holyworrier Yeah, I quite like a lot of what he said on free will, the first compatiblist, if I remember correctly. I’m actually a compatiblist, but it was mostly Dan Dennett who converted me from Sam Harris’s hard compatiblism. Really, I see compatiblism far more as a soft determinism, than having free will; there’s certainly no libertarian free will, that’s just silly. ✌🏼
brian' Oh, yes, I’d say Nietzsche was most definitely influenced by Schopenhauer, and, in a certain way, by Hegel (though he was a bit anti-Hegelian in many ways, it was impossible to be a 19th century German, let alone European, philosopher, and not be influenced in Hegel in some way). Basically, if you’re reading 19th century western philosophy of free will, your chances are extremely likely that it’s German philosophy (that’s kind of the case with most good 19th century western philosophy, in general). Yeah,I hope I wasn’t confusing or misleading with the “libertarian” free will comment, I don’t mean to imply anything about those politics (though the implications of free will are highly political). I’m a left-libertarian, but libertarian free will in a philosophical sense is, well, pretty much what you described, as if we have absolute control, and that is really very separate from the libertarian politics. Libertarian free will arguments go back all the way to the Classical Greek period, so basically the birth of western philosophy, but libertarian politics, like compatibilism, didn’t emerge till the 19th century (though, I should add that libertarian politics emergence really depends on if one is talking about left wing or more right wing.. left-libertarianism is 19th century and right-libertarianism is 20th century.. but anyway, that’s a totally unrelated tangent, and I’m not rambling haha.. sorry) 😁✌🏼
Realizing that you don't have free will automatically gets rid of two things which are hate and blame. You can no longer hate or blame yourself for your actions or others for their actions. Once you realize this, it really doesn't make sense to say that it's "boring".
"Your honor, I feel no guilt whatsoever for murdering all those 5th graders, because you see you and I don't have free will, so It's not really my fault they were killed by me."
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodsa9058 Sure it’ll never go down in court, but if free will doesn’t exist, if that person was a slave to their own trauma and mental conditioning, then yeah, it’s not their fault.
@@Vingeskudt Meh people will always do bad things and make mistakes. No matter what “realization” anyone may have. It’s impossible to be flawless so when flaws do come out by the people in power they are obviously devastating.
What about I want to get what I want? Shall I accept fertility and surrender? Live in unhappiness? Anyway.. im happy to have desire that still going no matter what. I guess that's my interface
It's interesting how doing the same routine every day for years makes it feel like one has less free will. Some days I'll just randomly do something erratic like drive to a different state, eat at a random restaurant, visit a store I would normally never be interested in or walk in undisturbed nature in an attempt to assert my freewill. This is more mental than anything, but I think change promotes thinking and pondering about life's meaning.
@@jimskeuh I mean you havent exactly proven it is free will. Whats more likely is that a bunch of factors ,some detectable and measurable, and others not, caused him to make the decision to do the thing he thought was random. It wasnt really random at all. As its very hard to do something truly random. It was just non routine. And the OP feels that its random because he cant measure and the detect all of the factors, internal and external, that caused him to make what to him felt like a spur of the moment decision. The feeling of free will is more likely to be the result of humans limited perception and prediction capabilities when it comes to observing cause and effect. Rather than be something which breaks those principles.
@@marcusplenty1153 I still feel like we have a say in what we do. Certain behaviors are automated and instinctive but I can't wrap my head around the fact all things are determined from the start or that we just act on a cause effect basis.
robert reed I'm speaking about the complexity of dreams, we now know that every character in your dreams are people you've seen in real life, yet we dont know why it would matter and for what reason. They say background noise but why does a TV screen produce static and mine makes me into the last survivor of a zombie apocalypse? If no one can certainly tell me how something limited to my own head happens, then how can they explain away how I'm living in another dream like state? Maybe real life is this boring ass dream and dreams are actual realities because theres no real discernable difference from your POV
The Forgotten Place The simple explanation would probably be that you watch too many Zombie apocalypse shows ha. On a more serious note I think dreams allow us to work through feelings, as such, as we experience them in wakefulness, to allow us to be more present upon waking. I am uncomfortable with determinism, and I felt like dreams may debunk it’s logic, maybe by demonstrating that we perceive people in our realities when it’s really all just atoms.
robert reed well if an outside influence is where dreams come from then it would mean that it does support determinism. But if were getting to the nitty gritty, I believe that actual reality is just a conglomerate of superimposing fractals. Just base reality itself will show that, but I'll take it a next level by proving life after death- there is no end to anything, just infinity and as such so is consciousness. Just as nothing can be destroyed nor can consciousness. It would just keep going and going. Dreams as a less detailed version of reality, and if it was possible to dream in dreams a less detailed version etc etc
The Forgotten Place My eyes start to glaze over when I hear this physics terminology in reference to a discourse that I see as philosophical. On that note I’m not sure about your statement that all things are infinite and without end, because of our knowledge of antimatter and that to my knowledge, while matter and antimatter bring about the end to both, there is no opposite phenomenon of energy to matter (or antimatter) in exclusion of the Big Bang. I guess I am starting to see this topic as a king of Heisenberg Uncertainty-type situation where there is an interplay between an observer and an observed phenomenon or phenomena; pure determinism perhaps in conflict with the experience that other people can alter our objective reality
Yes, the default dualistic consciousness and the assumption that it is the human condition. Non duality requires a hefty investment of suffering before arriving to truth, it all comes down to whether one has the disposition to face the initial horror stage or the disposition to live a deluded life
If we could control what thoughts we have, then we would have true free will. But we are at the mercy of our minds to give us our thoughts. We can’t control that.
I can't even begin to think of what kind of mechanism in the brain, chemical, hormonal or connection that could allow for true randomness. I think if free-will existed, we'd actually break the universe or we'd have entirely different laws, because if actual chaos exists, then our laws wouldn't work. Gravity could just shut off due to random particle x interfering with other particles and quite literally came from the void. Creating something out of nothing isn't something we can conceive of, anymore than we can conceive the idea of actually being dead or the concept of nothingness. We can't actually grasp any of that, but are intelligent enough to understand the surface abstract concept with out ever actually being able to really get it.
That which you resist persists. This is where not trying comes in, To follow Yoda. Or if you’re Christian, salvation lies in Jesus (he said deny yourself, you don’t have to think all the time). Or if you prefer, Buddhism, which is much easier to understand. You can’t stop thinking, but you can engage in presence and the thinking will stop automatically
@@joethompson481it's not true.. you dont control when you want to control what you think about.. that's also a thought that appears in your mind.. all of life just appears, along with the illusion of making a choice.
I love how Sean says he agrees completely with Sam, just not on the wording, and then Joe tries to agree with Sean and disagree with Sam by slipping in something magical that both Sean and Sam disagree with.
Yup, you nailed it. I feel like Joe is ironically demonstrating Sam’s point to Sean in real time about why he should just be like: “Yeah, we don’t have free will.” The type of free will that most people (ike Joe) think they have simply doesn’t exist.
Haha yes. Sean Carroll is saying that free will doesn't exist but it's a useless thing to talk about because either way, we are gonna live our lives as if free will exists. Joe on the other hand still believes that there is free will lol.
The problem is that, like so much in language today, "free will" is a term ignorantly used. It was clear to Voltaire, Godwin and Shelley what "free will" implied. How many proponents of free will today would still stand by it with this classic definition: Free will affirms that one's will is free of motive, free from antecedents, free from the influences of one's past and present; that it is its own first cause and is not caused by anything. Consequently, were one's will not produced, but free, then one would only have feelings and thoughts one wanted to have. One would will to will, want to want.
First I’d like to say Joe you are like one of two people I’d love to meet someday. Now onto free will, I believe yes we do make decisions, but no we don’t have free will. I believe we choose our actions but, by nature of choosing an action it is always in response to something, so our actions are really responses, I believe our lives are dictated more by the events we respond to than the decisions we make. I guess it’s a very hard concept to explain exactly, I’ve just never had anyone explain freewill the way I think about it. I feel we have more of an illusion of free will, example, I believe the illusion of freewill is answering the question, where true free will would be having the ability to change the question.
Sorry I meant to say, the illusion of free will is a kin to getting to choose your answer to a question, where as true free will would be like being able to answer any question not just the one being asked at that time.
Not true. So the reason you love someone is because you have to by nature? What about dead beat dads vs good dads? Is there free will there? What about the arguement that our species is moral and takes care of their children because of instincts? Illogical
dawg but the free will comes into play by making decisions not based on the events around us, and doing what we want regardless of everything else. no one does it because no one has the balls to unlock their true free willl
He said it's not a fruitful way of going about your life, I agree it's not (to some extent), but that's irrelevant to the claim that we have free will or not. And I said to some extent, because knowing you have no free will is fruitful in many ways as it can improve your life once you understand it. The truth is usually a good thing to know, rather than a lie.
@@Dogbertforpresident And if you do something dumb you needn't fret about it, you had no choice in that moment. There are negatives too, like it makes no sense to feel proud of achievements if one has no choice, but we can't turn off every emotion, it still good for us to feel pride. We are still human so it's wise to still act human I reckon instead of feeling like a robot executing commands. Just gotta get a good balance I think.
@@colinjava8447 I think if something good happens or your life drastically improves, you could feel a sense of pride if you know deep down you wanted better circumstances all along, but the overall feeling would be gratitude instead of pride.
@@colinjava8447 you do have free will to make choices that are comfortable or uncomfortable for you or others....natural law of cause and effect for uncomfortable choices/action might promote regret or trauma. If someone does harm and is truly in repentance for that, meaning they are truly sorry and would never do that again, you're forgiven by the omnipotent force of creation that gave us each free will so that we can learn and grow to create a sense of oneness and divine way of interacting with each other here on classroom Earth, inability of forgiving your self to feel acceptance is what many people suffer from. The truth is that we are each pretty insignificant and thinking that an omnipotent force of creation is going to haunt you for eternity for using the gift of free will is just nuts.
@@FREE_WILL_AAHhhhhhhhhhhhh Makes little sense, you make "choices" based on the configuration of your brain which is a physical system obeying physical laws. Are you saying one can override physical laws?
Understanding free will in this way should be considered because it can inform your behavior. Same thing with psychology and any other science. For a guy who talks about atoms, I find it funny that he's willing to ignore philosophy. You can build a computer with science but with philosophy you rebuild ur self and change. Instead of just saying it's too complicated, maybe we should put a bit more effort into it.
Well I don’t think anyone who believes in free will such as myself say things of your environment don’t effect you, just that a conscious decision can override desires from reasoning that isn’t purely physical. I suppose I get this from my personal experience and from reading about people who had their brain stimulated to move their body, and they were aware that it was being done to them, if the mind and brain is one I don’t think they could differentiate.
