Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Free Will │ Determinism and Compatibilism
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 11. 2016
- Audio only (downloadable) / s-kyqmw
Patreon www.patreon.co...
Related videos
Free Will Choice Experiment • Do We Consciously Pick...
The Survival of the Fittest • The Survival of the Fi...
We don't need free will. All we need is the *illusion* of free will.
Alexander Chippel Sir. Sir? I think you'd better have a look at this. We have the readings. The edginess is off the scale!
That's not being edgy, it's an actual proposition. Please, stop communicating via memes.
Jack Winter Yeah. Let's face it, assuming you believe in the big bag theory (the most likely explanation of how the universe began), it would be hypocritical to say we have free will because all the matter and energy I'd moving away from one central point. Think of it like a DVD, no matter how many times you pause, rewind, or fast forward, you always get the some ending.
Very true
Alexander Chippel Quantum biology might show us that there is a certain element of "randomness" in our acts, but first we need to sort out which quantum theory is the real deal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong
We have free will because we always choose to do the thing that we want to do. But we don’t have free will because we always choose the thing we want to do.
It is both. Youre not far off
"I think you are doing ideas bad" I'm so using this
I think you're doing ideas bad
@@itsbk6192 I think you're doing ideas bad
@@coltonbates629 worse
The day-to-video ratio right now is 1/1
Yes and this is true for all the days I release videos. I am one of the most prolific CZcamsrs aren't I?
This Place
Sorry, I of course meant in the last two days. It might have been a smarter move to say that you were "2-for-2"
And I wouldn't say you were the most prolific CZcamsr, but hey, quality over quantity.
Have you considered releasing two videos in one day to bump up your videos per day that you release videos?
Also, thanks for the video. It was cool. You explained in 8 minutes what Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett couldn't say in 90 minutes. Not bad.
Now 1/∞
@@ThisPlaceChannel czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
*Great, now I have existential crisis.*
No free will = no pressure on choosing.
free will = lie to mask the futility and meaningless of life
Make your choice now FEAFi!
mapOoni I've decided to make an exception and forfeit my logical reasoning by believing that there is something we haven't discovered yet that makes free will possible.
It's not a pretty solution but it's the only way to stay sane.
No, there CAN'T be free will. People only argue for free will for emotional comfort. They think there is an 'I' that exists outside of the physical reality that we all share. There are no souls, spirits or 'little person' inside making decisions. If there is a little person inside a person making decisions, then is there a little person inside him as well? It's ridiculous. You're a complex biochemical conditioning machine consisting of a range of interacting mechanisms. The sun is NOT alive yet it supports life. A computer is NOT alive yet it is heavily embedded in our everyday lives. A plant can not grow without interacting with its environment. Stop watering a plant and see what happens to the plant.
If we accept the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, the most you can get out of it is that the world is random. That still doesn't give you free will! There are deterministic interpretations for quantum mechanics also, which few people talk about.
Life appears to be a physico-chemical process and has more supporting evidence in the way of the Miller-Urey and Joan Oro experiments than any 'God creating' theory.
The human brain doesn't even operate on the basis of free will! It operates according to mathematical logic and algorithms and so does AI. That's why you can have a person stand at an intersection making decisions or you can put the decision making processes in an automated traffic light system. The person at the intersection who is making decisions regarding who can pass is actually following rules that he has LEARNED. Those rules can be put into an electromechanical machine. So you see, it's not a matter of WHO makes the decisions for a society but HOW the decisions are arrived at.
The public roads are a procedural system where human decision making is reduced to following lines, signs and lights as the more orderly it is, the safer it is - it's a form of quality control. Of course, it is not perfect but nor is cell activity inside our bodies as evidenced by the appearance of cancer cells.
Your chances of being killed by an automobile ONLY exists where there are automobiles. There were no automobiles in Ancient Egypt and CONSEQUENTLY there were no human deaths from automobiles. There were no automobile drivers in Ancient Egypt as the act of turning a steering wheel and putting a foot on the gas pedal was not possible.
Jack Tyler i would argue that saying there's no free will is also for emotional comfort. We do simply not have enough evidence to prove or disprove free will, as it in it self implies knowing the deepest structure of reality, and we don't even have a way to connect quantum mechanics to relativity. They are both valid ideas to think about, but to believe either way is to create identity around it, so we feel comfortable.
I was expecting a video soon, but not this soon, damn!
MrAntieMatter Hi notification friend
Actually I just refreshed my sub box.
Hey Mr. AntiMatter, Why don't you say "It's Sips o' clock" anymore?
Great, now I'm gonna be paranoid for the rest of my life that there's an invisible chair judging me...
Now if it burns... PRYO! Get over here!
You dont have to trust those deterministic idiots
I would like to add, because I’m seeing this in the comment section, determinism and pre-destination are NOT the same thing in concept or mechanics; even if they might be the same thing in terms of outcome. Determinism is simply the idea that everything that happens, has happened, and will happen, can only happen one way/will happen one way based on the events of the moments chronologically adjacent to the moment of the event in question. Nothing and no one can know the outcome of such an event at any given time until the event has passed (unless you adhere to ideas of God/gods, which we won’t even address here because it isn’t relevant to this secular discussion). Knowing the outcome to future events, or even more severe directly being able to influence the outcome to future events in an absolutely certain predictable fashion is pre-destination. If someone is “destined” to do something, that implies that some form of consciousness somewhere concretely knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what will inevitably happen, or that some consciousness somewhere has directly decided/influenced the outcome of an event. Pre-destiny involves conscious knowledge of everything that will happen, at the very minimum. This is not determinism, as determinism doesn’t assume such a consciousness having the ability to do so. Just wanted to clear that up. It’s possible to be an atheistic determinist (e.g. me). Please comment for further discussion/clarification.
This is one of the smartest entry level approachable videos Ive seen on youtube, because of multiple aspects.
First of you actually go the length to explain what a concept of reflection is to properly explain this topic. Concepts of reflection are such an important aspect of logical argumentation that could often be brought up, but I never see anyone (on YT) actually caring to do so.
Secondly you dont go the moronic way of even discussing free will vs determinism with the argumentation of "we should leave everyone their right to form an own opinion, cuz democracy and values" but you actually right out make sure that everybody knows that we are talking about objective concepts here where opinions and morality doesnt apply, which is while you rule the illogic free will and soul philosophies out from the get go. Those simple statements are revolutionary on such a dense platform where everbody freely subjectivies statements and still brings them forth like they matter. I hope you are introducing some fresh people to these important topics and bring them to reflect a bit about themselves through your videos.
Furthermore this comment section is suprisingly interesting for a creator of your size, which just validates my points further!
Thanks for making this!
This was very good. So good that i cannot really put it into words yet. But i wanted to say that it was very good prior to me going and trying to digest these thoughts for a few hours. I may be back later with a more cohesive response
Did you ever come back?
