This requires that you determine what you do in a way which is not reducible to any other laws of physics - or that the reasons that determine your action are somehow "new" laws of physics, which can't be explained in terms of existing physical laws
@@lemonsys Bingo - sort of. Depends on your definition or version of free-will. Your choice was free as much as anything can be free. But free-will is never rationally defined. To date, all definitions of free will depend (necessarily) on magic. That sounds insulting because the concept of free-will is an idea that should long ago have been abandoned, but instead many philosophers try to put lipstick on the pig and end up collectively looking like six-year-olds. It's always "well we could have done differently" but only if "they rewound time to the exact same" which is the magic part. There isn't a definition NOR even a TEST for free-will which doesn't, similarly, depend on make-believe. That should be the give-away.
@@PhrontDoorI think if you take emergency seriously, for example the emergence of an agent, as something which is causally irreducible to prior laws of physics, you can have determinism of the agent over their own actions. So long as you can't reduce what the agent does to something which pre-exists them, the agent is free, in the sense of being determined by nothing external to them, but simply by themself in virtue of what they are. Each agent would be uniquely determined in this way, as the unique irreducible causal system that they are. This doesn't require that anyone could have "done differently" than they did, it just means what they did was a product of themself rather than anything external or separable from them (like physically laws, or randomness) - ie, a product of their agency rather than something else
What about the studies that show people making up their mind to do an action upwards of ten seconds before their conscious mind “decided” to do that thing? That seems to show that people are more rationalizing their actions after the fact rather than freely choosing. I don’t think it matters, for now, perhaps it could affect the justice system at some point but it does appear to us that we have free will so we have to live as such. And I have to think that it’s possible to reprogram the will, through daily practice and intentionality we can train our flesh robots to be more like what we want
you posed the question as a response to the video. you were influenced by the video. no video and youd have no comment. the will to act and comment was defined by the video.
A free will sceptic can replace social institutions based on moral blame and praise with a system based on strict liability. You want to qualify for a particular social role. If you meet the requirements sufficiently well, you get to exercise the role. If you fall short, you don't. Something like being held responsible based on performance but without the implication that you could have done better than you did.
Nice video, I think that FW3 is false. Why would indeterminism imply randomness? Random chance is just one type of indeterminism, another type being agency. You describe random chance as an indeterministic outcome which occurs without being fixed by "reasons". What is a reason? If a reason is just a cause, we're defining a random event as an indeterministic event. Then we're left with a notion of randomness which is entirely consistent with free will.
To reiterate the point: An indeterministic event is only an event not completely fixed by prior causes. We would expect libertarian free will not to be completely fixed by prior causes, so this is no surprise. My critique is that in this argument, one tries to make an identification between indeterminism and randomness, without ever rigorously defining randomness and showing how they are equivalent. What I've come to realize is that the only way to define "randomness" with the correct intuitions I intend to give it, is by defining agency and randomness as two forms of indeterminism, and explicitly distinguishing them. Agent selection is an indeterministic selection, where the outcome is selected by an agent. Random selection is an indeterministic selection, where the outcome is selected by nothing.
@@naitsirhc2065 agent selection and random selection are the same, they are both selected by something, whether a computer or the physics of the falling balls in a lottery machine, or a person(agent) selecting a ball from bag without looking.
Haven’t watched the video but I wonder if it will also discuss the free will paradox in realizing one’s own preferences can’t truly be chosen by free will, right? Like, the ‘free will’ choices one makes, will assumingely be what their preferences/personality are, but how is one’s preferences determined? What preferences does he have in choosing his own preferences?
You learned this object to be a marker using the same facilities and senses as you are using now to evaluate it. Unless you went crazy in the mean time and are hallucinating, there is no reason to doubt it's a marker.
Free Will (metaphysical) is undetermined (aways will). That is why will always create contradictions. We only have scientific Free Will or degrees of freedom. Compatibilism is just a patch to cover the contrarictions. Anyway, I'm still trying to understand.
Most of you have given your personal power away, and or unwilling to go against the narrative, experience the consequences of a crabs in the bucket society as they destroy what isn't conforming.