@@cadestekly6410 I think you might be conflating self-awareness with active control. You can be stimulated to do things you don't choose. It's why advertising is a billion dollar industry. You're also stimulated to engage in conversation at all, because you're a social species and a conversation about agency is a huge thing because it ties into survival. If you have control or feel you have control, thousands of years of evolution taught you that was beneficial to survive. To understand and know how things work and why allowed you to adapt to them. Control is a huge thing for us. Let me ask you this, have you ever done a decision in which you knew wasn't the best one? Say eating unhealthy, even though you know actively that you shouldn't, but you rationalize it because, well, you've been good lately, you worked out, you had a tough day, or whatever. If you have free-will, why rationalize it? Why defend it? Wouldn't it just be in your right and ability to just do because of want? And if that was the case, then you actively choosing a more negative decision, even if small and temporary, then you're chaotic, or effectively evil. If Free will exists, than all we are is the choices we make, no matter how big or small. It also means that everyone who ever makes a negative decision, even if it to them only seems to affect their well being, is not a good person. They're choosing to be bad. Why? Why would you ever choose to hurt yourself or others, even in any small way? There is no security in assuming that everyone in the world does things because they decided they wanted to, good or bad, because one could choose to do something really nice and really terrible at any point. Beyond that though, you'd need to explain the point of origin in which that drive even comes about. Why do you choose the donut over the salad? Why do you chose to put more effort into getting a special gift for someone just to be nice? If it's free-will, the answer is because, which weirdly enough actually takes away any form of answering why. People would just be pure chaos, because even if it's veto effect and not ultimate free-will, you could still just decide to go with the less good option or the best one at any point, with no stability or pattern. I don't even think people would have a sense of self if they had free-will in the way people seem to think. Because provided all other circumstances permit an option to be one to choose, no one has any way of knowing which one they'd go for. It also actually takes away morality too, because you should always be able to just do whatever you will, regardless of consequences to others and them to you. You'd have this insanely powerful ability to pull from the void and overwrite any established sense of character via environment and genetics and only be held back by literal physical limitations. None of it makes any sense. It's hard to even convey that it doesn't make sense because the more I dive down, the more turtles I find, but not actually turtles, because they're randomly deciding to be something other than turtles.
@@vixxcelacea2778 self awareness doesn’t entail making better or worse decisions or will at all. Self awareness is the minimum of consciousness. I didn’t conflate the two and specifically chose ‘reason’ as a factor. People must use some reason to further cultivate reason, which then can be used to do things they want or need to do. They also can use reason counterintuitively to justify their behavior which is objectively bad for them. And again I see a non-physical aspect driving this as well. I’m not going to read that blob of sentences that seemingly amount to nothing actually relating to what I said.
Your brain makes a choice in seconds while you believe that you're consciously debating back and forth what decision to make. Your mind creates an illusion for you.
🤯 I love listening to intelligent people articulate the things I contemplate. How can I understand something but be unable to describe it with words, when I think in words?
The reason we talk about our decision making process is because we have a decision making process and the ability to detect when we are using it. The issue is not “humans don’t make choices”, it’s “humans don’t make choices that could’ve have been otherwise and up to me”.
Exactly. I think a big part of the reason we evolved (or rather kept this self-awareness, because evolution isn't a design or purpose driven, it's just a term to a chain of consequences we see happen that change a species and tie into survival) is because it was beneficial to us to be able to switch gears, should enough evidence present in order to do so. People think lack of free-will means sudden stagnancy or fate (which is why it's so odd to me that the same people who vouch for it actively are often also religious, in which things are literally fated by a being who propelled all existence or has some form of consciousness and purpose to existence) but it doesn't, because we're a thinking machine, we take in new information and automatically put it into a huge complex weighing of pros and cons or evaluation. We're aware of that process because that adds an extra layer of drive to want to understand even more. I think our self-awareness actually drives curiosity. Higher levels of it lead to more complex pathways and connections, including our level of empathy and understanding to interconnectedness to our environment and universe, which due to being an emotional being with hormones and chemicals that cause reactions, we interpret as a sense of belonging, wonder or otherwise connection, because it's better to our functionality to understand and accept what we have to deal with. But it's not very well developed, it's in this weird partial stage. We're aware enough to realize our own limitations and want to buck against them, because we also know that having more control and influence means we have a higher chance of survival. You could say the stage of thinking free-will has to be a thing is actually a natural progression in a species that is still evolving to a point in which it can come as close as physically possible to controlling it's own well being, which we started that journey the moment we used another organic piece of matter to help heal a wound or realized that more of us working together could actually make something that benefits ourselves and those we care about. We're not empathetic and "nice" because we decide it, but because it's extremely beneficial to be so and now we're aware of that fact.
the answer lie into conditionnement and consciouness, no free will doesn't mean fatalism, fatalism is the belief we can't change the outcome, however determinism is determination through condition, if you change the condition, then the outcome change, it like if you shoot an arrow, just change the wind or the direction you pointing at, then the outcome change, while there is no longer responsibility without free will, if you observe there is less crime when you punish a criminal then it's just foolish to change this condition, rather you should focus on other condition that make crime being commited so people stop choosing making crime
This concept is great. Take Pokemon games for example. Old games used battery pack and time date systems to generate random numbers as it was a good method and not taxing for the system. So you come up that, if you knew how mathematically--the encryption key, to the pokemon game. You could then 'Know' and find timelines that you have to change manually with the settings and leap forward and backward in time. So, someone say this is deterministic. You know if you critical strike or get the shiny pokemon or not. You don't, not if you don't have the encryption key. Are we looking for the encryption key to the universe? Then you still will need a time machine. But you'd be able to accurately predict future events.... But then make choices based on them. At the end of the day, determinism is a hard sell, and it is likely hard to sell to someone because we have so much else to fathom and it just seems like determinism is a Great Filter for the mind.
I like your analogy and think it goes well with my explanation of free will. I don't like determinism. And even your answer here is not determinism if you believe that the Universe has true randomness. Even with the encryption key you rely on the battery and at it's core the battery has randomness built in. How long will it last, what is it's exact voltage and current and for time what exact time do you use. It is the Uncertainty principal but more so it is randomness.
"If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." - that is what Sean is missing about the concept of free will Sam presents. The religious community has been in the business of assigning you blame for your mere existence. When it comes to criminals however, criminals don't need free will to e locked up. You just need to desire a safer community. And don't we all?
Ah I see, so a society in which people lock criminals up for a utilitarian, pragmatic, Machiavellian purpose is not worse than one who does it for that purpose AS WELL as the idea that those actions are immoral?
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. Maybe there is a possibility if you look at yourself in sub- atomic particle mode where the laws of physics allow you to have a choice.He is right you will get into trouble if you think of yourself as a person that has a choice and a set of atoms because you will question the existing and the purpose of everything.
*How people always find a way to blame religion for every single thing is beyond me. This guy has the guts to predict what people would and wouldn’t do based on nothing at all. These anti-religion wannabe intellectuals are soooo unbearable*
The interview was a disappointment. Carroll dodged the question of free will and Rogan let him get away with it. You cannot say, as materialists do, on the one hand that we are all just organic machines which behave deterministically and on the other hand shrug your shoulders and say in effect, well I am a "compatibilist" and we act like we have free will so let's just dismiss it as semantics. No. Either free will exists or it does not. You can either direct your thoughts and actions or you cannot. You cannot reconcile determinism with the ability to direct your thoughts along a creative path. True free will is creative. If materialism is true then our thoughts are nothing more than the juxtaposition of material particles over time. There would be no reason to believe that a material mechanism, regardless of how many particles were involved, could produce a continuous stream of creative thoughts because that would entail a precise arrangement of a vast number of particles at each instant in time over an extended period. There is no known material cause that can do that. Algorithmic decision making, as posited by emergence and the computational theory of mind, does not help. Computation is deterministic--the opposite of free will. As Carroll appears to suggest, we all behave as though we have free will. Instead of contorting your material philosophy to account for that, why not just abandon materialism and embrace free will?
I dont like how the laws of physics allow the existence of beings which have the ability to understand the laws of physics but they somehow dont know them 100%
If there is no free will, psychopathy is acquitted and is only a mental condition similar to introvert, extrovert, gay, trans etc. that we must accept, include and nourish with love so they can thrive and multiply as much as possible. So we all be one happy family.
The way I see it is that our choices are probably not free in the conventional sense, but the mechanics behind is very unlikely to be without error. It could come down to very small fluctuations in whatever those mechanisms are, so it is unlikely to be predictable, even with a huge amount of data collection. So in reality it doesn't matter.
If that's the case, it's still not the sense of personal choice. Random happenstance of mechanisms in the brain allowing for "Out of character" choices would still be an external exertion of force on the internal mechanisms and sense of self. It also goes against laws of physics. True randomness doesn't seem to be possible, even on a quantum scale. If you had every single piece of data about an individual, from all hormonal fluctuations, epigenetics, environment etc. etc., you'd know exactly what they will do and say from that point onwards. The issue is, no AI or super computer could ever hold all the data in the universe to make that calculation, because if fundamentally would lack the data of it's own influence towards that calculation. That said, humans are actually pretty predictable anyway. We're social, we're concerned with survival and our environment and genetics play apart in how we turn out. People are rarely that unique. Most of our differences come down to the fact that, every atom that makes up you is never the same configuration twice, you live in the ONLY time and space that you occupy, because it's not possible for there to be the same time and space occupied by what makes you you.
Richard Dawkins coined the term middle world when explaining this. We are evolved to be social creatures. Our ancestors survived by being able to recognise medium-sized things doing medium scale things like running. So as a species even though we are just a collection of cells we are intrinsically wired to treat everything in a deterministic sense because that's how it helps us survive. This is why when we go big or go small we can't really use the same vocabulary because different scales mean different things. On the small scale we are just a collection of particles on the large scale we are just part of universe expanding into a heat death. Neither of those are useful for us to manage in our daily lives so we have this construct of what we call free will.
Bryan 8108 true. But at the end of the day we’re dominos getting pushed by the last domino, an equation moving forward in time. It’s crazy to think but we’re basically just the subjective part of the universe that’s basically observing the chain reactions with 0 ability to make any change, but our brains gives us the illusion that we are in control. When we’re really like those (non playable characters) in video games. If the Big Bang was replicated to the dot. The exact same thing that’s happened will happen again. Not something most can accept. Ironically enough there was something liberating about completely believing this. Not that I didn’t before but I guess I just focused more on the subject and is now like at the forefront of my believes.
Yeah, that's pretty much the main issue with compatibilism. Yeah, every action we will ever do is entirely determined, but that doesn't matter at all, we're still free! Actually, it does matter. That's the whole point. The way people talk about human interaction is irrelevant to free will. No one denies that people tacitly assume free will in the way we talk about each other. That is obvious. Again, that is irrelevant to whether we have free will or not.
