html
Do you decide to be a hard determinist?
Cool video. Thank you.
Really happy you liked it.
Great! Thankyou very much!
Many thanks! Greetings from Cancun Mexico
Welcome! Glad you liked it. Please do check out my new channel : czcams.com/channels/93JlTJ4jfcF9y_VAW9IXVQ.html
West world season 3 brought me here
Great series! Thanks for coming by.
I've had this discussion with people before who, like you, insist they don't have free will. I feel that maybe I am being rude by not taking them at their word, but reciprocity demands that you then take me at my word that I do have free will. So if we accept that only your environment can truly change your mind and behavior, shouldn't you kindly request us free agents to help you make any changes that you need since we are part of your environment? Since you function as a meat computer, this little input/output exercise shouldn't be to tough, right Robby?
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Steve. I suppose isn't really a matter of 'change', rather more it's 'prior cause'. Perhaps you can explain to me why you do think you have free will?
@@CharlesHodson I always say that any @-hole can give you answers, but wisdom comes from asking the right questions, so I commend you for your excellent question. I don't "believe" in free will. It's not incorrect to say that I think I have free will, but it's more accurate to say that I "accept" that I have free will. I'm a stickler for Epistemology, so I try not to say anything that I cannot easily demonstrate. The point being that any truth claim (which I also try to avoid) must be subject to experience and observation. The scientific method is based on this. So you and I both experience making choices and decisions. If we decide we want something to happen, we have to do the mental work, make a plan and use our own initiative to see it to completion. These sort of experiences force me to accept free will at this level. It's possible that there are other levels of reality that can call this conclusion into question, but for me, the primacy of experience trumps any philosophical or metaphysical claims. I also have issues with your other determinist arguments, but without the premise of doubting ones own experience, there could not be a compelling argument.
@@caricue
Your experience that you make choices is good evidence for that being true. But the issue is over could have done otherwise. I assume that the option we select is the only one we can select given the past prior to the choice and the laws of nature. That fits with the experience of making choices perfectly.
So it's you who isn't sticking with the experience.
The game is rigged
You won't get any argument from me on that one! Thanks for stopping by.
Yep.
You dont have two identical subjects with identical physical environmental and emotional condition to prove by their same choices that free will does not exist, but you have millions of cases where some or few conditions are same but still people take different choices and make different decisions.
I donât believe in free will, but Iâm not sure if Iâm a hard determinism or indeterminist. What makes you think that there isnât such thing as randomness (indeterminism)?
For me, the inability to predict an outcome (randomness) isn't really a factor. Randomness implies lack of cause and effect (ergo the need for maximum entropy). If I throw a die, given enough data points and sufficient computation, we could predict what number will shown. It's not random, but it seems random to human eyes because we lack the data points and computational ability. Where there might always being physical processes (particular sub atomic) that appear to be random, I don't think such a thing actually exists. I'm no physicist, so accept my take of this may be disproven at the more theoretical end of things.
Randomness does exist. While we can calculate the frequency or rate of certain phenomena (like the decay rate of radioisotopes) we cannot determine when it will actually happen. If randomness does exist in the physical world then itâs not deterministic.
@@mikehanson9497 yes but thereâs certain theories that say that thereâs a missing variable we donât know of yet thus we canât predict that yet. Not because we canât predict something means itâs ârandomâ but I also agree that missing variable is just a theory.
@@xxx-ly7jf Most people abandoned local hidden variable theory after Alain Aspect's research. Personally, I think the whole idea of hidden variables can be chalked up to a touch of hubris on Einsteins part. I suppose my point is this: if there is a non-deterministic natural system (and quantum mechanical phenomena certainly seem to qualify as non deterministic) then I will remain open to the possibility of non-deterministic free will.
@@mikehanson9497 Not really... For exemple... The double pendulum is said to be random but if you recreate the EXACT SAME CONDITIONS two times then it will still give the same outcome. It's just really hard to do obviously but if it was the same situation it's the same outcome meaning it wasn't random and just two results of two different situations and those two situations were different for a cause that had that specific effect.
Lovely vid!
cool but like for example I picked a rose because I wanted to and because it appealed to me very much so there is a free will here, innnit?
Not really unfortunately. You can say I picked a rose âbecause I wanted and because it appealed to meâ but that wasnât a choice you had. You didnât have a choice to find roses appealing that was completely out of your control. Where did it come from who knows? What we do know you did not consciously make the choice to find roses appealing you just do.