@@coltonbates629 no he didn't come back. It's been ages my friend.
Sir?
Oh boy, a discussion on free will and determinism ... oh wait, it's just this place again.
Well I'm 4 years too late but I'm currently writing a college paper that is already late so if you'd like to give me an extra simplified description of the two and their differences it would be much appreciated.
czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
if there is no “free will”, does that change anything though? is life any more or less valuable? probably not
some people that are not sure about how they view the consciousness: determined-or-not, would say that determinism has hard implications on the current law system
as far as I understand them, if there is not free will, then there is no responsibility (somehow) for our actions, therefore the law system crumbles
if you want examples of such people, Aaron Ra is a great atheist activist that is not settled on the determinism question and is expressing such implication regarding the laws
I am currently looking into this topic of "does determinism break the foundation of laws", and found this video, hehe
also, some people will get existential crisis if they get convinced there is no free will, rip
@@WispYart I don't think it would necessarily makes laws crumble. The punishments would just need to serve as an adequate deterrent or rehabilitation for the crime committed. Even if we didn't have free will, we'd still be influenced to act a certain way by those laws.
The lack of free will would not be as compatible with the belief that justice should be retributive. Would it be cruel to punish someone who has no freedom, just for the sake of punishment?
Well it means that killing a human is no different than restarting a supercomputer and both should be legally equal
@@RalphInRalphWorld I mostly agree. I think if we look at the laws from a bit of a different perspective: instrument of isolation/treatment of immoral influence, essential to keep the majority morality flowing towards the certain goal - then it becomes independent of whether or not the humans have free will.
I've dug quite deeper into this question recently, and found a few ideas why determinism is not happily accepted by the current justice system. One of them, for example, is that laws are build with the presupposition that a criminal "could have chosen to act otherwise" (acted freely while committing a crime), and if it's proven that they did not act freely specifically due to mental illness (mental illness has blocked them from a moral option OR mental illness made them make the immoral act altogether), then the punishment is different, aka, appeal to insanity defense. Implication is: if we were to say that we cannot choose in any situation (no free will), then the approach taken to punish insane people will spread out and cover 100% of the criminal law, changing out how we punish currently thought "free will" criminals.
I am sure if we look at this example from instrumental or some other perspective, it would not matter "deterministic or not". Hell, maybe those changes that the criminal law will undergo will be actually really really good to humanity! For example, if the changes lead to making every single criminal go through psychotherapy and counseling during the isolation - maybe we will get to almost no reoccurring criminal acts!
If you want an article that I am going through on "determinism vs law" (it touches about history of determinism inside the laws a lot), let me know.
> Would it be cruel to punish someone who has no freedom, just for the sake of punishment?
Yes, when you say "just for the sake of punishment", yeah I'd say that's immoral. If we change it to "for the sake of isolation" - I would be okay with that. If we say "we punish because we cannot fix it yet, aka medicine has not developer as far as to be able to diagnose or adjust your case" - I would also be okay with that. But in a way you phrased it, I see no moral judgement being involved, so I would call it immoral. Cruel? Not necessary, but open to be cruel for some cases.
I hope you see what I mean here. We need to include moral part into the law by all means, imho.
(Rohen Tahir)
> Well it means that killing a human is no different than restarting a supercomputer and both should be legally equal
No, not at all, if we submit to humanism.
@@WispYart thanks for your well worded response. There are some people that are too dangerous to be in society whose conditions are not yet treatable. In those cases, I agree that isolation would be necessary.
"Damn the compatibilist pig-dogs!" *Like*
Really good discussion.
I can do whatever I want, but I can't choose what I want.
czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
Compatibilism is actually both being true at the same time.
Consider the shape of the Earth. Is it flat or round? Well, it is both. From the perspective of standing on the earth, for all practical purposes of walking around on it, it is flat. But when you shift your perspective to, say, a rocketship headed to the Moon, you can look back at the Earth and clearly see that it is round. So the Earth is both flat and round.
Here is an analogy for compatibilism, showing how freewill and determinism can both be true at the same time, given your particular perspective...
Two people are at an amusement park, and they go for a ride on the rollercoaster, sitting in the front seat. One person is a physicist, and to that person, it is an absolute certainty that the path of the rollercoaster is determined. There is absolutely nothing that the rider can do to change it. The person sitting next to the physicist experiences the exact same ride. But that person is a rollercoaster designer. And just so happened to be the person who designed this rollercoaster that they are on.
THAT is compatibilism.
It is both free, AND determined. The perspective of the physicist is that the rider has no control. The perspective of the designer is that many various parameters had a range of feasible options that were free to choose. The physicist fails to recognize the bigger picture in the same way that the person standing on the surface of the earth fails to recognize it as a planet with curvature. From each vantage point, their perspectives are accurate.
There are those who try to explain compatibilism and present it as a paradox. I hope it is clear that that is not necessarily so. Compatibilism is like looking at a can. Seen from the top, it looks circular. Seen from the side, it has a rectangular profile. So is a can a circle or a rectangle? It has aspects of both. To get the full picture, you have to raise your understanding of the complete geometry to a higher dimension. And this is why we have intractable debates on Freewill versus Determinism. Everyone is looking at the issue from a lower-dimensional perspective.
The argument of a physicist on determinism is based upon the world view of materialism (physicalism). They understand the universe to be composed of matter, and that our experience of consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from that physical structure. And because the physical objects within that structure are understood to follow deterministic rules ...or at most, are subject to fluctuations that are random, then within this worldview there is no room for anything at all to have freewill.
But what if their worldview is completely upsidedown? There is a complimentary worldview which says that the universe springs forth from mind. This is the view known as idealism. It is the mind that creates the universe, and gives rise to its apparent hardness of objects within it. The Matrix. And if the mind is free, then things that happen within that construct of the mind are likewise free. You do not have to watch any movies to have idealism explained. You can experience it at night when you go to sleep. You have this vivid dream. Then only after you wake up to you attain the realization that everything you just experienced as real was actually only a construct within your mind.
The deeper that physicists explore the nature of matter, the more they arrive at the understanding that mind is the key element which guides how matter behaves. As Morrissey used to sing...
_Does the body rule the mind_
_Or does the mind rule the body?_
Any serious discussion on Freewill vs Determinism will delve into the mechanism of how the universe operates. Because the answer to that issue informs the answer to this question.
This guy needs some more likes
*"This isn't the comment you're looking for. Move along, move along."*
Any non-serious discussion on freewill has to cover the Jedi Mindtrick.
Can't believe that you don't have more views/subscribers you put in a lot of effort into these videos and me and my friends think that they are amazing! Keep up the good work!
This channel is so awesome in so many ways! Thanks for all the hardwork!