The whole free will debate reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes. By analogy, suppose we all started debating the concrete, physical existence of 'free speech', then studying a person's genes in order to discover where in the body that free speech is located and then, when failing to do so, concluding that free speech doesn't and cannot exist. Furthermore, let's conclude that it's nothing but "apologetic word acrobatics" (from people who want to reify free speech) to claim that free speech is _actually_ an abstract idea about people's variable ability to actually utter their speech (whether physically, psychologically and/or socially impacted) - such that we should champion people's right to speak (when unfairly obstructed), because not doing so will shackle people's behavior and thus contribute to mental suffering and a higher potential for anti-social Machiavellian behavior and more that breeds dissidence and violence. "No, let's instead insist that free speech is a concrete, physical artifact that you acquire at birth that imbues you with not only (1) the ability to pre-speak your speech before you speak it, but also (2) the ability to speak any and all words of any language of any species from any Universe. But wait, there's more - the actual cause behind doing so is either the act itself of doing it or literally no cause at all. Because as we all know, everybody just walks around in life as their own personal uncaused cause, because that's what the 'free' is actually referring to, and the actual dictionary definition of the word 'free' is just complete, fairytale BS that nobody who believe in free speech are referring to..." "...therefore, there is 'no such thing as free speech'. But don't worry, you are still able to speak the words you want to speak, unless someone or something obstructs your speech such that you're unable to speak them. Because 'free speech' has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to speak." 🤡🍻 (For the record, this was a general comment and not aimed at Jonathan Barker's points specifically.)
Paradox is only in use of language, language is part of reality nevertheless it is metaphorical and doesn't represent reality( nor our imaginations) and refers back on itself... Free is is one greatest errors of humanity as Nietzsche said: it is possible that consciouness, will (the thing-in-itself) is free, but we are not : Because we are part of nature and act from necessity of what nature is - watch Bernardo Kastrup, read Schopenhauer
What you choose isn't random if you weigh the implications against experience.
This requires that you determine what you do in a way which is not reducible to any other laws of physics - or that the reasons that determine your action are somehow "new" laws of physics, which can't be explained in terms of existing physical laws
It can still be deterministic since the 'experience' is merely the biochemically encoded memories.
@@PhrontDoor(in which case there is no free will)
@@lemonsys Bingo - sort of.
Depends on your definition or version of free-will. Your choice was free as much as anything can be free.
But free-will is never rationally defined.
To date, all definitions of free will depend (necessarily) on magic.
That sounds insulting because the concept of free-will is an idea that should long ago have been abandoned, but instead many philosophers try to put lipstick on the pig and end up collectively looking like six-year-olds.
It's always "well we could have done differently" but only if "they rewound time to the exact same" which is the magic part.
There isn't a definition NOR even a TEST for free-will which doesn't, similarly, depend on make-believe. That should be the give-away.
@@PhrontDoorI think if you take emergency seriously, for example the emergence of an agent, as something which is causally irreducible to prior laws of physics, you can have determinism of the agent over their own actions. So long as you can't reduce what the agent does to something which pre-exists them, the agent is free, in the sense of being determined by nothing external to them, but simply by themself in virtue of what they are. Each agent would be uniquely determined in this way, as the unique irreducible causal system that they are. This doesn't require that anyone could have "done differently" than they did, it just means what they did was a product of themself rather than anything external or separable from them (like physically laws, or randomness) - ie, a product of their agency rather than something else
There is no paradox. We have free will, and that you can even pose the question proves that. William James, among others, showed this.
P.S. - No one ever believes that they are not free, but only tries to convince others that they have no free will.
What about the studies that show people making up their mind to do an action upwards of ten seconds before their conscious mind “decided” to do that thing? That seems to show that people are more rationalizing their actions after the fact rather than freely choosing. I don’t think it matters, for now, perhaps it could affect the justice system at some point but it does appear to us that we have free will so we have to live as such. And I have to think that it’s possible to reprogram the will, through daily practice and intentionality we can train our flesh robots to be more like what we want
@@bradleythebuilder8743 That ONE study has been discredited for its poor methodology and hasty unsupported conclusion.
Free Will Is Not an Illusion czcams.com/video/et7XUoenAxo/video.html
you posed the question as a response to the video. you were influenced by the video. no video and youd have no comment. the will to act and comment was defined by the video.
A free will sceptic can replace social institutions based on moral blame and praise with a system based on strict liability. You want to qualify for a particular social role. If you meet the requirements sufficiently well, you get to exercise the role. If you fall short, you don't. Something like being held responsible based on performance but without the implication that you could have done better than you did.
Is there a term for believing that we have intrinsically determined fates that can be altered by unpredictable extrinsic forces?