He covered this very well in the video when he goes over the distinction between a choice and a decision. We are presented with choices every day. When we act on those choices it feels like we made a decision (free will), but really it was everything that lead up to that moment that decided which choice we would make. Free will is a very strong illusion because all we can observe in that moment is the choice.
8 minutes of my life I won't get back
I can definetly buy the idea that we are all made of materia and that the characteristics or "behavior" of materia is pre-determined, if you will, by laws of causality among other things. What I do not understand is why that would mean that free will does not exist! I perceive the world through my senses and mind which exists within my brain and therefor it is also made of materia and it is also bound by the same rules of causality that applies to say an atom. When I go through a classroom in school I can perceive, with my senses, a board being held up by four legs and think "That is a table", this does not however contradict the fact that the table is also made of atoms and materia. In the same way I can perceive my free will, which I definetly do everytime I have to make a choice. I would argue that free will is my perception of a choice which is created in my mind and which is just as real as my perception of a table, even if all of it is made of materia and rules of causality apply! To say free will does not exist is, it seems to me, to presume that the materialistic world is somehow more true or meaningful than the world perceived by my senses and mind and I do not see why that would be.
Well put.
Hard determinism make more sense
But we know humans have both free will and determinism
Because when we addicted online games we know we are addicted to games but we are not free and we are making millions of decisions get rid of online games hence humans have both free will and determinism compatibilisim not a make sense but hard determinism make more sense
Agree with this, but I think you make one mistake.
There aren't choices you have in your head. All of the thoughts that come to mind are also included in the deterministic world.
I totally agree but I think there is a simpler more direct line of insight to arrive a the absurdity of free will (which I will recast as free choice). Free choice is a logical contradiction. It has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, probability, cause and
effect or neurology and psychology. Its a direct and obvious contradiction in terms. A choice (which is what our brains do, choose from options that is) is necessarily constrained by factors and considerations which make up the branches of the algorithm that your brain uses to make those choices. No constraints, no algorithm = no choice. So yes we do have the power of choice, just not 'free' choice. What would that even mean. It is in fact, meaningless. I wouldn't want free choice if it could even exist in principle. My choices are all nicely constrained or I would not be able to survive for 5 minutes. Who would want randomness (which is noise in information theory) to enter into their algorithm. But even when it does, and it does .... it is deterministic in nature. Just not predictable. And that's where people get confused. Count your blessings that you have no free will.
"OF COURSE WE HAVE FREE WILL - because we have no choice!" C. Hitchens (?)
None of the arguments you have given against free will I find incontrovertible...what convinces me that there is no free will is that it is logically incoherent ...either we do things for a reason, or we do them for no reason(randomly) this is a true dichotomy, neither gives you free will. Even if you are a dualist...does your soul do something for a reason or for no reason - same - neither gives you free will.
I believe in free will but you gonna be a slave to your desires main reason I believe in free will is due to self awarenes
@@backtodaboom2444 how is being a slave make you free?
@@truthseeker2275 you have self awarenes and you make choices you still choose what you gonna be a slave to
@@backtodaboom2444 if you are a slave to your desires, then how did you choose your desires? If you think you chose a desire(A)...why did you have a desire(B) to choose that desire(A). Maybe even though you had a strong desire for cake, you had a stronger desire to look good for a girlfriend so you chose salad. So you did not choose anything..you followed your desire. Just because you think about your desires does not mean you had any choice in them....each desire has an antecedent desire. If you are lucky your parents had the desire to instill in you to desire good desires when you were young...and if you are lucky your environment reinforced those good desires...and if you are lucky you don't have any defect that would drive the desires in the wrong way. ...how do you choose what you gonna be a slave to..if you are already a slave to the antecedent desires? Self-awareness is why you are a slave...you know what you want, mostly you just don't know why.
There are only two possibilities -
1. Quantum world is deterministic, just like the macro world is the first one, and as we currently know - it's not (or we still somehow don't know).
2. Quantum world is truly random. Personally, I don't believe that, but that's what all the observations say.
If one is correct - there is no room for free will. Everything is cause and effect.
If two is correct - you need to have a "soul", otherwise there is no room for free will. Everything is random.
What's important is that there is no difference for us, random or not, our choices or future cannot be predicted.
I am a Christian apologist what you mean is Theological Fatalism God as Determined everything what will be will be saying that I am not a Materialism, if you are a Materialism you can't justify reason or the laws of logic'
Why do you continue living?(not kidding) If I was ever convinced of determinism I would spend the rest of my life trying to destroy all thinking life.
Good for you.