I don't think there is free will. I think there is subjective free choices. We do blame people with the chance of causing harm, that's why we have DUI. We do convict people who haven't carried out crimes yet for crimes they are planning to carry out.
So can you lock someone up for a prediction that they will commit murder? Given zero evidence of it? Even if so should there be consequences if a crime were “supposed” to happen? Let’s say I commit murder. Why would I go to jail if it was already predetermined? There would be no right or wrong because I don’t have a choice to choose right or wrong. So why even have good and evil if the choice wasn’t mine to begin with?
In your "subjective free choices" you are still inclined to choose one of those choice based on some thought/ belief/ desire that you have no say over.
@@XIL313 You still kill a wild animal that is trying to kill you. Now, that animal is not to blame and there's no reason in feeling hate towards it, but if it will do us harm, we will still remove it from society. Same goes for us. If we could predict if you would do a murder, then we wouldn't lock you up, but we would try to prevent you from doing it, with therapy for example. Something being predetermined doesn't mean you can't be a part in changing the course of it. Changing the course or not was always part of that predetermined future as well.
The free will is internal, not external. Every possible decision and outcome has already happened in some version of the past present and future. It's our soul's experience in these decisions that is ours by will
In nature there is no difference between internal and external. Just because your subjectivity only has a certain range doesn't mean there is any real difference between you and nature.
It does matter in that you shouldn’t punish people based on whst they ”deserve”, you should punish them baded on what will objectively cause the best outcome in the future. This is why the notion that there is no free will matters to the legal system.
@@sguraya7223, in the grand scheme of things, no, but it's important to create some kind of general moral "guidelines" (though morality in itself seems to be subjective) in order to ensure the best outcome, which to me is the least possible suffering.
@@rasmuslassen2986 "Morality is subjective". Perhaps, but subjective is more concrete, and more real than objective. Or at least more meaningful. And just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's arbitrary, baseless, or even relative. It's constrained by all kinds of things. And you can't use "the best possible thing is the least possible suffering" as the basis for a moral framework because that claim requires a moral framework to justify why less suffering is good in the first place. To even call it 'good' is a moral claim. And killing everyone in the world, painlessly would minimize suffering to 0. Is that moral? Or how about we just cut out the parts of our brains that experience suffering so that all we ever are is happy?
@@JasonWilliams89 And then you'd be a weak, immoral person because you're unable to tell when you're being a piece of shit because you have no guilt. You'll never know when you're fucking up and making mistakes, and you'll be a burden on the rest of existence. Frankly, I don't think you have the right to subject people to the idiocy you'd manifest if you never suffered for it. And I don't mean that to insult you, you could be as smart as Einstein, but if you don't have the part of your brain that tells you when you're making a mistake, even the smartest guy would be retarded. There's no growth, no real happiness, unless you understand what the alternative is.
Carrol's argument that it's a bad way to communicate thoughts and feelings doesn't disprove anything though. You can simultaneously believe the ramifications of no free will are negative, and still believe we have no free will.
So many of his points are just "Doesn't seem cool or useful to me" without any real reason behind WHY, while completely ignoring all the benefits of realizing there's no free will.
"Because I think its boring" is not a sufficient reason to have a false illusion which taints all of our understanding of ourselves and others and especially produces a flawed legal system and needless sense of vengeance and hate.
Good to know some science guys have a good sense and don’t extrapolate what is known over what is not known. Some scientists and philosophers talk about this subject with certainties of a religious guru.
@@sguraya7223 there is no "you" who chooses "your" thoughts, thoughts fully control life, you dont control your life aka you don't exist...you're only aware of your "avatar"/human(in this case "Ked") but since you dont have control over it it's basically not you
@@Nothing-lr3dt Ked isn't a real name lol (or at least not mine). Then what is "me"? Or, is there no "me". And why would you describe a "me" in a sense that doesn't exist. How would you refer to other people as, "you" beings, if they're not? Do you treat all those around you as meat-sack deterministic machines who have no agency? And btw, all you've done is make the claim that our thoughts are not in our control. Where is the evidence for this? Thoughts do not come from the conscious mind, they come from the unconscious, that I will concede, but how do you know that wherever thoughts originate isn't in your unconscious control? Or that at any point, whether in the unconscious, or the conscious, our thoughts are not in our control to some degree? Because to assert this, you would have to know where thoughts come from (nobody does), and everywhere they go in the brain and what happens to them there, and you would have to know that there is no control (nobody does), conscious or unconscious, on them at any stage in their existence (nobody knows this). But you don't, nobody does. The idea that the universe is a deterministic machine with no outside influence is a massive assumption, and the idea that our minds have no control/no outside influence that may give us free will or free choice is another massive assumption. Which is why I'm agnostic, and why your claim is unjustified for now.
I think we should just get rid of the of the term free will. I do believe that all choices are determined and it’s literally a probability game. If I were to make a choice about what to eat tonight it might be 20% cheeseburger 35% salad 15% spaghetti and 30% sushi based on a ton of different variables. But then a thought could pop into your head that you’re trying to loose weight, so the salad percentage goes up. Or you might see a wendys commercial and it might make you want a burger instead. But you still have to voluntarily choose. You cant chose to eat a cheeseburger without choosing To eat a cheeseburger. Like you didn’t author the thought of ultimately choosing a cheeseburger, that’s what was determined by the present moment but you still have to get up and get one. I believe we just have to power of voluntary action. We might not be able to choose the context of the choice but we aren’t involuntary unconscious robots. And I don’t think the future is set. I think it’s literally up to us to do whatever it is we’re going to do. But our choices will always be determined by the present moment.
I think still that probability is an illusion cause if we really can pin point everything to 100% accuracy lets say there is machine that can do such will still predict what will you eat 100 percent yet we only can rely on probability cause of our limited processing capability
Yes it is up to us but we are not in control of our will it’s is merely an illusion your example doesn’t make sense where is the free will in choosing cheeseburger over the other ones the point is the decision you make is not actually yours it’s your beings your brain that you didn’t choose to work the way it does if you are trying to lose weight and choose salad it is not to your credit that you made that good decision it is credited to just the nature of what we are it is credited to the genes you were born with or weren’t born with and it’s credited to the experiences and events that you had or didn’t have some other people would choose cheeseburger most of the time because they weren’t taught discipline or were born into a family that always ate cheeseburger and salad was never an option and maybe they weren’t born with the characteristics or intelligence to decide to cheeseburgers are good for me I’m going to eat salad the point is your choices are always gonna seem like yours it’s an illusion that doesn’t go away and your choices are predetermined by every past moment and the way you were born you didn’t choose how you were born or how you learned or what you learned or how you comprehend we just are what we are no one is better than anyone else we are all the same some us just got more lucky and some us got more unlucky
If you dont get up and get a cheeseburger, you havent done so. Thereby you havent eaten it, just thought that you would like to eat it. But when you wrote spaghetti, salad, sushi, cheeseburger, did you choose to think those before you wrote it, or did they pop into your head and then you reacted to it? If I write Elephant, can you choose to not think of an Elephant? Or did you think of the fact that i wrote it with a capital E? You do now. If I ask you to think of any Hollywood actor, do you make a conscious decision to which actors pops up in your mind? And if you choose one of those to think of, how did you make that choice? Was it because you saw a movie with the actor recently, or maybe you read about the actor in a magazine? What if you did not watch that movie or read that magazine, would your choice of actor have been different, or maybe you would not even have thought of that actor? Does it sound like you have free will, or does it sound like your mind works on cause and effect? Logic do not lie, but people do.
Yeah I agree with all that. It’s scary to me we don’t author our thoughts. I was more so talking about voluntary control. Like you’re not just watching your life like a movie you have to get up and actually make choices. Like you can choose to do what you want but you can’t choose what you choose. You are who you are in a sense. But that doesn’t mean you’re an involuntary automaton with consciousness
1:22 Sean! As a man of science I typically respect I can confidently say you are in error here. When drawing conclusions about what's TRUE, the "fruitful" thing to do plays NO role. We say that the reality is that there is no choosing anything you do, since all your atoms strictly follow physics. You then go on to say the TERM "free will" only references the useful, conceptual way to think about people's actions. Some use it that way, but the majority of people who say they have free will think that if you rewinded the universe to some specific moment, they, as an agent, could have overcome physics and chosen otherwise. You claim to hate semantic games but then play them here, confusing a 'useful term' and a mental framework for causation!
Carroll makes a great point here. Personally I think of it in these terms: the world of atoms, physical laws, and determinism is ULTIMATE TRUTH..its what is fundamentally going on BUT it is also too complex for us to grasp and apply in our everyday lives. That's where PRACTICAL TRUTH comes in, which is the world of self, agency, and the story-telling we do because that is the kind of description that simply lets us get the most done, even though it is at bottom inaccurate.
@@MikeBassil Quantum physics alone has disproven determinism. It doesn't prove free will but it does poke a hole in the argument that these people often use which is: "The universe is purely deterministic, therefore free will cannot exist".
The reason you can ask that question proves yes. When you get to hell and you can no longer move the way you wish or even speak, don’t let it be, the point you understand that free will exists. Cause there you can’t.
if you are aware and prepared you can defeat the tri fecta of victimization....exclude one component and the action doesn't happen. robber===victim===opportunity. an armed population is less likely to be a victim, when robbers are being held accountable for their actions they stop and when people pay attention they can address problems much more efficiently.
I don't know why people still debating this topic. You have an essay by Schopenhauer from 1839 called "On the freedom of the will", and it's a masterpiece imho.
I think of it this way: consciousness is a structure of our chemistry, our history, and our training. Much like how they say fights are won outside the ring; in the moment we are likely slaves to our current state of being. However, outside the moment, as outside the ring; we have control over the many constituent parts that lead to that decision and can learn and adjust those circumstances to ensure a better outcome or recurrence of outcome next time.
That’s true, but I think it also just moves the problem - whatever control we have over the mentioned constituent parts is then determined be other constituent parts and so on ad infinitum
You're way too confident about making claims about consciousness. Our best philosophers and psychologists know jack shit about consciousness, neither do we.
Whats really interesting as well is that when you also take Quantum Physics into the equation then everything really gets fucked up, cause those are acutally what atoms are made of and they are not predicatable. This is so interesting but so fucked up and my take on it is: Just be happy and live an awesome life haha!
Yes! Absolutely! Nobody knows what Quantum Mechanics had in store for us (to learn and know more). No one is paying attention to this particular issue. With a better and deeper understanding of Quantum Mechanics, we will have a much different take on the whole "free will" issue. For now, i think it's just the illusion and that determinism is true.
I think the best thing is to take the best from both worlds, so take what the "no free will' viewpoint has, so no need for hate or guilt, but also take good stuff from the "free will" viewpoint, like pride, creativity, belonging (even if they are irrational in an absolute sense). As humans we can't fully escape the illusion, but we shouldn't want to either.