The universe is made of atoms which yield to the laws of physics. We are made of atoms. Our brains are made of atoms. They too yield to the laws of physics. But, consciousness is a game changer. Yes everything we do is determined, but the way we feel about certain things will result in a different action in the future. And I don't mean 'feel' in the physical sense. I mean it in the mental sense. If i touch a hot stove in my ignorance, I'll deterministically never touch a hot stove on purpose again, but if it weren't for my feeling about touching this hot stove, the reinforcement wouldn't work, and I'd probably touch it again. So no, we don't have freewill in the sense that we can change fate; an omniscient mind could calculate what you would do in the future based on the movements of molecules in your body and in the world, but we're not just along for the ride, watching what our bodies do without any regard for how we feel. We are the body itself, which is why our desires and feelings effect what our bodies do. So there is a sense that freewill is still true since what we want to do affects what we do. But its not so strong that we can change what the laws of the universe have us do. Compatibilism is the truer view, but its hard to wrap your head around.
The current theory of how time travel would work (assuming it can be done to begin with) is that it would always create a closed loop, this works both scientifically (alternate timelines would require the spontaneous generation of entire universes, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics) and logically (as changes to the past create paradoxes, in violation of logic itself)
Let's imagine you tried to go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power, the current theory of time travel says you can't do this
Determinists would argue that this proves there is no free will, as you have no choice regarding Hitler's life/death
But if you tried to jump off a roof and flap your arms in an attempt to fly, very few people would claim the reason you can't fly is due to "lack of free will", you can't fly because it's simply not possible for your arms to generate the lift needed to counteract gravity, nothing about this situation disproves free will
The determinist vs compatibilist argument exists because the two sides have different definitions of what free will is
Let say a compatibilist and a determinist both prefer fruit loops over cornflakes, and both look into the future and see themselves eating cornflakes for breakfast
The determinist believes there is no free will, and he therefore has no choice but to eat cornflakes
Whereas the compatibilist believes he still has free will. Perhaps he simply decides on a whim to eat cornflakes, maybe there are no fruit loops left, or maybe a crazy guy broke in an made him eat cornflakes at gunpoint
The compatibilist may claim that the determinist still _chose_ to eat cornflakes, as seeing his own future was a factor in what he chose to do
And the determinist may claim that the compatibilist had no choice, as a crazy guy with a gun ate the last of the fruit loops, leaving only cornflakes
Neither is actually wrong, the campatibilist's only options were to eat cornflakes or not eat at all, and while some philosophers may claim this is still a choice, most people would argue that it isn't
But the determinist did see the inevitable future, and _chose_ to not fight it, thereby causing it to happen
You are doing an awesome job! Just pledged on Patreon!
I studied about most of the topics before, but your videos are so good and fun to watch (especially "How can we know what's really true?" video touched so many different courses I took in one eloquent piece). Thank you!
Cool thanks!
Blue and yellow light don't make green, blue and yellow pigment do. Green is a primary colour in light (RGB) and a secondary colour in pigment.
I only really managed to relate the two together by realising that the additive method is primary, since it's based on mixing light, while the subtractive method is removing light...
And realising that it follows that the subtractive primaries can be described as minus red, minus green, and minus blue respectively.
As it happens, if you remove each of these 3 primary colours from white light, you get a secondary colour, and these are the subtractive primaries (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow).
Or to put it another way, remove red, remove green, remove blue.
I really appreciate what you said about not making our beliefs our identity. That's very timely. "You're doing ideas bad." :D Veritasium alluded to something similar in a more candid moment and he said few people had that level of maturity. I was half expecting a reference to the Uncertainty Principle and Entropy in this video. The Arrow of Time means that we are adding information to the universe and I've heard some use that as an argument against determinism, since the past has insufficient information to specify an exact future.
Universe either behaves deterministically or there is some amount of randomness involved. (Note that for large statistical samples, random phenomena also behave very predictably.) By definition there is no other option. Even if you include souls, magic or supernatural, it will not change anything.
oh yeah, people really struggle to get this point. no matter how you look at it, free will can not possibly exist.
we have 2 options and that's it. first, if we are making "choices", then that means we have to have basis of said choice by neccesity. choice literally can not be baseless, because "baseless choice" is logical paradox. therefore, if we are making choices based on something, no matter what it is, our will can not be free because it is predetermined, it is based on something and as long as base circumstances does not change, we would be making the same choices forever.
another argument that people use to prove existence of free will is inherent randomness of subatomic particles at quantum level, but that's ridiculous. just because you make choices at random does not mean you have free will. in fact, it is the opposite. if everything has randomness to it and whatever you do is random and have nothing to base your decitions on, then your life just consists of "baseless choices", which, as we said, is logical paradox. funny thing is that if randomness of the universe turns out to be true, we can not even call our actions choices, because it would be impossible to choose anything at all. it's just random.
the point is, either the universe is pre-determined and our choices are also pre-determined based on circumstances. or there is some sort of randomness to it and therefore we can not truly choose anything because would have no concrere basis to decide, our actions are just gonna be some dice roll. that's it, there is no "third" option. free will is legit impossible to exist. in fact, it is scientifically impossible to exist.
oh yeah, people really struggle to get this point. no matter how you look at it, free will can not possibly exist.
we have 2 options and that's it. first, if we are making "choices", then that means we have to have basis of said choice by neccesity. choice literally can not be baseless, because "baseless choice" is logical paradox. therefore, if we are making choices based on something, no matter what it is, our will can not be free because it is predetermined, it is based on something and as long as base circumstances does not change, we would be making the same choices forever.
another argument that people use to prove existence of free will is inherent randomness of subatomic particles at quantum level, but that's ridiculous. just because you make choices at random does not mean you have free will. in fact, it is the opposite. if everything has randomness to it and whatever you do is random and have nothing to base your decisions on, then your life just consists of "baseless choices", which, as we said, is logical paradox. funny thing is that if randomness of the universe turns out to be true, we can not even call our actions choices, because it would be impossible to choose anything at all. it's just random.
the point is, either the universe is pre-determined and our choices are also pre-determined based on circumstances. or there is some sort of randomness to it and therefore we can not truly choose anything because we would have no concrete basis to decide, our actions are just gonna be some dice roll. that's it, there is no "third" option. free will is legit impossible to exist. in fact, it is scientifically impossible to exist.
I mean... with the soon-to-rise neurological computer technology, we CAN literally upload and download thoughts and experiences. That's where I think the mystery of consciousness will really begin to fade; when we see how robots can think similarly and we can'y explain why WE can feel and they can't, and when we start being able to transfer thoughts electronically.
Just my thoughts.
I think that determinism and free will aren't incompatible at all. The matter interaction that results in your will and action is no different than your will and action. To say that you don't choose what you want to do is to try to separate the being that makes the decision from the deterministic universe that creates the being in the first place.