Enlightened ? It sounds like you done something real bad, like you're building up to a confession.
Missed the point
@@philj8205 No, pointing out a correction is needed without providing the need for a correction is missing the point đ
What made you make this video?
I am a free-willist, what made me find free will and you determinism? How do you know you are correct--as, if you are correct, you cannot know you are correct you can only know what your brain made you think, and if you are incorrect, how could your approach ever discover that?
@@jamespaternoster7354 I don't think you understood the nature of my questions. How can two people come to different conclusions about free will, especially when one side (the determinist side) holds that they are unthinking robots that process information and the results they come to are entirely outside of their control. The free-will side states that they are not robots and in fact have come to this conclusion about free-will because they use it and can introspect using it versus times where they do allow themselves to drift. And they know that when they drift, as opposed to using free-will, that the conclusions that they come to are usually false and their conclusions by free will are typically true.
The determinist cannot express the things in their head as true as they cannot have a philosophical or scientific understanding of truth as they, but their own standards, are unthinking robots.
To say, "I think determinism is true" is a contradiction. A true determinist must say nothing as he would have nothing in his brain as he never focused on anything as he never used his free-will. A dishonest determinist must say "my brain magically, without my focusing, became fixed on not the idea, as ideas don't exist, that I am determined to hold this non-idea".
A determinist ought to argue that they cannot argue as they don't believe in arguments as they don't believe in ideas, and that they cannot know anything to be true as they cannot reach philosophical or scientific conclusions on their own, the universe must first tell them what they "believe" and there is no way for them to check if that "information" is true. Determinism is so self-contradictory I couldn't even write what the determinist must say to remain a determinist without invoking free-will at some point in their argument.
@@ExistenceUniversity determinism is true, and those like me who hold it to be true are not unthinking we ironically just happened to be determined by many factors to have the right knowledge, temperament, environmental experiences and many other predetermined factors in play to accept the evidence of a cause and effect universe. The discoveries of the universeâs workings where predetermined as well ironically! All humans are is the interplay between our neurobiological make up and the environment both prenatal and before that right up to the moment we are in now. No souls, no mysterious forces, no gods and deityâs whispering in our ears.
@@ExistenceUniversity On ideas, all ideas are human constructs as in we have observed a mechanism in the world or universe and then named it with language something that has evolved via environmental determinism and itâs interplay with millions of humans over tens of thousands of years.
@@jamespaternoster7354 lol you contradiction yourself with every sentence đ
Your ad hominems are cute though
@@ExistenceUniversity do you believe in cause and effect, gravity, the fact that your mothers stress levels may have altered your brain making you more anxious, kind, impulsive all determined seemingly randomly but in reality if we understood metaphysics completely entirely predictable.
Flawed logic at 13:00; you assume that "you" are not also your "subconscious" (whatever that is). You are not merely the flesh suit and monkey brain. The real interesting thing here is: how did the "subconscious" part of you come to that decision?
Yep. đđ
We seem to be strange storytelling puppetry.
The way I see it hard determinism is an excuse to not take any responsibility for one's actions. That's why the logical argument that criminal shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because those actions were predetermined, is one that's use often and if that's the kind of society that you want to live in then count me out.
We should assume the criminals actions were predetermined. We should accept the criminal was merely unfortunate to have been predetermined to commit the crime.
It's not an excuse it's a fact.
Now, what sort of society would you like to live in if we all accept that fact??
Well in broad science sense they are not responsible they can still be contained and or rehabilitated and if they canât be helped then containment permanently. The very very strong evidence of determinism simply removes the emotion driven desire for justice to be based on vengeance and an eye for an eye mentality which achieves little but more misery! Misery that at a conceptual level need not exist! MOST free will arguments have some link to religious dogma that has permeated our culture globally and lingered ever since
Responsibility is really what is agreed upon as a necessary course to take in response to a given context. It's not something that actually exists. Different people have different definitions of what is worth taking responsibility for. If someone has a critical brain injury that makes them mentally ill, we see them as a society as having less responsibility, but that wasn't always the case. We used to think schizophrenics and epileptics were the way that they were because of their own "free choice" to cavort with demons. We now know that is not the case. So let me ask you this, if someone does something wrong because they have a mental illness, but that mental illness can be treated, would you withhold that treatment from them out of retribution?