When people like Sam say there is no free will, what I think they are actually saying is, there is no free will that is SEPARATE FROM THE UNIVERSE... which is essentially the same as saying "All is One".
Since no one claims to know exactly how the brain works, how can we arrogantly claim that it is entirely deterministic? Noam Chomsky is one of the honest voices, simply saying we don’t know.
Free will exists only in situations we have total control over. If I have no car to arrive at some place 30 miles away from me in 20 minutes, my will to arrive at that place is futile. Will without power or ability to execute is mere fantasy.
It’s weird to think that our subconscious is like the Player and our perceivable consciousness is like the prices in a game of chess. And if you think about it The algorithm is like the Subconscious Of youtube with the content being the Consciousness Of youtube. It’s the entity behind the wheel of all social media. The recommendation bar and the instinct to watch one more video is like a chess game between the Algorithm and your subconscious.
Everyone thinks their beliefs are correct, otherwise they wouldn’t hold those beliefs; but beliefs are the brains way of simplifying existence; they may or may not be true; they are only your opinions; you have reasons for your beliefs, but the reasons may not be sound; they may just make you feel good or safe or happy, depending on how well you can rationalize them in your mind; ego defense is all important to self esteem.😂
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn every decision we make is a result of the states of all the particles in our body and surroundings. And those positions and properties of particles are determined by what has already happened in the past. Every decision is a dominopiece in an enormous domino reaction
If the state of the Universe (which includes one's mind) at a specific point in time uniquely determines the state of the Universe at a later point in time, and this process is the same for preceding and succeeding points in time, one has no way of escaping one's fate. If, on the other hand, the state of the Universe at a specific point in time can lead to two (or more) alternative states of the Universe at a later point in time, then there is a possibility one could escape one's fate. But it would not give one any control. It would be a random process. It would be the same state of the Universe that preceded all the possible alternative states of the Universe at the next point in time. This leaves no room for control. What one deserves does not depend on things beyond one's control. The lack of control means that no one deserves credit or blame for anything. In the first paragraph I am referring to determinism. Determinism implies that for a given situation there is only one possible outcome. This is not compatible with free will. In the second paragraph, I claim that an indeterministic event offers no way of controlling the outcome (or rather the part of the outcome which is due to indeterminism). Assume that at a given time t0, two outcomes are possible, outcome A1 and outcome B1. The state of one's mind at t0 can not decide which one of A1 and B1 that will be realized since this would violate the assumption that both A1 and B1 are possible outcomes. The mind is not controlling the outcome in this case. Quantum mechanics is generally assumed to not be strictly deterministic. It is well known, however, that Einstein objected to this.
And then when you say there could be more options that could also lead to realitys splitting up, fullfilling every possible outcome and therefore creating a Multiverse, which would again mean in everyone of these Universes there still would be a Fate one cannot escape.
Sean makes good points, but the absolute reality of the atoms and quantum mechanics should override the reality we live in of buying things off eBay. So we shouldn't have free will. We have an "as if free will" where we experience things as if we had free will (upto a point anyway - we can't instantly decide to feel happy for example). But an "as if free will" is not free will. I think the best thing one can do is live like they have free will, but understand there is no free will so negative things like guilt and anger can be reduced
It's very interesting to see this discussion about the ontological nature of free will - whether it exists or not - be shifted towards one of pragmatism... is it 'useful' or 'not useful' (which is essentially a separate argument/discussion). Super interesting stuff
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Well we can alter them, but how they are altered is not really our choice, even if it seems it is, so its the same situation again, just on a second level, if that makes any sense.
I think "Free Will" is an invention. If you can pull neurons out of a mouse and put it into a robot and the robot moves accordingly, how many would you say qualifies as free will and how many qualifies as determinism?
Everything is vibration , So as freewill.. If everyone has one, it cancels out every single freewill we have. vibration cancels the same frequency of vibration.
Wants are determined by your present environment and how you experience that environment, neither of which are up to you (e.g. room is hot, you experience thirst, you want water).
Um, what? The language I grew up using is built on the assumption of free will so free will exists? We don't have the language tools to describe how people behave without speaking as if "free will existing is the default", but just like every other field of science, we create new language to deal with new concepts. Yeesh, what a terrible argument.
Free will exists but the illusion of making a decision right now is just that, an illusion. The choice was made eons ago and surrendering to the will of the universe and having tensionless discussions is what makes life harmonic with your individual soul as we spiral through foundation into netzack or hod depending on their individual descion with their free will
That sounds like fatalism, which may be true, but if there is real randomness say at the scale of electrons, then by winding the clock back different events could play out a second time. So this "could have done otherwise" idea does have that complication to consider, so I don't like to use that definition of free will.
These two concepts, free will and determinism are not compatible. Compatibilism is still a cope and easily debunked, although I really don't know what its trying to cope from.
many are compulsively acting or rather re-acting the way they know how...for many it is anger, sadness, fear, etc...for others who are consciously acting through this body/persona the conscious response to stimulus is rooted in wisdom, happiness, love, unity, etc. Compulsion is body/mind based, Consciousness is soul based.
"Everything is predictable", but that's from an omniscient perspective, which doesn't exist and is only a concept, free will could be considered as like this, only an omniscient being can predict my actions and the how everything is going to be and everything below that has a percentage of uncertainty when trying predictable and understand
That's not the point. There doesn't need to be an omniscient being predicting your actions. It's the fact that if there was one, it could predict all your actions, therefore you have no free will.
1 minute in and we have a classic pre-quantum 'understanding' of physics, a materialistic simplistic view. Quantum uncertainty within the two forces of emergence and entropy guarantees freewill, if nothing can be known for certain both position and velocity at the same time we have a non-linear universe. Everything is in a constant flux of being made new and broken down, freewill is an emergent property that arises.
@@jeringeorge6394 You're right. We can't control the outcomes of quantum randomness so trying to find free will there is a hopeless endeavor. And QM might very well be fundamentally deterministic such as in hidden variabel or many-worlds interpretations.
@@jeringeorge6394 no, control ascertains power more than free will. Randomness allows chance and unrestriction for the free will question, and while we're not sure where that extent may lie, it definitely gives free more odds than determinism.
To not be aware or acknowledge that humans have free will choice in this 3D 5 sense space time continuum, is to abdicate personal responsibility and to justify being an immoral bag of shit child who wants to have a psuedo scientific blame game for their erroneous notions and behaviours in this incarnation. Ridiculous. These scientific explanations get so technical, only to circle jerk themselves back to the ever comfortable "well, we really don't know" explanation. Nonsense
No. They are different questions entirely. That's the point. When you look at someone you admire in there personality you're not asking yourself the question of what reality is.
Joe asked, can we intervene at the point where determinism is a problem? And yeah the answer is yes, we do this all the time perceptually, but it’s still deterministic: this is not moral luck. Moral luck are the circumstances that make “immoral” actions consequential or not. What joe was referring to was education.
Whenever I see a video about free will, I have no choice but to watch it
i see what you did there…
LOL
@@hellcyclesilentgrant well... I guess we can't blame you
🤯
"Man may do what he wills, but he may not will what he wills." Schopenhauer
holyworrier Yeah, I quite like a lot of what he said on free will, the first compatiblist, if I remember correctly. I’m actually a compatiblist, but it was mostly Dan Dennett who converted me from Sam Harris’s hard compatiblism. Really, I see compatiblism far more as a soft determinism, than having free will; there’s certainly no libertarian free will, that’s just silly. ✌🏼
Schopenhauer was a badass
brian' Oh, yes, I’d say Nietzsche was most definitely influenced by Schopenhauer, and, in a certain way, by Hegel (though he was a bit anti-Hegelian in many ways, it was impossible to be a 19th century German, let alone European, philosopher, and not be influenced in Hegel in some way). Basically, if you’re reading 19th century western philosophy of free will, your chances are extremely likely that it’s German philosophy (that’s kind of the case with most good 19th century western philosophy, in general).
Yeah,I hope I wasn’t confusing or misleading with the “libertarian” free will comment, I don’t mean to imply anything about those politics (though the implications of free will are highly political). I’m a left-libertarian, but libertarian free will in a philosophical sense is, well, pretty much what you described, as if we have absolute control, and that is really very separate from the libertarian politics. Libertarian free will arguments go back all the way to the Classical Greek period, so basically the birth of western philosophy, but libertarian politics, like compatibilism, didn’t emerge till the 19th century (though, I should add that libertarian politics emergence really depends on if one is talking about left wing or more right wing.. left-libertarianism is 19th century and right-libertarianism is 20th century.. but anyway, that’s a totally unrelated tangent, and I’m not rambling haha.. sorry) 😁✌🏼
tripp Word haha ✌🏼
Woah, mind exploded
Joe “bald by choice” Rogan
Realizing that you don't have free will automatically gets rid of two things which are hate and blame. You can no longer hate or blame yourself for your actions or others for their actions. Once you realize this, it really doesn't make sense to say that it's "boring".
"Your honor, I feel no guilt whatsoever for murdering all those 5th graders, because you see you and I don't have free will, so It's not really my fault they were killed by me."
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodsa9058 😄😄
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodsa9058 Sure it’ll never go down in court, but if free will doesn’t exist, if that person was a slave to their own trauma and mental conditioning, then yeah, it’s not their fault.
@@Vingeskudt Meh people will always do bad things and make mistakes. No matter what “realization” anyone may have. It’s impossible to be flawless so when flaws do come out by the people in power they are obviously devastating.
What about I want to get what I want? Shall I accept fertility and surrender? Live in unhappiness? Anyway.. im happy to have desire that still going no matter what. I guess that's my interface
It's interesting how doing the same routine every day for years makes it feel like one has less free will. Some days I'll just randomly do something erratic like drive to a different state, eat at a random restaurant, visit a store I would normally never be interested in or walk in undisturbed nature in an attempt to assert my freewill. This is more mental than anything, but I think change promotes thinking and pondering about life's meaning.
But is that really free will or just a bunch of factors reaching a break point which cause you to do something different than you normally do.
@@marcusplenty1153 it's free will don't be so ignorant
@@jimskeuh I mean you havent exactly proven it is free will. Whats more likely is that a bunch of factors ,some detectable and measurable, and others not, caused him to make the decision to do the thing he thought was random.
It wasnt really random at all. As its very hard to do something truly random. It was just non routine. And the OP feels that its random because he cant measure and the detect all of the factors, internal and external, that caused him to make what to him felt like a spur of the moment decision.
The feeling of free will is more likely to be the result of humans limited perception and prediction capabilities when it comes to observing cause and effect. Rather than be something which breaks those principles.
@@marcusplenty1153 I still feel like we have a say in what we do. Certain behaviors are automated and instinctive but I can't wrap my head around the fact all things are determined from the start or that we just act on a cause effect basis.