@Dan Talks because the choices you seem to make all lead to predetermined outcomes. But you can't possibly know if an outcome was predetermined or not before you reach it.
Nick Patella Then, there’s also the question of is free will “quantifiable”, can it be assigned a magnitude? If yes, is it binary (1: yes, 0: no value)? What part of the brain works free will into the persona, Etc. The hard part of approving of determinism is the gap to moral responsibility, because if one day it is ruled that the world is deterministic, guys like Charles Wittman would walk free or have an easier sentence. This is a hard yet fun topic to read
3:12 He finally came out of the closet!
Pretty sure it was an example of a factbased thingo not an announcement
@@ExactFlamingo arr slash woosh, as the kids say
@@altycoggydeer r/whoosh
@@ExactFlamingo indeed
Hey listen buddy, you have some talent here. Lovable voice, humility, a refreshing self-awareness and calmness, to the point and playful. I like that you make it sound like you're just casually trying to make sense of some things, and then doing a spectacular job of it. This is how these kinds of conversations should go. The world needs channels like this to blow up to mainstream media, so how about some more videos and keep 'em coming
I see that you have discovered the positivistic viewpoint. I wrote an essay about the Vienna Circle for my philosophy class once and I really came to like their ideas.
Subbed on two vids, don’t know how to explain it, but the way you talk grabs my attention fully
2:55 love how you just took a side note - dropped utter facts, and then moved on haha what an amazing view
Just want to disperse some preconceptions as someone who has had a profound experience of seeing in myself at the most basic way. The soul does not disprove determinism the soul can also be deterministic. Also I think to a total or greater extent it is after seeing myself most basicly
Another video?
It's not christmas yet, wtf is going on
You are filled with Determination due to the fact that this place has uploaded two videos in two days
Gr8 video. We're it not for your low upload frequency, you'd be one of my favorite channels. Keep it up!
What do you think of panpsychism as a concept? It's often tacitly treated as the default hypothesis when the soul hypothesis is debunked, but panpsychism's implications are somehow even more bizzare. That in itself doesn't render the hypothesis wrong, but it's also not automatically correct if the soul hypothesis is wrong.
Actually, I guess this was kind of answered in your "what is alive?" video.
Unrelated to the topic of the video, but the green leaf would be an additive color, so it couldn't be made of blue and yellow. Mixing blue and yellow paint is a subtractive color process, but many small dots of light blending is subtractive, like computer monitors.
apparently I'm a bit of a compatiblest as I feel the definition of "free will" is but for me it seems part of it is we think of free will as us choosing to do something but it seems to me it's more a matter of wether we choose to not do something, as our bodies will prepare to do something before we're even aware we're going to do it, that said there are plenty of false starts where our bodies prepare but we don't act so what is that's where free will lies, and add to that, I often look at it like running a red light, just because you can reliably predict people stopping at a red light doesn't mean they can't keep going, or devalues the fact that they did stop
A perfect autumn podcast. The faux disembodied ghosts and ghouls wandering the streets, match the spirit of the debate.
Determinism is storytelling. It takes facts from the past and weaves a compelling narrative of cause and effect. Yet every moment, from the beginning of time, has an infinitesimal number of possible resolutions, with equally incalculable environmental, physiological and psychological encumberments acting on the final decision. The complexity of a single choice (disregarding the many adjunct choices supporting the main choice) fails to produce meaningful context to past, present, or future outcomes.
But nor does free will flourish in the future. Changing one’s trajectory, is not an act of will focused on the future. It seems to me, free will is the creative mindset that separates the past from the future. It’s the very act of choosing…that only exists in the moment. Whether compelled, random or reasoned - our choice in the moment still resides in our control.
We all have free will, but we don’t all have the capacity to be informed, open minded and humble. Many simply react to survive. Undoubtedly, everyone doesn’t have the resources required to exert their free will. I think we as a society must give them that opportunity.
I’d apologize for my lengthy response, but apparently it was inevitable.
Hmm, watching earlier videos and then these more recent ones, I would be inclined to believe maybe you've read on Spinoza's work? I currently am, and that's what brought me to your videos. I like them, keep it up!
I love this channel. keep doing what you do!
STOP!
So if it's an invisible chair, but i can't sit on it, is it even a chair anymore? 🤔
Dude, this is exactly how I think about all of this. I especially liked when you pointed out how all the important decisions are independent of the labels. I think this problem (people not realizing the irrelevance of labels) is very present in the abortion debate, on both sides. Like "it's a human being" and "it's my body".
Assuming determinism the past prior to a choice would have had to have been different for anyone to have selected a different option. It's not just the options which are predetermined but also which option we select.
What matters is what changes when we take this into account.
Just a note on "unfalsifiable..."
Logical Positivism is the branch of rationalism that posits: "Only statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning." It is an irrational thought process though since the statement itself cannot be empirically verified, it is self-defeating, therefore anyone who subscribes to the idea that proofs must be falsifiable subscribe to an unfalsifiable philosophy.
Not only this, but strict empiricism presupposes and depends upon the existence of metaphysics, and because metaphysics cannot be empirically verified, it is self-defeating. To put this another way, since the empirical verification method is not analytically true (true by definition), then any observation that one makes must be filtered and understood through one’s own subjective sense perceptions (metaphysics), and those subjective sense perceptions (metaphysics) cannot be empirically verified, therefore it is self-defeating
I don't think This Place fully subscribes to logical positivism by your definition.
All he says, is that it's hard to have a discussion about religious ideas because they are rooted in unfalsifiable foundations. And I completely agree. If we want to talk about what is objectively true, according to observable reality, then "soul" is out of this discussion, because it's founded on something unfalsibiable and we can't really discuss it. We can pretend it's there, that might be instrumentally useful for some, but we can't prove it.
If you can show me that soul exist, through empirical evidence, logical deduction, or a very strong induction, sure, then I'll include it in the conversation.
Before that, with all the data available to me right now, I am confident that the free will exists as an illusion.
And again, I am not saying "X is meaningless since it's unfalsifiable". It's more of a "hey, X is unfalsifiable, so if we are going to talk about X, then we are going to speculate quite a bit, so let's take it to another video, where we stop the science / methodological naturalism, and talk about X vs the world".
It's weird that you say "Logical Positivism is the branch of rationalism" and then immediately "It is an irrational thought process". I think there is something missing here, maybe some misdefinition is happening?
@@WispYart
You said: *"I don't think This Place fully subscribes to logical positivism by your definition."*
Well, it isn't my definition; this term is defined as I have written by A.J. Ayer in his 1936 work "Language, Truth, & Logic."
The major error is in not recognizing that logic, reason, authority, historical inquiry, and rationality are perfectly valid arguments for truth. In short, not all truth is determined by what you can study under a microscope. For instance, there is no empirical means by which one may learn of the last conversation that I had with my grandmother before she died, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that there is no way to know the truth of what was said, it is simply a matter of historical inquiry, not scientific inquiry; it is a question for the historian, not the scientist.