I don't think so. In a hypothetical society that fully embraced determinism, the people who grew up in healthy environments would do whatever they could to ensure that everyone was given the same opportunities that they were given. People that fell through the cracks in society would get more resources and aid to end the cycles of abuse that create the very people that you look down your nose at. On the contrary, I would argue that your perspective is an immoral one that prefers to put your head in the sand and write people off as soon as they exhibit antisocial behavior. Determinism enables rehabilitation because it acknowledges the whole person rather than just their actions. Consequences for actions would still occur solely because they are necessary to keep people safe. Just because we have a better understanding for someone's behavior doesn't mean we would ignore it and do nothing about it. It would only better equip us to deal with it by facing the reality of the situation.
You still have to remove the criminal so as to protect society. Are you okay with that type of society?
I don't care why you're a hard determinist. You shouldn't either, unless you're destined to contradict yourself.
Seriously, determinists are wasting their time arguing for determinism. I guess they can't help it, the poor souls.
Whatâs always convinced me of the validity of free will is the fact that this video exists. You are choosing to try to get me to change my mind to the belief that my mind cannot be changed.
If youâre a determinist, why believe itâs important to change peoples minds about this? Isnât it all going to be how itâs going to be?
This makes no sense. Choice is a causally deterministic process. It doesn't imply free will at all. By your logic, Walking doesn't exist either because we do not walk contra-causally.
Everything in this man's life led him to a place where he started to think about free will. Then he was exposed to youtube. Then he was presented with a choice to make a youtube channel or not. Everything about his past determined that he would always choose to make the channel. He would always choose to make videos about this topic that interests him. Boom! We have the video. I don't see anything about what you said that validates free will. Also, I think you may not fully understand what free will is. It's not about not being able to have your mind changed. It's about being able to make that decision regardless of all environmental factors surrounding your entire life. If your mind was to be changed by this video, then it was always to be changed and there was no actual input going on from your side even though it feels like there was.
Also, just because something is already determined, doesn't mean it is no longer important. It's still important to go through the motions of our lives to advance our society. If determinism is the truth, it's important to spread that awareness. There is a lot of evidence that shows adopting a determinist philosophy leads to greater empathy at an individual level and can have profound implications towards public policies and human rights decisions. It's actually a very healthy worldview once you fully understand and embrace it.
@@roybecker492 No, what you wrote makes literally no sense. And the fact that you *think* it makes no sense means you are using your free will to judge ideas. Volition is a type of causality, but it is not a determined type.
@@ExistenceUniversity decision making or judging is not free will
All of time and space exists in the block universe . So free will is impossible.
Yeah - I think there are definitely arguments for physics based determinism. But so often they can be butted aside because they are harder to prove. Cognitive free will can be shown to be impossible today. Of course, you have people like Ben Shapiro who argue that any amount of influence over a situation amounts to freewill, which I reject. Thanks for checking out the channel!
If block universe is true, then the only possible way for free will would be the multiverse. I doubt that, because for multiverse theory you need to have all possible outcomes for only one certain input. Needs to be random. But if it's random you can't have singularity. Without it block universe isn't possible. And we have a loop.
Hard determinists can't help themselves from giving a reason for why they are hard determinists ...
If determinism is actually true then you are most undoubtedly mistaken about why you are a determinist.
Exactly, it is so self-contradictory that their attempts to argue for it prove that they have free will hwnce the need for ideas and arguments to convince others.
There is no evidence for free will. This is enough to not accept it as true.
You used free will to write that argument, and hope to convince others with it, demonstrating your free will and that you believe others are free to listen to your argument and change their minds with ideas.
@@ExistenceUniversity he used decision making power of his physical brain to make comment, knowing that sharing his views would make his socially hungry human brain release some feel good chemicals
@@user-it5po2dq9w Your ability to think or not, is your free will. Mental action requires free will. Otherwise you just go with the flow which is not going to be typing this comment
One logical conclusion of determinism is that there is no truth. No true or false. Your statement and my statement were just as equally determined to happen. One proposition could not be more true than the other if they are both merely the effects of physics.
The butterfly effect is for fools.
How so?
Not sure they are going to be able to back that up!
God has only one "disadvantage".. He cannot create anything but Himself! So He separates Himself in two (conscious & unconscious),and from the unconscious side of the soul secretly leads the Ego(conscious) to experience life (duality,good & bad). There is no free will, there is just God who tries to "find" Himself and be whole again..(union of opposites)
I dont understand how this appears intellectual. Seems silly. Our legal system is predicated on the idea that we have free will. If Free Will doesn't exist, why do we punish wrongdoing. And take it a step further, what is wrongdoing if there is no will? If you remove free will from humans, you also remove their Humanity.