@@jimskeuh there are other videos that explain this concept in more depth and far better than I can
czcams.com/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/video.html
We dont even know how dreams work, imagine now unpacking the unfathomable idea of existence.
The Forgotten Place Dunno where you want to go with this, but I like that you bring up dreams
robert reed I'm speaking about the complexity of dreams, we now know that every character in your dreams are people you've seen in real life, yet we dont know why it would matter and for what reason. They say background noise but why does a TV screen produce static and mine makes me into the last survivor of a zombie apocalypse? If no one can certainly tell me how something limited to my own head happens, then how can they explain away how I'm living in another dream like state? Maybe real life is this boring ass dream and dreams are actual realities because theres no real discernable difference from your POV
The Forgotten Place The simple explanation would probably be that you watch too many Zombie apocalypse shows ha. On a more serious note I think dreams allow us to work through feelings, as such, as we experience them in wakefulness, to allow us to be more present upon waking. I am uncomfortable with determinism, and I felt like dreams may debunk it’s logic, maybe by demonstrating that we perceive people in our realities when it’s really all just atoms.
robert reed well if an outside influence is where dreams come from then it would mean that it does support determinism. But if were getting to the nitty gritty, I believe that actual reality is just a conglomerate of superimposing fractals. Just base reality itself will show that, but I'll take it a next level by proving life after death- there is no end to anything, just infinity and as such so is consciousness. Just as nothing can be destroyed nor can consciousness. It would just keep going and going. Dreams as a less detailed version of reality, and if it was possible to dream in dreams a less detailed version etc etc
The Forgotten Place My eyes start to glaze over when I hear this physics terminology in reference to a discourse that I see as philosophical. On that note I’m not sure about your statement that all things are infinite and without end, because of our knowledge of antimatter and that to my knowledge, while matter and antimatter bring about the end to both, there is no opposite phenomenon of energy to matter (or antimatter) in exclusion of the Big Bang. I guess I am starting to see this topic as a king of Heisenberg Uncertainty-type situation where there is an interplay between an observer and an observed phenomenon or phenomena; pure determinism perhaps in conflict with the experience that other people can alter our objective reality
Joe "mmmm mmm" Rogan
Brian Gabriel Aye, you're a Cornette guy.
Literally everything in the universe is a giant ”shit happens“ moment
Ya if your a bitch that’s afraid to take any responsibility
From our dualistic perspective it appears we have free will. That is part of our human condition.
Yes, the default dualistic consciousness and the assumption that it is the human condition. Non duality requires a hefty investment of suffering before arriving to truth, it all comes down to whether one has the disposition to face the initial horror stage or the disposition to live a deluded life
Technically It actually doesnt come down to anything, it just is.
The illusion is natural, that why we're not all born "enlightened" but have to acquire it.
If we could control what thoughts we have, then we would have true free will. But we are at the mercy of our minds to give us our thoughts. We can’t control that.
Interesting.
But to some extent I can control what I want to think about but it is exhausting.
I can't even begin to think of what kind of mechanism in the brain, chemical, hormonal or connection that could allow for true randomness. I think if free-will existed, we'd actually break the universe or we'd have entirely different laws, because if actual chaos exists, then our laws wouldn't work. Gravity could just shut off due to random particle x interfering with other particles and quite literally came from the void.
Creating something out of nothing isn't something we can conceive of, anymore than we can conceive the idea of actually being dead or the concept of nothingness. We can't actually grasp any of that, but are intelligent enough to understand the surface abstract concept with out ever actually being able to really get it.
That which you resist persists. This is where not trying comes in, To follow Yoda. Or if you’re Christian, salvation lies in Jesus (he said deny yourself, you don’t have to think all the time). Or if you prefer, Buddhism, which is much easier to understand. You can’t stop thinking, but you can engage in presence and the thinking will stop automatically
@@joethompson481it's not true.. you dont control when you want to control what you think about.. that's also a thought that appears in your mind.. all of life just appears, along with the illusion of making a choice.
@@zulubeatsprince Yep.
Joe needs to have Robert Sapolsky on the podcast.
Joe "Yeaah.... hm...." Rogan
joe "joe rogan" rogan
BMXFU joe "joe "joe rogan" rogan" rogan
Joe “Joe ‘Joe *Joe Rogan* Rogan’ Rogan” Rogan.
BMXFU thank you that shit is getting lame
Joe "interface" Rogan
BMXFU lol nice one!
This dude is the most positive Nihilist i've ever seen
Thought it said "Does Free Willy exist?" I'm high af.
Joe "there's a thing inside of you" Rogan
Felix Kuhlin and it's about 9 inches long.
Duh Joe, it's called a soul.
I love how Sean says he agrees completely with Sam, just not on the wording, and then Joe tries to agree with Sean and disagree with Sam by slipping in something magical that both Sean and Sam disagree with.
Yeap. That's exactly how this rolled. Joe got confused this section definitely.
Yup, you nailed it. I feel like Joe is ironically demonstrating Sam’s point to Sean in real time about why he should just be like: “Yeah, we don’t have free will.”
The type of free will that most people (ike Joe) think they have simply doesn’t exist.
Haha yes. Sean Carroll is saying that free will doesn't exist but it's a useless thing to talk about because either way, we are gonna live our lives as if free will exists. Joe on the other hand still believes that there is free will lol.
Joe "repeats previous guests opinion" Rogan
the genderless underrated
Unless the last guest was Candice Owens
the genderless that's how all of us form our own opinions and learn, right...from listening to others
WRONG !!!
Isn't that how people speak?
Man I'm never doing a single spycchedelic ever again xD
The problem is that, like so much in language today, "free will" is a term ignorantly used. It was clear to Voltaire, Godwin and Shelley what "free will" implied.
How many proponents of free will today would still stand by it with this classic definition:
Free will affirms that one's will is free of motive, free from antecedents, free from the influences of one's past and present; that it is its own first cause and is not caused by anything. Consequently, were one's will not produced, but free, then one would only have feelings and thoughts one wanted to have. One would will to will, want to want.
First I’d like to say Joe you are like one of two people I’d love to meet someday. Now onto free will, I believe yes we do make decisions, but no we don’t have free will. I believe we choose our actions but, by nature of choosing an action it is always in response to something, so our actions are really responses, I believe our lives are dictated more by the events we respond to than the decisions we make. I guess it’s a very hard concept to explain exactly, I’ve just never had anyone explain freewill the way I think about it. I feel we have more of an illusion of free will, example, I believe the illusion of freewill is answering the question, where true free will would be having the ability to change the question.
Sorry I meant to say, the illusion of free will is a kin to getting to choose your answer to a question, where as true free will would be like being able to answer any question not just the one being asked at that time.
Not true. So the reason you love someone is because you have to by nature? What about dead beat dads vs good dads? Is there free will there? What about the arguement that our species is moral and takes care of their children because of instincts? Illogical
dawg but the free will comes into play by making decisions not based on the events around us, and doing what we want regardless of everything else. no one does it because no one has the balls to unlock their true free willl
@@ToyotaNutjob What exactly is illogical about that? Also, love? Do you think you choose to love someone?
@@necipfazlay4059 Are you so weak willed that You can't?
He said it's not a fruitful way of going about your life, I agree it's not (to some extent), but that's irrelevant to the claim that we have free will or not.
And I said to some extent, because knowing you have no free will is fruitful in many ways as it can improve your life once you understand it.
The truth is usually a good thing to know, rather than a lie.
I agree it is a useful thing to know. It makes it much easier to forgive.
@@Dogbertforpresident And if you do something dumb you needn't fret about it, you had no choice in that moment.
There are negatives too, like it makes no sense to feel proud of achievements if one has no choice, but we can't turn off every emotion, it still good for us to feel pride.
We are still human so it's wise to still act human I reckon instead of feeling like a robot executing commands.
Just gotta get a good balance I think.
@@colinjava8447 I think if something good happens or your life drastically improves, you could feel a sense of pride if you know deep down you wanted better circumstances all along, but the overall feeling would be gratitude instead of pride.
@@colinjava8447 you do have free will to make choices that are comfortable or uncomfortable for you or others....natural law of cause and effect for uncomfortable choices/action might promote regret or trauma. If someone does harm and is truly in repentance for that, meaning they are truly sorry and would never do that again, you're forgiven by the omnipotent force of creation that gave us each free will so that we can learn and grow to create a sense of oneness and divine way of interacting with each other here on classroom Earth, inability of forgiving your self to feel acceptance is what many people suffer from. The truth is that we are each pretty insignificant and thinking that an omnipotent force of creation is going to haunt you for eternity for using the gift of free will is just nuts.
@@FREE_WILL_AAHhhhhhhhhhhhh Makes little sense, you make "choices" based on the configuration of your brain which is a physical system obeying physical laws.
Are you saying one can override physical laws?
this guest sounds like Alan Alda
atarileaf hahaha omg I’m a big fan of both of them, and I’ve never noticed this! So true! 😂
Lmaooooooooo
atarileaf hahahahaha
thank you!!
I like that shirt. Reminds me of some camo you'd find on Snake Eater.
Joe “I’m satisfied that you understand me” Rogan
Understanding free will in this way should be considered because it can inform your behavior. Same thing with psychology and any other science. For a guy who talks about atoms, I find it funny that he's willing to ignore philosophy. You can build a computer with science but with philosophy you rebuild ur self and change. Instead of just saying it's too complicated, maybe we should put a bit more effort into it.
Well I don’t think anyone who believes in free will such as myself say things of your environment don’t effect you, just that a conscious decision can override desires from reasoning that isn’t purely physical. I suppose I get this from my personal experience and from reading about people who had their brain stimulated to move their body, and they were aware that it was being done to them, if the mind and brain is one I don’t think they could differentiate.
@@cadestekly6410 I think you might be conflating self-awareness with active control. You can be stimulated to do things you don't choose. It's why advertising is a billion dollar industry. You're also stimulated to engage in conversation at all, because you're a social species and a conversation about agency is a huge thing because it ties into survival. If you have control or feel you have control, thousands of years of evolution taught you that was beneficial to survive. To understand and know how things work and why allowed you to adapt to them. Control is a huge thing for us.
Let me ask you this, have you ever done a decision in which you knew wasn't the best one? Say eating unhealthy, even though you know actively that you shouldn't, but you rationalize it because, well, you've been good lately, you worked out, you had a tough day, or whatever. If you have free-will, why rationalize it? Why defend it? Wouldn't it just be in your right and ability to just do because of want? And if that was the case, then you actively choosing a more negative decision, even if small and temporary, then you're chaotic, or effectively evil. If Free will exists, than all we are is the choices we make, no matter how big or small. It also means that everyone who ever makes a negative decision, even if it to them only seems to affect their well being, is not a good person. They're choosing to be bad. Why? Why would you ever choose to hurt yourself or others, even in any small way? There is no security in assuming that everyone in the world does things because they decided they wanted to, good or bad, because one could choose to do something really nice and really terrible at any point.