@@lawrencestanley8989 sure, whoever came up with that definition, I was just saying I don't think This Place subscribes to that particular definition.
You seem to imply that science is making statements about the truth. It does not. And it does not really need to. You might be mixing up the "confidence levels" and the "truth".
But to retract the conversation, I support the exclusion of unfalsifiable claims from this video. If you don't support that, sure, we can talk about it. But I don't see a reason to discuss logical positivism if it's irrelevant to This Place or this video. If you think it's relevant - sure, show that, and then we can proceed :)
@@WispYart
My comment was 3 years ago on this video... I don't remember the video to be able to discuss the context of my comment, and with the storm coming up the east coast right now, I'm busy working today, so I do not have time to review the video, so, I'm sorry I can't get involved in a discussion about this at the moment.
@@lawrencestanley8989 oh no worries. It's just I feel you think This Place is a positivist. And I don't think that's the case. That's all :)
2:40 The "Compatibilist" Aka: Wooosh man!
How could a will even be free? A will is there to pursue something, therefore reducing possible states.
ColegaBill Yeah but free will isn't about it being limited or not, it's about if you have at least multiple possibilities and you being able to decide of one or if there is only one that was predictable.
Then, as my argument stands, its a misnomer. "Pickadilly will" would suit that purpose much better. The more willful and conscious a will gets, the more constrained it becomes, by a set of rules whose total predictability is for any practical purpose a mere impossibility.
ColegaBill I loled at the "pickadilly will" but it does make more sense.
Because no matter how much you want to fly, the laws of physics are still telling you "Yeah fuck you because gravity".
"The more willful and conscious a will gets, the more constrained it becomes"
Because just one particle at a microscopic level is more unpredictable than a big group of particles at a macroscopic level?
Pretty much so. But brain isn't a water boiler, where the sheer scale of re-scaling allows us the luxury to ignore the particular fluctuations. Every there and there it contains signal amplifiers and it's even somewhat sensitive to different kinds of random noise.
I was listening to this, very serious topic, and making my conclusions on the last example.
Then:"Microscopes are the work of the devil"
Laughed so much
Randomness/chance/indeterminism is nothing but an approximation of a complex deterministic process that we do not understand or with that we do not want to deal with because the indetermenistic approximation is simpler and good enough for our needs.
Richard Capca What you're referring to is known as a hidden variable theory in quantum mechanics, because it claims that the collapse of the wave function is ultimately the result of hidden variables that we don't know. Suffice it to say, hidden variable theories (at least local ones) have largely been discredited by experimental results.
"Who can ever know what path to walk on when all of them are either crooked or broken? One just has to walk.” Ishmael Beah,
Radiance of Tomorrow
Compatibilism is not about proving there is free will but is about how to make lack of free will compatible with our moral framework
when did you RETURN ???!! last time I watch a video here was over a year ago..
you've been back MONTHS AGO TOO. where the hell was I.
welcome back Jess, I love your channel
Give the question some credit. Free Will is not a game of semantics as the answer shapes dramatically different worldviews; it is the basis of active responsibility for actions. The entire criminal justice system is based on the notion of Free Will being True and Mens Rea, aka 'The Guilty Mind'. If one knowingly commits a crime, and presumably 'could have chosen otherwise' (i.e. - Modality), but knowing this does the crime anyway - the person is guilty. If however, outside forces acting upon the agent could not have occurred otherwise via cause and effect, then we can't say the agent was responsible for their actions. They at least were not Free. The key is whether or not agents are capable of making said "Free" choices, whatever that entails. Also, if the system is chaotic or random as Quantum Mechanics suggests, then we are still not Free - as the Universe is just unfolding without a Modal influence.
While there may be no clear-cut YES/NO solution to the question of Free Will right now, but how we answer it does matter on other stances. To curtail the issue is to not give metaphysical credit to the problem(s) presented therein.
Im unsure if I know what you are trying to say, might be the language barrier though.
If I got it right youre using the law to show that something like free will exists, because it makes a differenciation between influence through an outside agent and something that was your own choice and that differneciation seems logical to you. The law deliberately ignores factors though. Is the choice to steal really a free choice, when youre broke and hungry? I would argue that only letting outside factors count already is pretty absurd in regards to the matter of free will. The laws definiation of agents that influence youdefinetly is very questionable. No sane person steals, kills, destroys for no reason. The law seems to be way more concerned with preventing people from breaking it than morality or the concept of free will.
To me it seems like looking at the topic under the premise of active responsibility is pretty curtailing aswell.
Hope that all made sense.
It seems rather simple to me: the ball falling may be affected by subtle things that influence it's "choice," but the ball MUST follow it's path of least resistance. Similarly, we must do certain things in order to survive; we have to follow the path of least resistance, we can only do what we CAN do. However, in some cases, we CAN choose to do the more difficult thing, rather than the easier thing, the thing that gives us the least resistance. In this way, we can grow, climb, if you will. In this way, we are different from a falling ball with no agency on a predestined path governed only by Newtonian physics, because when faced with the easy choice or the hard choice, we HAVE a choice. Perhaps the hard choice may get you killed, but that's the risk you take. You may also have a tendency to favor certain types of choices, but it cannot be denied, that as we learn and grow (assuming we are willing to do so, it's hard), the behavioral tendencies we exhibit will shift with the shape of our minds. This begs the question from a deterministic perspective: does learning new things make one an entirely different person than they were before they learned?
You deserve much more subscribers,
Though I highly suggest adding slight music in the background and being less monotone
I love all of your videos dude keep up the awesome work.
czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
So, to deny compatibilism, then deny that choices are free, as compatibilists define the term free will. Instead claim that compatibilists attempt to save the use of the term free will by redefining it as a deterministic term.
Its both. You have free will to create any deterministic probability wave you choose.
And this ability only exists within the degree you have influence in.
The difference lies in this question:
Is it okay to make someone's will unfree?
Generally speaking, people hate the idea of making someone's will unfree. Of making them do something against their will.
A Hard Determinist says:
No, you can't make someone's will unfree because it was never free at all. So actions we do to change someone's mind can't be judged based on how "free" or "unfree" they are.
A Compatibilist says:
Yes, it is possible because "free" means only internal causes and "unfree" means external causes. So actions we do to change someone's mind can be judged based on how manipulative they are and whether they are "free" or "unfree".
A Soul believer says:
No, you can't make someone's will unfree because souls aren't bound by outside reality. So actions we do to change someone's mind can only have limited effect because they can't force anything.
Example: Is it okay to drug people to be happy if there are absolutely no other negative side effects? (Think SOMA from Brave New World)
Hard Determinist - Yes, because drugging you to be happy isn't necessarily different than giving you a million dollars to make you happy.