Nice video, I think that FW3 is false.
Why would indeterminism imply randomness?
Random chance is just one type of indeterminism, another type being agency.
You describe random chance as an indeterministic outcome which occurs without being fixed by "reasons". What is a reason?
If a reason is just a cause, we're defining a random event as an indeterministic event. Then we're left with a notion of randomness which is entirely consistent with free will.
To reiterate the point:
An indeterministic event is only an event not completely fixed by prior causes. We would expect libertarian free will not to be completely fixed by prior causes, so this is no surprise.
My critique is that in this argument, one tries to make an identification between indeterminism and randomness, without ever rigorously defining randomness and showing how they are equivalent.
What I've come to realize is that the only way to define "randomness" with the correct intuitions I intend to give it, is by defining agency and randomness as two forms of indeterminism, and explicitly distinguishing them.
Agent selection is an indeterministic selection, where the outcome is selected by an agent.
Random selection is an indeterministic selection, where the outcome is selected by nothing.
Have you ever noticed cycles repeating? I caught an saic gsa employee lassoing me into a fire exactly 2 weeks after insuring. 1 day from 1/21
@@naitsirhc2065 agent selection and random selection are the same, they are both selected by something, whether a computer or the physics of the falling balls in a lottery machine, or a person(agent) selecting a ball from bag without looking.
Haven’t watched the video but I wonder if it will also discuss the free will paradox in realizing one’s own preferences can’t truly be chosen by free will, right?
Like, the ‘free will’ choices one makes, will assumingely be what their preferences/personality are, but how is one’s preferences determined? What preferences does he have in choosing his own preferences?
Punishment is still a deterent for those that do not have free will.
This is doing numbers prof
You learned this object to be a marker using the same facilities and senses as you are using now to evaluate it. Unless you went crazy in the mean time and are hallucinating, there is no reason to doubt it's a marker.
So, when I exist this video early, it was always meant to be, don't feel bad about it.
Free Will (metaphysical) is undetermined (aways will). That is why will always create contradictions. We only have scientific Free Will or degrees of freedom. Compatibilism is just a patch to cover the contrarictions. Anyway, I'm still trying to understand.
Most of you have given your personal power away, and or unwilling to go against the narrative, experience the consequences of a crabs in the bucket society as they destroy what isn't conforming.
The whole free will debate reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes.
By analogy, suppose we all started debating the concrete, physical existence of 'free speech', then studying a person's genes in order to discover where in the body that free speech is located and then, when failing to do so, concluding that free speech doesn't and cannot exist. Furthermore, let's conclude that it's nothing but "apologetic word acrobatics" (from people who want to reify free speech) to claim that free speech is _actually_ an abstract idea about people's variable ability to actually utter their speech (whether physically, psychologically and/or socially impacted) - such that we should champion people's right to speak (when unfairly obstructed), because not doing so will shackle people's behavior and thus contribute to mental suffering and a higher potential for anti-social Machiavellian behavior and more that breeds dissidence and violence.
"No, let's instead insist that free speech is a concrete, physical artifact that you acquire at birth that imbues you with not only (1) the ability to pre-speak your speech before you speak it, but also (2) the ability to speak any and all words of any language of any species from any Universe. But wait, there's more - the actual cause behind doing so is either the act itself of doing it or literally no cause at all. Because as we all know, everybody just walks around in life as their own personal uncaused cause, because that's what the 'free' is actually referring to, and the actual dictionary definition of the word 'free' is just complete, fairytale BS that nobody who believe in free speech are referring to..."
"...therefore, there is 'no such thing as free speech'. But don't worry, you are still able to speak the words you want to speak, unless someone or something obstructs your speech such that you're unable to speak them. Because 'free speech' has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to speak." 🤡🍻
(For the record, this was a general comment and not aimed at Jonathan Barker's points specifically.)
Free will is related to language. Ask yourself, is there anything that can not be said? Not known. Said.
Good 👍
Subscribe to this man so he can get a clip-on mic
Paradox is only in use of language, language is part of reality nevertheless it is metaphorical and doesn't represent reality( nor our imaginations) and refers back on itself... Free is is one greatest errors of humanity as Nietzsche said: it is possible that consciouness, will (the thing-in-itself) is free, but we are not : Because we are part of nature and act from necessity of what nature is - watch Bernardo Kastrup, read Schopenhauer