Beyond that though, you'd need to explain the point of origin in which that drive even comes about. Why do you choose the donut over the salad? Why do you chose to put more effort into getting a special gift for someone just to be nice? If it's free-will, the answer is because, which weirdly enough actually takes away any form of answering why. People would just be pure chaos, because even if it's veto effect and not ultimate free-will, you could still just decide to go with the less good option or the best one at any point, with no stability or pattern. I don't even think people would have a sense of self if they had free-will in the way people seem to think. Because provided all other circumstances permit an option to be one to choose, no one has any way of knowing which one they'd go for. It also actually takes away morality too, because you should always be able to just do whatever you will, regardless of consequences to others and them to you. You'd have this insanely powerful ability to pull from the void and overwrite any established sense of character via environment and genetics and only be held back by literal physical limitations. None of it makes any sense. It's hard to even convey that it doesn't make sense because the more I dive down, the more turtles I find, but not actually turtles, because they're randomly deciding to be something other than turtles.
@@vixxcelacea2778 self awareness doesn’t entail making better or worse decisions or will at all.
Self awareness is the minimum of consciousness. I didn’t conflate the two and specifically chose ‘reason’ as a factor.
People must use some reason to further cultivate reason, which then can be used to do things they want or need to do.
They also can use reason counterintuitively to justify their behavior which is objectively bad for them. And again I see a non-physical aspect driving this as well.
I’m not going to read that blob of sentences that seemingly amount to nothing actually relating to what I said.
Your brain makes a choice in seconds while you believe that you're consciously debating back and forth what decision to make. Your mind creates an illusion for you.
Are you saying all our decisions are made in seconds?
Prove it
Nonesense
@@Mr_A1-37 okay. Do you believe that you control your thoughts?
If this is Libets experiment that you’re referencing, I think it would help to know that it was heavily flawed and proven to be a badly conducted test
Joe "I think that makes a lot of sense" Rogan
It’s like Wave Theory and Particle theory
Good analogy
@@mattcorregan4760 thank you
@@dragonofthewest8305 You're welcome 🙂
Joe " INSERT MEME HERE" Rogan
🤯 I love listening to intelligent people articulate the things I contemplate. How can I understand something but be unable to describe it with words, when I think in words?
The reason we talk about our decision making process is because we have a decision making process and the ability to detect when we are using it.
The issue is not “humans don’t make choices”, it’s “humans don’t make choices that could’ve have been otherwise and up to me”.
In short a cope for the weak
Exactly. I think a big part of the reason we evolved (or rather kept this self-awareness, because evolution isn't a design or purpose driven, it's just a term to a chain of consequences we see happen that change a species and tie into survival) is because it was beneficial to us to be able to switch gears, should enough evidence present in order to do so. People think lack of free-will means sudden stagnancy or fate (which is why it's so odd to me that the same people who vouch for it actively are often also religious, in which things are literally fated by a being who propelled all existence or has some form of consciousness and purpose to existence) but it doesn't, because we're a thinking machine, we take in new information and automatically put it into a huge complex weighing of pros and cons or evaluation. We're aware of that process because that adds an extra layer of drive to want to understand even more.
I think our self-awareness actually drives curiosity. Higher levels of it lead to more complex pathways and connections, including our level of empathy and understanding to interconnectedness to our environment and universe, which due to being an emotional being with hormones and chemicals that cause reactions, we interpret as a sense of belonging, wonder or otherwise connection, because it's better to our functionality to understand and accept what we have to deal with. But it's not very well developed, it's in this weird partial stage. We're aware enough to realize our own limitations and want to buck against them, because we also know that having more control and influence means we have a higher chance of survival. You could say the stage of thinking free-will has to be a thing is actually a natural progression in a species that is still evolving to a point in which it can come as close as physically possible to controlling it's own well being, which we started that journey the moment we used another organic piece of matter to help heal a wound or realized that more of us working together could actually make something that benefits ourselves and those we care about.
We're not empathetic and "nice" because we decide it, but because it's extremely beneficial to be so and now we're aware of that fact.
Joe “does free will exist” Rogan
Joe "Wheres my Rogaine" Rogan
This always reminds me of "O'Malley's Bar," by Nick Cave. "If I have no free will then how can I be morally culpable, I wonder?"
the answer lie into conditionnement and consciouness, no free will doesn't mean fatalism, fatalism is the belief we can't change the outcome, however determinism is determination through condition, if you change the condition, then the outcome change, it like if you shoot an arrow, just change the wind or the direction you pointing at, then the outcome change, while there is no longer responsibility without free will, if you observe there is less crime when you punish a criminal then it's just foolish to change this condition, rather you should focus on other condition that make crime being commited so people stop choosing making crime
Joe "I do the dmt so that makes me a philosopher" Rogan.
If you think that, why do you listen?
De Ce its a joke jerk, just relax.
mobley Mobley what an unfunny joke, friend.
De Ce na dude its pretty funny
Oh youre right
This concept is great. Take Pokemon games for example. Old games used battery pack and time date systems to generate random numbers as it was a good method and not taxing for the system. So you come up that, if you knew how mathematically--the encryption key, to the pokemon game. You could then 'Know' and find timelines that you have to change manually with the settings and leap forward and backward in time. So, someone say this is deterministic. You know if you critical strike or get the shiny pokemon or not. You don't, not if you don't have the encryption key. Are we looking for the encryption key to the universe? Then you still will need a time machine. But you'd be able to accurately predict future events.... But then make choices based on them. At the end of the day, determinism is a hard sell, and it is likely hard to sell to someone because we have so much else to fathom and it just seems like determinism is a Great Filter for the mind.
is not a hard sell. its just too logical and uncomfortable to accept. atleast for the average human ego and status quo.
I like your analogy and think it goes well with my explanation of free will. I don't like determinism. And even your answer here is not determinism if you believe that the Universe has true randomness. Even with the encryption key you rely on the battery and at it's core the battery has randomness built in. How long will it last, what is it's exact voltage and current and for time what exact time do you use. It is the Uncertainty principal but more so it is randomness.
"If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." - that is what Sean is missing about the concept of free will Sam presents. The religious community has been in the business of assigning you blame for your mere existence. When it comes to criminals however, criminals don't need free will to e locked up. You just need to desire a safer community. And don't we all?
Are you trying to blame the religious community for what it has been doing?
Yawn.
Ah I see, so a society in which people lock criminals up for a utilitarian, pragmatic, Machiavellian purpose is not worse than one who does it for that purpose AS WELL as the idea that those actions are immoral?
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. Maybe there is a possibility if you look at yourself in sub- atomic particle mode where the laws of physics allow you to have a choice.He is right you will get into trouble if you think of yourself as a person that has a choice and a set of atoms because you will question the existing and the purpose of everything.
*How people always find a way to blame religion for every single thing is beyond me. This guy has the guts to predict what people would and wouldn’t do based on nothing at all. These anti-religion wannabe intellectuals are soooo unbearable*
The interview was a disappointment. Carroll dodged the question of free will and Rogan let him get away with it. You cannot say, as materialists do, on the one hand that we are all just organic machines which behave deterministically and on the other hand shrug your shoulders and say in effect, well I am a "compatibilist" and we act like we have free will so let's just dismiss it as semantics. No. Either free will exists or it does not. You can either direct your thoughts and actions or you cannot. You cannot reconcile determinism with the ability to direct your thoughts along a creative path. True free will is creative. If materialism is true then our thoughts are nothing more than the juxtaposition of material particles over time. There would be no reason to believe that a material mechanism, regardless of how many particles were involved, could produce a continuous stream of creative thoughts because that would entail a precise arrangement of a vast number of particles at each instant in time over an extended period. There is no known material cause that can do that. Algorithmic decision making, as posited by emergence and the computational theory of mind, does not help. Computation is deterministic--the opposite of free will. As Carroll appears to suggest, we all behave as though we have free will. Instead of contorting your material philosophy to account for that, why not just abandon materialism and embrace free will?
If nothing matters then it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.
🤣🤣
Joe "" Rogan
Yarcofin this will never get all the attention it possibly deserves
I dont like how the laws of physics allow the existence of beings which have the ability to understand the laws of physics but they somehow dont know them 100%
I mean, just because you CAN understand something doesn't mean you do. The ability to do something and doing it are different.
If there is no free will, psychopathy is acquitted and is only a mental condition similar to introvert, extrovert, gay, trans etc. that we must accept, include and nourish with love so they can thrive and multiply as much as possible. So we all be one happy family.
Joe ‘Joe “Joe Rogan” Rogan’ Rogan
The way I see it is that our choices are probably not free in the conventional sense, but the mechanics behind is very unlikely to be without error. It could come down to very small fluctuations in whatever those mechanisms are, so it is unlikely to be predictable, even with a huge amount of data collection. So in reality it doesn't matter.
Didn’t neuroscience already proof that your decision are predictable before you even made your decision
If that's the case, it's still not the sense of personal choice. Random happenstance of mechanisms in the brain allowing for "Out of character" choices would still be an external exertion of force on the internal mechanisms and sense of self. It also goes against laws of physics. True randomness doesn't seem to be possible, even on a quantum scale.
If you had every single piece of data about an individual, from all hormonal fluctuations, epigenetics, environment etc. etc., you'd know exactly what they will do and say from that point onwards. The issue is, no AI or super computer could ever hold all the data in the universe to make that calculation, because if fundamentally would lack the data of it's own influence towards that calculation.
That said, humans are actually pretty predictable anyway. We're social, we're concerned with survival and our environment and genetics play apart in how we turn out. People are rarely that unique. Most of our differences come down to the fact that, every atom that makes up you is never the same configuration twice, you live in the ONLY time and space that you occupy, because it's not possible for there to be the same time and space occupied by what makes you you.
So, everything is essentially mechanistic and determined but that doesn't matter because of the language we use to talk about it? I don't buy it.
Richard Dawkins coined the term middle world when explaining this. We are evolved to be social creatures. Our ancestors survived by being able to recognise medium-sized things doing medium scale things like running. So as a species even though we are just a collection of cells we are intrinsically wired to treat everything in a deterministic sense because that's how it helps us survive. This is why when we go big or go small we can't really use the same vocabulary because different scales mean different things. On the small scale we are just a collection of particles on the large scale we are just part of universe expanding into a heat death. Neither of those are useful for us to manage in our daily lives so we have this construct of what we call free will.