Compatibilist - No, because that will be a false happiness and the falseness of the happiness is inherently bad even if there are no other negative side effects.
Soul Believer - No, because it's impossible to drug someone into being happy, the drugs can't change their will and make them happy.
A hard determinist could reject the first question instead of saying no, sort of like how you would refuse to answer, “are fairies big?” If I take freedom as a illusion/fictional construct, I personally as a hard determinist would just say that it is unethical to make it such that someone’s actions is contrary to their volition and desires (not exactly making them unfree but forcing someone to do something against their desires)
@@CT-ju5lc Exactly.
leaves are actually green though. you don't have a cone for yellow in your eye, unless you're a mutant. and real light isn't composite like it is on a computer screen, it's a continuous spectrum. leaves reflect wavelengths of light consistent to the portion of the spectrum we label green.
The thing is -- we must build our identity around ideas -- otherwise, we will become nihilists. It's just that we also shouldn't forget that even our most sacred ideas can turn out to be wrong. Yes, even the Earth might turn out to be a hologram, just not flat in the way flat-Earthers think. The way to choose a philosophy is as a scientist: choose one that interests you the most, implement its behavioral implications, observe the results, and update your beliefs using Bayes or some other theory-testing rule.
I didn't freely choose the value of money. So when I put value on something for trading goods and services, i'm not making a choice. I understand value, based off my previous experience, and acquire things I like or need. I need food, its not a choice. I choose different types of food based off my past experiences of pleasure, and/or possibly biological cravings for certain nutritional needs. In general My belief "Not by Choice" makes me feel that every choice I make is a response to my past, and hence I'm not choosing it. It's chosen for me based of predetermined logic from my past. I maybe wrong, buts its only based off what I've learned so far, and I'm not choosing what I feel to be true, my mind believes it to be true. I can't just choose to not believe by choice. I don't have that choice.
I would much rather be a monthly patron rather than a per video one, as I have no idea what you consistency will be, but I do like you and would be ok with helping fund you at a constant rate.
Do you plan on releasing these on iTunes/rocket casts/ or other podcast places?
For now the plan is for this to be a Patreon thing. Seems weird since it is free to everyone (you don't even need to be signed into a Patreon account to see them) but the spirit of these is that they are for people on Patreon. So I would like to keep them on places where there is the option to make them "unlisted" like on CZcams, or "private" like on Soundcloud.
That makes sense, it would be nice to have them on my podcast player, but I completely understand wanting to keep distribution more controlled when it comes to patreon rewards
czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
came for the philosophy of free will/determinism stayed for the philosophy of identity and semantics.
I would say there may be some misunderstandings withing this video.
1. There are many tipes of compatibalists. All of which believe free will and determinism are conpatible, but many disagree with what free will or determinism are.
2.The form of compatibalism you seem to be referencing in this video is known as soft determinism. The view that the universe works in a deterministic way, in the sense that there is a sufficient cause of every contingent occurence; there is also human volition, in the sense that agents which possess volition are capable mental rationization when deliberating, in order to make choices that are sufficiently determined by internal mental/cognitive phenomenon, rather than external forces. Thus coinciding with internal mental phenomenon such as belief, disgust or desire. This volition, many modern philosophers believe, is suffiecient for free will.
3. Last but likely most important, there is a fundamental distinction between compatibalist and hard determinist views that is not mere semantics. That is that free will exists, and thus moral responsibility exists. Moral responsibility is an agents being held accountable for their actions. Most, if not all ethical philosophers believe moral responsibility is necessary for there to exist a normative ethical system. That is, a system of ethics which all ought cohere to. Without free will, there xannot be moral responsibility, and without this, there cannot be normative ethical theory.
Crux of the matter is not vanilla or chocolate. I need chocolate ice cream. But physician advised me not to take chocolate cream . When I see the chocolate cream I want to taste it. But I control myself from taking it . When I try to control my desire alternative choices pop up in my mind. I just took one of the choices. These choices are created in my mind through freewill and intellect.
But you're only doing and thinking all of that because the neurons in your brain are following deterministic rules to create a certain thought pattern.
That dang devil and his microscopes
I do believe that people have souls and I even have evidence of it. You need to consider both options, either people are just sacks of meat with neurons firing in interesting patterns in their heads due to some mystery of evolution or we all have a deeper meaning and purpose to our lives, then decide what the observable difference would be for each case. there isn't a lot that would be different, we would sleep at nights, go to work for a paycheck, and and eat steak and potatoes for dinner. But there is one difference that I find interesting. we find deeper meanings in that don't really have any meaning. in art, music, friendship, beauty, creation, destruction, life, death, fictions, and exploration. It takes more than just a cluster of atoms to look up at the night sky and wonder at their place in the universe. Because we can assign meaning to the universe around us it means that we have a deeper meaning ourselves.
Great video, thanks for putting your thoughts down into video.
I listened to, couple weeks ago, a conversation in between Dan Dennett and Sam Harris and I didn't quite understand well each of their positions. .. Might this be it? Sam is a hard determinist and dennett is about compatibilism?
That is as I understand it. Actually it was just those 2 people's positions that I used as research for this. Which is why I was so afraid I had gotten it wrong. Didn't do a ton of research.
Well, Mr. This Place, for me, you actually came up more clear on this topic than two of the best brains we have on earth at the moment!
Waking up podcast #39 for the interested
I'll check it out
Unlike a plinko ball, we are aware of many of the potential paths we could take. I also believe that we can (sure because of wants, temperament, etc) effect our “shape” in order to fall down the path we would like. Until we know the fundamental state of consciousness, I’m going to continue to believe in this illusion that I have control because it gives me peace of mind and a sense of control
0:12 I'm thinking, "hmm, I might helplessly subscribe to this channel if he says something I already agree with. But I might choose not to do that to attempt to prove to myself that "I" have some kind of control over my own actions," even though I know it doesn't prove anything and know it to be a futile attempt. How sad."
"The Omnipotent Chair" is the new invisible pink unicorn.
Love your videos
Love your videos.
I think the idea of the 'soul' can be synonymous with the idea of 'life.' What distinction is there between something that is 'alive' versus something that is only a series of chemical reactions? 'Aliveness' is that attribute to which we designate a soul, at least to some extent.
I have an unusual answer: What if Free Will is not a part of the individual? What if it is a result of inevitable social ignorance? For instance, if my mind works in a fully mechanistic way, but it is of such complexity that it's actions cannot be understood without having a total history of my experience, does the fact that it is deterministic even matter? In my serious opinion, Free Will is a matter of ignorance, not of reality.