Bryan 8108 true. But at the end of the day we’re dominos getting pushed by the last domino, an equation moving forward in time. It’s crazy to think but we’re basically just the subjective part of the universe that’s basically observing the chain reactions with 0 ability to make any change, but our brains gives us the illusion that we are in control. When we’re really like those (non playable characters) in video games. If the Big Bang was replicated to the dot. The exact same thing that’s happened will happen again. Not something most can accept. Ironically enough there was something liberating about completely believing this. Not that I didn’t before but I guess I just focused more on the subject and is now like at the forefront of my believes.
Yeah, that's pretty much the main issue with compatibilism. Yeah, every action we will ever do is entirely determined, but that doesn't matter at all, we're still free! Actually, it does matter. That's the whole point. The way people talk about human interaction is irrelevant to free will. No one denies that people tacitly assume free will in the way we talk about each other. That is obvious. Again, that is irrelevant to whether we have free will or not.
Joseph true. But we will always behave, as tho we do have freewill. I guess that’s just what the subjective part of the universe is like.
I don't think there is free will. I think there is subjective free choices. We do blame people with the chance of causing harm, that's why we have DUI.
We do convict people who haven't carried out crimes yet for crimes they are planning to carry out.
So can you lock someone up for a prediction that they will commit murder? Given zero evidence of it? Even if so should there be consequences if a crime were “supposed” to happen? Let’s say I commit murder. Why would I go to jail if it was already predetermined? There would be no right or wrong because I don’t have a choice to choose right or wrong. So why even have good and evil if the choice wasn’t mine to begin with?
In your "subjective free choices" you are still inclined to choose one of those choice based on some thought/ belief/ desire that you have no say over.
@@XIL313 You still kill a wild animal that is trying to kill you. Now, that animal is not to blame and there's no reason in feeling hate towards it, but if it will do us harm, we will still remove it from society. Same goes for us. If we could predict if you would do a murder, then we wouldn't lock you up, but we would try to prevent you from doing it, with therapy for example. Something being predetermined doesn't mean you can't be a part in changing the course of it. Changing the course or not was always part of that predetermined future as well.
"Rogan" Joe "Rogan"
The free will is internal, not external. Every possible decision and outcome has already happened in some version of the past present and future. It's our soul's experience in these decisions that is ours by will
Interesting. Do you mean that the experience of a choice is something that we control?
@@o24735 The feeling part of our experience vs. thought or action is the closest thing to being free
What is a soul?
"Souls", gods and goblins don't exist.
In nature there is no difference between internal and external. Just because your subjectivity only has a certain range doesn't mean there is any real difference between you and nature.
He's putting the physical and mental aspects of who we are as a human and trying to condense them into one conclusion and that's just ignorant...
Exactly. If someone says “there is no such thing as free will.” Ask them “Did you freely say that?”
@@mharzmhason1787 The answer will always be "no."
@@mharzmhason1787 ofc I didn't freely say that. Is this supposed to be a gotcha?
Could’ve done with this inspo 3 days ago before my essay way due. 😒
Roe "I'm going bald so I shaved my head to look trendy" Jogan
It does matter in that you shouldn’t punish people based on whst they ”deserve”, you should punish them baded on what will objectively cause the best outcome in the future. This is why the notion that there is no free will matters to the legal system.
Our legal system IS predicated on the presumption of free will.
If you believe there is no free will, do you believe there is such thing as morality?
@@sguraya7223, in the grand scheme of things, no, but it's important to create some kind of general moral "guidelines" (though morality in itself seems to be subjective) in order to ensure the best outcome, which to me is the least possible suffering.
@@rasmuslassen2986 "Morality is subjective". Perhaps, but subjective is more concrete, and more real than objective. Or at least more meaningful.
And just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's arbitrary, baseless, or even relative. It's constrained by all kinds of things.
And you can't use "the best possible thing is the least possible suffering" as the basis for a moral framework because that claim requires a moral framework to justify why less suffering is good in the first place. To even call it 'good' is a moral claim.
And killing everyone in the world, painlessly would minimize suffering to 0. Is that moral? Or how about we just cut out the parts of our brains that experience suffering so that all we ever are is happy?
@@sguraya7223 If we could cut out that part of the brain then we would, my dude
@@JasonWilliams89 And then you'd be a weak, immoral person because you're unable to tell when you're being a piece of shit because you have no guilt. You'll never know when you're fucking up and making mistakes, and you'll be a burden on the rest of existence.
Frankly, I don't think you have the right to subject people to the idiocy you'd manifest if you never suffered for it. And I don't mean that to insult you, you could be as smart as Einstein, but if you don't have the part of your brain that tells you when you're making a mistake, even the smartest guy would be retarded.
There's no growth, no real happiness, unless you understand what the alternative is.
Carrol's argument that it's a bad way to communicate thoughts and feelings doesn't disprove anything though. You can simultaneously believe the ramifications of no free will are negative, and still believe we have no free will.
In addition, it is important to talk about it as physics out of our control because most ppl dont even acknowledge that.
So many of his points are just "Doesn't seem cool or useful to me" without any real reason behind WHY, while completely ignoring all the benefits of realizing there's no free will.
"Because I think its boring" is not a sufficient reason to have a false illusion which taints all of our understanding of ourselves and others and especially produces a flawed legal system and needless sense of vengeance and hate.
Good to know some science guys have a good sense and don’t extrapolate what is known over what is not known. Some scientists and philosophers talk about this subject with certainties of a religious guru.
So was Jamie’s A, that he got in physics determined, or did he achieve it as a result of his free will?
Determined, as all things are.
edgy af
@@godsrevolver9737 Prove it
@@sguraya7223 there is no "you" who chooses "your" thoughts, thoughts fully control life, you dont control your life aka you don't exist...you're only aware of your "avatar"/human(in this case "Ked") but since you dont have control over it it's basically not you
@@Nothing-lr3dt Ked isn't a real name lol (or at least not mine).
Then what is "me"? Or, is there no "me". And why would you describe a "me" in a sense that doesn't exist. How would you refer to other people as, "you" beings, if they're not? Do you treat all those around you as meat-sack deterministic machines who have no agency?
And btw, all you've done is make the claim that our thoughts are not in our control. Where is the evidence for this? Thoughts do not come from the conscious mind, they come from the unconscious, that I will concede, but how do you know that wherever thoughts originate isn't in your unconscious control? Or that at any point, whether in the unconscious, or the conscious, our thoughts are not in our control to some degree?
Because to assert this, you would have to know where thoughts come from (nobody does), and everywhere they go in the brain and what happens to them there, and you would have to know that there is no control (nobody does), conscious or unconscious, on them at any stage in their existence (nobody knows this). But you don't, nobody does.
The idea that the universe is a deterministic machine with no outside influence is a massive assumption, and the idea that our minds have no control/no outside influence that may give us free will or free choice is another massive assumption. Which is why I'm agnostic, and why your claim is unjustified for now.
Joe “dmt is reality” Rogan lol
This guy from Role Models 😂 from sterdy wings. I'll have too GOOGLE it. PHILIP!!!!!!!! THE PIZZA DELIVERY GUY!!
Top 10 JRE Clips ever...
I think we should just get rid of the of the term free will. I do believe that all choices are determined and it’s literally a probability game. If I were to make a choice about what to eat tonight it might be 20% cheeseburger 35% salad 15% spaghetti and 30% sushi based on a ton of different variables. But then a thought could pop into your head that you’re trying to loose weight, so the salad percentage goes up. Or you might see a wendys commercial and it might make you want a burger instead. But you still have to voluntarily choose. You cant chose to eat a cheeseburger without choosing To eat a cheeseburger. Like you didn’t author the thought of ultimately choosing a cheeseburger, that’s what was determined by the present moment but you still have to get up and get one. I believe we just have to power of voluntary action. We might not be able to choose the context of the choice but we aren’t involuntary unconscious robots. And I don’t think the future is set. I think it’s literally up to us to do whatever it is we’re going to do. But our choices will always be determined by the present moment.
I think still that probability is an illusion cause if we really can pin point everything to 100% accuracy lets say there is machine that can do such will still predict what will you eat 100 percent yet we only can rely on probability cause of our limited processing capability
Yes it is up to us but we are not in control of our will it’s is merely an illusion your example doesn’t make sense where is the free will in choosing cheeseburger over the other ones the point is the decision you make is not actually yours it’s your beings your brain that you didn’t choose to work the way it does if you are trying to lose weight and choose salad it is not to your credit that you made that good decision it is credited to just the nature of what we are it is credited to the genes you were born with or weren’t born with and it’s credited to the experiences and events that you had or didn’t have some other people would choose cheeseburger most of the time because they weren’t taught discipline or were born into a family that always ate cheeseburger and salad was never an option and maybe they weren’t born with the characteristics or intelligence to decide to cheeseburgers are good for me I’m going to eat salad the point is your choices are always gonna seem like yours it’s an illusion that doesn’t go away and your choices are predetermined by every past moment and the way you were born you didn’t choose how you were born or how you learned or what you learned or how you comprehend we just are what we are no one is better than anyone else we are all the same some us just got more lucky and some us got more unlucky
If you dont get up and get a cheeseburger, you havent done so. Thereby you havent eaten it, just thought that you would like to eat it. But when you wrote spaghetti, salad, sushi, cheeseburger, did you choose to think those before you wrote it, or did they pop into your head and then you reacted to it? If I write Elephant, can you choose to not think of an Elephant? Or did you think of the fact that i wrote it with a capital E? You do now. If I ask you to think of any Hollywood actor, do you make a conscious decision to which actors pops up in your mind? And if you choose one of those to think of, how did you make that choice? Was it because you saw a movie with the actor recently, or maybe you read about the actor in a magazine? What if you did not watch that movie or read that magazine, would your choice of actor have been different, or maybe you would not even have thought of that actor? Does it sound like you have free will, or does it sound like your mind works on cause and effect? Logic do not lie, but people do.
Yeah I meant to say past there haha. I didn’t realize I commented on this 2 years ago
Yeah I agree with all that. It’s scary to me we don’t author our thoughts. I was more so talking about voluntary control. Like you’re not just watching your life like a movie you have to get up and actually make choices. Like you can choose to do what you want but you can’t choose what you choose. You are who you are in a sense. But that doesn’t mean you’re an involuntary automaton with consciousness
1:22 Sean! As a man of science I typically respect I can confidently say you are in error here. When drawing conclusions about what's TRUE, the "fruitful" thing to do plays NO role. We say that the reality is that there is no choosing anything you do, since all your atoms strictly follow physics.
You then go on to say the TERM "free will" only references the useful, conceptual way to think about people's actions. Some use it that way, but the majority of people who say they have free will think that if you rewinded the universe to some specific moment, they, as an agent, could have overcome physics and chosen otherwise. You claim to hate semantic games but then play them here, confusing a 'useful term' and a mental framework for causation!
Well said.