You're the only youtuber I've seen who can upload a video that talks about religion, homosexuality, whether or not our universe is deterministic and free will and get a 44/1 like to dislike ratio :P
im a determanist for a different reason. becouse of general/special relatively.
if you make a graph useing 1 axes as time the other as space you can draw a "now line" however this now line is affected by your movement. for example if there is a alian on the other side of the milky way on our now line and that alian is moving towards us their nowline is crossing the earth like it was thousends of years ago. and if they are moving away from us the reverse happens. but special and general relativity dont care if the opserver is contius or not. so this now line exists for every single atom throughout the univers and as such means that every point in spacetime past present and future must exist at the same time.
so every choice you will ever make you already have made in our future.
Whoa! two videos in two days?!11
The last comment about people who believe in souls think microscopes are the devil was uncalled for. I work in a lab and regularly use SEM and it's a very useful tool for scientific purposes, however, I would never bring up SEM images in a philosophical debate about consciousness because much of philosophy in general is unfalsifiable, so the microscope would have very little use. Further, science thus far has not been able to make a falsifiable argument for consciousness either, so it it isn't much use criticizing people that believe in souls and an afterlife simply because they are making a non-falsifiable claim. There are many very different views on what us humans are and what influences us and whether we have free will or not, and as far as I can tell, every argument is non-falsifiable, so maybe we should be skeptical of all ideas on this matter including our own.
excellent observation-
lets pretend we find an instrument that shows us the souls and the afterlife,what good would come out of it if these are found in another dimension or they are ruled by the 7th or 8th sense- of the spirit life?
what if they are in the process of the return (karma)?
maybe these souls travel to the andromeda galaxy?
The machine or computer show their presence but never to be reached?
Ed Thoreum first, you need to prove that a soul exist. We have good evidence that the our brains are the beginning and the end of consciousness.
All ideas are non-falsifiable if you do not start with assuming basic axioms. Even in mathematics, nothing can be proven without starting from assumptions. The point is that if we assume that making hypotheses based on observations is better than making them up with no justifications, then the "soul" is not a good proposal. Especially since if you say in response to the question "what is consciousness?" that it is the "soul" then you must then ask "what is the soul?" It get's us nowhere, whereas scientific proposals can actually be tested, if not now, then in the future.
Assuming that there is an afterlife or a metaphysical "soul" is pretty ridiculous when all evidence shows that consciousness is destroyed when the brain is destroyed, or that consciousness can be completely altered by physical matter. If there was a metaphysical component to consciousness, then it would be reasonable to assume that there should exist some aspect of consciousness that can not be altered by physical objects. But every aspect of consciousness can be altered by some kind of physical entity (mostly chemicals).
Well, the term "soul" is just not a good one for this discussion, because no one really knows what it's supposed to be and it has all kinds of assumptions attached to it from culture, religion, etc.
If we look at anything to be defined as "consciousness" that we can actually find inside ourselves, then it is that one single point of "the experiencer"--the fact that there is clearly (when viewed from the inside) someone experiencing all that stuff out there. There "is someone home", so to speak. Now: Could that experiencer itself be created by the brain? Well, let's look at it.
If you say the experiencer is "an illusion" then this is a contradiction in itself, because WHO is having an illusion? An illusion actually presupposes an experiencer.
If you point to all the "functions of consciousness" that get altered or lost through chemicals or disabling parts of the brain, then you are always talking about stuff that the experiencer experiences. That gets lost or altered, but you can never really say for sure that the experiencer itself disappears (even in coma or death) because you can only see that from the inside (the fact that he has no means to communicate does not mean he does not exist)
So: Then we are back at: Consciousness in this sense is definitely unfalsifiable FROM THE OUTSIDE. So why should we assume it exists? Well: Like you said: Ultimately everything starts from a non-falsifiable basic axiom. In the case of this experiencer: While we cannot prove or disprove it by something outside ourselves (the brain, in the way I use the term "outside" is something outside ourself, so are atoms, quarks, etc.) we CLEARLY experience it. It's there. There is no doubt about it. OK...in truth I cannot know it is there for anyone but myself--but for myself it's clearly there.
If I accept that "the experiencer" in me is in fact there (as it clearly is for me), then WHY SHOULD it be there. It is in fact not necessary for ANYTHING at all, including our evolution, our intelligence, etc. The brain could easily make all the necessary "decisions" through its deterministic processes. It would ensure our survival, it could be intelligent and it would not need my internal experience of myself; nobody "needs to be home" for this.
In fact, most of us assume that computers are this way. They make incredibly complex decisions, have intelligence, even beat us in GO, but most of us do not imagine that the computer is in fact experiencing anything (or SOMETHING in the computer is experiencing anything)--I know, in science fiction and in some recent movements championed by some very intelligent people, there is the assumption that a computer at least can have this internal experience. Who knows...but I think this comes from a conflation and mixing up of "Intelligence" and "Consciousness' (in the way I'm defining it here)
Here is a way how you can test what you really believe about this: Imagine (and this is not so much of a stretch anymore) That we build a computer that is complex enough that it can fully contain and replicate every single function of your brain, both statically (the current state of your brain at a given time) as well as dynamically (all the connections and structures that, in a fully deterministic world, would determine every future state of your brain)
At a given moment the current state of your brain is downloaded into the computer and from then on the computer fully matches every state of your brain, (down to the quantum states of its particles, if you think that detail may be relevant)
Now: Do you think you would experience yourself in both places at the same time (your brain connected to your body, and the computer brain duplicate?) Would you allow a scientist to kill you, since you would be able to live forever on in that new brain? They could connect it to your existing body or maybe a better robotic version and you should still experience yourself as you did before?
I don't know about you, but: I see no reason whatsoever that would make it in any way likely that I would experience MYSELF AS this new brain. Your experiencing would either end at the time the original brain-body is destroyed or it would go on independently, as it wasn't ever truly connected to it or generated by it. But there is no reason to assume it has anything to do with the state of brain cells or even quantum processes that are now continuing in this new "brain".
I think the fact that consciousness is not necessary but still undeniably there, makes it very useful to assume it is one of those basic building blocks or at least presumed axioms that can not be proven or falsified, because it is at the very bottom of any causality-chain.
None of this by itself says anything about "souls", "afterlife", "heaven", or anything else that usually gets mixed into these discussions. Even about "free will" it says nothing. (While consciousness itself can't really be an illusion in this way, the belief that we--the consciousness, the experiencer--can control anything outside ourselves--which includes our thoughts and impulses--can easily be an illusion--remember: we have an experiencer, so we CAN have illusions!) But it should be possible to do some kind of exploring and truth-finding in this realm as well. It will not have ALL aspects of science--for example it is by definition not objective but always has to start in the internal subjective; it is also clearly not materialistic--but there is no reason that experiment and logic, even some form of peer review cannot be applied; so there is no reason that we cannot, in this way, find out more about what it is.
butthurt alert
What does it mean for our will to be free? Free from what?
Does it mean to just choose randomly, free of any factor influencing it? Although in that case, do we even have a will? Then does it means to be able to choose in function of our own wants? But if our wants determine your choices, is our will free? After all, we didn't choose what we like and dislike, did we? But then, aren't our wants part of us? Don't we say "*I* want this"?
Maybe it means free from other wills. If the factors determining our choices, in other words our wants, aren't decided by another will, then are we free? Then it means that controlling the environment to limit our options isn't going against our free will, but directly influencing our wants is. So, for example, locking us in a room limits the places we can choose to go doesn't go against our free will, but giving us a pill that change our desires does. And if we give ourselves the pill, then it isn't another will, so our will is still free?
I'll go with that : our will is our wants (desires, likes and dislikes), and we have free will as long as these wants aren't directly modified by another will.
I find its best not to think about the things that I can't control such as free will. It just makes me wonder about something I'll never have the answer to.
This guy deserves more views,
this fucking video is amazing
Depends on what exactly you mean by "free will". It's usually a very squishy term and definitions are almost always vague or circular. What is the difference between free will and regular will? What is it free from?
cgm778 Free from the laws of physics I guess? Being able to shape destiny/deterministic laws of the universe into what you want because you're above it, rather than being controlled by it?
Lucioh Ok, let's put aside the whole ontological question of matter and/or something else for a moment and focus on "deterministic". The determinates of our actions and decisions are many. I doubt anyone would argue there is only one thing (neural connections, hormone levels or the ghost in the machine) in complete control even though there is heated debate about the influence of are. It's still deterministic no matter what is doing the controlling. "Free" implies uncontrolled, not determined, true randomness and utter chaos. I doubt that what people mean when they say "I have free will". So I am left wondering, what exactly is "free will"?
cgm778 " I doubt anyone would argue there is only one thing (neural connections, hormone levels or the ghost in the machine) in complete control "
The theory of everything?
Well the absence of free will doesn't mean the universe is not random. Even if it was random, our decision making would still depend of some of this randomness we don't control.
So yeah there's this idea of control, as if the mind could go above the laws of physics that actually seem to rule the mind, no matter if they are deterministic and/or random.
Lucioh The theory of everything? You mean a theory that produces both gravity and the other fundamental forces? It don't think such will go above the laws of physics as much as it would clarify them.
The mind doesn't go above the laws of physics. The laws of physics are very precise and they the describe behavior of everything inside our bodies and they do to everything outside our bodies.
I believe in free will but I'm a compatibilist. I think Dennett's description of free will as competence is a good one. It's not a description fundamental nature but a category humans invented for our own use.
cgm778 Nah the theory of everything would "be" the laws of physics.
I find it weird to call it "free will" or "pick one of your limited options will" if you don't actually make your decision but simply react to how the laws of physics work.
no matter what.
It would be like saying green light is an actual thing even if we discovered any green light was a mix of blue and yellow.
We experience a sense of green, sure, but fundamentally green photons wouldn't be a thing.
Green, just like our feeling of actually making decisions, is an illusion.
But hey following this logic we could also throw away a lot of things because they are not "real" from a physical point of view, because hey if we have a feeling it's a real thing, but it's always a very simplified and pretty inaccurate/incorrect interpretation of what the physical world (which is therefore never fully accessible to the mind).
+ The way the feeling of having free will, just like pain, hearing, the ability to formulate speech, all of this does have a physical shape from a neurobiological point of view.
So even if the concept of green light doesn't really exist and it's just blue light + yellow light, would someone be correct for believing in green light's existence?
You talk about competence, but how I see it is that if you compare a dice with a specific force we throw it with, and a humain brain reacting to a stimuli, they both always obey to the laws of physics. None of them make decisions. The brain is just a more complicated system, and yes the process of decision-making, even if it obeys the laws of physics, can end up producing the feeling of having free will, just like the brain would be able to produce the concept of green light "green light IS a thing dummy, it's just the name we give to the mix between blue light and yellow light".
I used to have a hard deterministic position, but all of this makes me wonder if I should really throw away the idea of free will like I do, because if I do, I should be throwing away any practical but not "real" concepts, for example the idea of what a species of any animal is, which is not a thing the human brain likes to do, and which would be terribly unpractical.
The concept of falsifiability as a decision mechanism is itself unfalsifiable. See the destruction of Logical Positivism.
And starting with the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? is a good place to begin to suggest there is a God and then there could be souls. See the philosophical rebuttals to Lawrence Krauss's book.
Compatibilism is soft determinism... At least in the sense of Dennett.
OP, what is your position on this subject and why? great job btw.
Great video, not condescending at all like others on this subject.
I think "free will" arises from the complexity of the underlying pseudo-deterministic mechanics. 1 neuron -> simle reaction from input potential to outputpotetial; 85.000.000.000 neurons -> sentiens.
Great stuff
I think you should do more videos on "sensible" topics.
thank you for talking about how it's a semantic difference.
The adverb of Free Will is Free Willy.
Could you provide a link or explain where you found 'consciousness goes away third to quarter of the day' couldn't find anything on it. Great video found it very thought provoking :)
5n8ke sleep
czcams.com/video/G6jhG5Lxb-k/video.html
Have you read Behave?
One question. Ok, actually 2.
First, if you can't sit on something, can it genuinely honestly still be called a chair?
Second, I thought light was a bit different from pigments with the whole colour thing, isn't green primary when it comes to light? Maybe purple would have been a better example, from what I remember, that colour only comes from red/blue combinations, light or otherwise.
1. Yes, many labels are applied by either function or look, or both of them. Someone may honestly call a chair what looks like a chair, and that's fine. Language is squishy, and confusing, and rough, and it's instrumentally wrong to require everyone to go by the strict definitions of every label that we have, so we clearly know that what is called a chair can be sit on. Or is it not wrong?
2. Yeah, but blue and yellow pigments (when wide enough in spectrum) will indeed be perceived as green. The error is in saying "we have a name for a blue-yellow light: it's green!" - that thing is falling apart if we take narrow spike of blue and narrow spike of yellow light (in terms of spectrum) and mix them up, and look at them. But if leaves had "blue and yellow specs", then sure, it's most likely we would see them as green, because those pigments would probably not have a spiky narrow spectrum.
Hard determinism for life!!!!
P Sai please note you didnt choose to follow this
Totally agree! I can't help but be free.
your coward for this you want to think like this. Its fucking easy. Do what u want to do and never feel bad. Fucking idiots
Hey fuckthisguy, fuck you.
@@christopher2013 sad little man , deny the truth
i did not have the choice type this
Having no free will is equivalent to saying choice is an illusion because the mind will always default to its most logical choice in any circumstance given the limited amount of information it has. This is fundamentally flawed. For instance, anytime someone makes a decision that goes against their better judgement, their mind didn't default to their most logical choice because their better judgement is for a fact their logical choice.