Carroll makes a great point here. Personally I think of it in these terms: the world of atoms, physical laws, and determinism is ULTIMATE TRUTH..its what is fundamentally going on BUT it is also too complex for us to grasp and apply in our everyday lives. That's where PRACTICAL TRUTH comes in, which is the world of self, agency, and the story-telling we do because that is the kind of description that simply lets us get the most done, even though it is at bottom inaccurate.
Determinism has been disproven. IDK why so many anti-free will advocates cling to this debunked view of the universe persists.
@@shadowthehedgehog3113 Care to explain how it's been disproven?
@@MikeBassil Quantum physics alone has disproven determinism. It doesn't prove free will but it does poke a hole in the argument that these people often use which is: "The universe is purely deterministic, therefore free will cannot exist".
The reason you can ask that question proves yes. When you get to hell and you can no longer move the way you wish or even speak, don’t let it be, the point you understand that free will exists. Cause there you can’t.
"Is there something we can do to change the robbers mind before the act happen?"
Oh, you mean deterministically?
if you are aware and prepared you can defeat the tri fecta of victimization....exclude one component and the action doesn't happen. robber===victim===opportunity. an armed population is less likely to be a victim, when robbers are being held accountable for their actions they stop and when people pay attention they can address problems much more efficiently.
Free will only exist when we are absolutely capable of having autonomous original thought
Free will only exists when there are no wants and wills.
How so?
@@abdullahkuzhan7247 it exists in every day choices
I don't know why people still debating this topic. You have an essay by Schopenhauer from 1839 called "On the freedom of the will", and it's a masterpiece imho.
They don’t have a choice, but to rob a bank, and I don’t have a choice, but to arrest them. Yin and Yang.
I think of it this way: consciousness is a structure of our chemistry, our history, and our training. Much like how they say fights are won outside the ring; in the moment we are likely slaves to our current state of being. However, outside the moment, as outside the ring; we have control over the many constituent parts that lead to that decision and can learn and adjust those circumstances to ensure a better outcome or recurrence of outcome next time.
That’s true, but I think it also just moves the problem - whatever control we have over the mentioned constituent parts is then determined be other constituent parts and so on ad infinitum
Impulse. Control.
You are always in that moment mate
You're way too confident about making claims about consciousness. Our best philosophers and psychologists know jack shit about consciousness, neither do we.
Whats really interesting as well is that when you also take Quantum Physics into the equation then everything really gets fucked up, cause those are acutally what atoms are made of and they are not predicatable. This is so interesting but so fucked up and my take on it is: Just be happy and live an awesome life haha!
Yes! Absolutely! Nobody knows what Quantum Mechanics had in store for us (to learn and know more). No one is paying attention to this particular issue. With a better and deeper understanding of Quantum Mechanics, we will have a much different take on the whole "free will" issue. For now, i think it's just the illusion and that determinism is true.
I think the best thing is to take the best from both worlds, so take what the "no free will' viewpoint has, so no need for hate or guilt, but also take good stuff from the "free will" viewpoint, like pride, creativity, belonging (even if they are irrational in an absolute sense).
As humans we can't fully escape the illusion, but we shouldn't want to either.
When people like Sam say there is no free will, what I think they are actually saying is, there is no free will that is SEPARATE FROM THE UNIVERSE... which is essentially the same as saying "All is One".
Joe “it’s better not to struggle so much with an idea that’s hard to believe” Rogan
Since no one claims to know exactly how the brain works, how can we arrogantly claim that it is entirely deterministic? Noam Chomsky is one of the honest voices, simply saying we don’t know.
#TeamCompatiblism ✊🏼😁
Free will exists only in situations we have total control over. If I have no car to arrive at some place 30 miles away from me in 20 minutes, my will to arrive at that place is futile. Will without power or ability to execute is mere fantasy.
I strongly agree.
Now I can sleep well !!
I like that he’s open about his argument essentially being “I like to feel special so I have free will”
It’s weird to think that our subconscious is like the Player and our perceivable consciousness is like the prices in a game of chess. And if you think about it The algorithm is like the Subconscious Of youtube with the content being the Consciousness Of youtube. It’s the entity behind the wheel of all social media.
The recommendation bar and the instinct to watch one more video is like a chess game between the Algorithm and your subconscious.
Yes yes yes yes sir 😀 I'm standing at attention to your analogy 2 years later sir 💂♂️
Joe "interfacing with randomness" Rogan
I did not know that atoms and particles have self awareness and thoughts. Oh that's right; they don't! -Joe T.
Everyone thinks their beliefs are correct, otherwise they wouldn’t hold those beliefs; but beliefs are the brains way of simplifying existence; they may or may not be true; they are only your opinions; you have reasons for your beliefs, but the reasons may not be sound; they may just make you feel good or safe or happy, depending on how well you can rationalize them in your mind; ego defense is all important to self esteem.😂
I actually agree with your comment
Technically we don't have free will, but practically we do
eloquently put.
Elaborate will you?
If our brains register our ability to choose our next choice, we have free will.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn every decision we make is a result of the states of all the particles in our body and surroundings. And those positions and properties of particles are determined by what has already happened in the past.
Every decision is a dominopiece in an enormous domino reaction
@@gustavbruunkjr5123 i disagree
@@jure6528 elaborate
All people should do is drop the adjective. Instead of free will, just say, "I did it of my own will."
If the state of the Universe (which includes one's mind) at a specific point in time uniquely determines the state of the Universe at a later point in time, and this process is the same for preceding and succeeding points in time, one has no way of escaping one's fate.
If, on the other hand, the state of the Universe at a specific point in time can lead to two (or more) alternative states of the Universe at a later point in time, then there is a possibility one could escape one's fate. But it would not give one any control. It would be a random process. It would be the same state of the Universe that preceded all the possible alternative states of the Universe at the next point in time. This leaves no room for control.
What one deserves does not depend on things beyond one's control. The lack of control means that no one deserves credit or blame for anything.
In the first paragraph I am referring to determinism. Determinism implies that for a given situation there is only one possible outcome. This is not compatible with free will.
In the second paragraph, I claim that an indeterministic event offers no way of controlling the outcome (or rather the part of the outcome which is due to indeterminism). Assume that at a given time t0, two outcomes are possible, outcome A1 and outcome B1. The state of one's mind at t0 can not decide which one of A1 and B1 that will be realized since this would violate the assumption that both A1 and B1 are possible outcomes. The mind is not controlling the outcome in this case.
Quantum mechanics is generally assumed to not be strictly deterministic. It is well known, however, that Einstein objected to this.
And then when you say there could be more options that could also lead to realitys splitting up, fullfilling every possible outcome and therefore creating a Multiverse, which would again mean in everyone of these Universes there still would be a Fate one cannot escape.
Sean makes good points, but the absolute reality of the atoms and quantum mechanics should override the reality we live in of buying things off eBay.
So we shouldn't have free will.
We have an "as if free will" where we experience things as if we had free will (upto a point anyway - we can't instantly decide to feel happy for example).
But an "as if free will" is not free will.
I think the best thing one can do is live like they have free will, but understand there is no free will so negative things like guilt and anger can be reduced
It's very interesting to see this discussion about the ontological nature of free will - whether it exists or not - be shifted towards one of pragmatism... is it 'useful' or 'not useful' (which is essentially a separate argument/discussion). Super interesting stuff
But if we don’t have free will, there is logically no solution to those emotions, since we’re incapable of altering them due to a lack of free will.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Well we can alter them, but how they are altered is not really our choice, even if it seems it is, so its the same situation again, just on a second level, if that makes any sense.
@@colinjava8447
Indeed it is your choice, you had the choice to write this comment.
@@ProtoIndoEuropean88 Only on a practical level, in an absolute sense I had no choice, my brain was just doing the functions that brains do.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose, FREEWILL!
I will eventually, but I'm currently In no rush.
czcams.com/video/jutsHLv-SKg/video.html
I think "Free Will" is an invention. If you can pull neurons out of a mouse and put it into a robot and the robot moves accordingly, how many would you say qualifies as free will and how many qualifies as determinism?
Everything is vibration , So as freewill.. If everyone has one, it cancels out every single freewill we have. vibration cancels the same frequency of vibration.
In my opinion it is our wants that determine everything, whether our wants are controllable or not is still questionable in my mind
Wants are determined by your present environment and how you experience that environment, neither of which are up to you (e.g. room is hot, you experience thirst, you want water).
Justa Naym the only thing that matters is that you do what you want. That makes you free enough.
Free will is a choice
We don't make choices. Free Will doesn't exist.
Um, what? The language I grew up using is built on the assumption of free will so free will exists? We don't have the language tools to describe how people behave without speaking as if "free will existing is the default", but just like every other field of science, we create new language to deal with new concepts. Yeesh, what a terrible argument.
Nature is freewill's manifestation of it's natural energy signature (sign - nature).
Free will exists but the illusion of making a decision right now is just that, an illusion. The choice was made eons ago and surrendering to the will of the universe and having tensionless discussions is what makes life harmonic with your individual soul as we spiral through foundation into netzack or hod depending on their individual descion with their free will
how do you know?
That sounds like fatalism, which may be true, but if there is real randomness say at the scale of electrons, then by winding the clock back different events could play out a second time.
So this "could have done otherwise" idea does have that complication to consider, so I don't like to use that definition of free will.
He DOESN’T know that. However, by his comment, it APPEARS that he might BELIEVE that he knows.
wrong. you know nothing john snow
These two concepts, free will and determinism are not compatible. Compatibilism is still a cope and easily debunked, although I really don't know what its trying to cope from.
*IMO HEALTH AND SELF SUFFICIENCY EQUALS FREE WILL.*
when we talk about people acting i think the anti free willers refer to them acting but not necessarily acting from free will
many are compulsively acting or rather re-acting the way they know how...for many it is anger, sadness, fear, etc...for others who are consciously acting through this body/persona the conscious response to stimulus is rooted in wisdom, happiness, love, unity, etc. Compulsion is body/mind based, Consciousness is soul based.
"Everything is predictable", but that's from an omniscient perspective, which doesn't exist and is only a concept, free will could be considered as like this, only an omniscient being can predict my actions and the how everything is going to be and everything below that has a percentage of uncertainty when trying predictable and understand
That's not the point. There doesn't need to be an omniscient being predicting your actions. It's the fact that if there was one, it could predict all your actions, therefore you have no free will.
1 minute in and we have a classic pre-quantum 'understanding' of physics, a materialistic simplistic view. Quantum uncertainty within the two forces of emergence and entropy guarantees freewill, if nothing can be known for certain both position and velocity at the same time we have a non-linear universe. Everything is in a constant flux of being made new and broken down, freewill is an emergent property that arises.
But does that randomness in quant theory guarantee free will, isn't the inability to control that an argument against free will? just curious
@@jeringeorge6394 You're right. We can't control the outcomes of quantum randomness so trying to find free will there is a hopeless endeavor. And QM might very well be fundamentally deterministic such as in hidden variabel or many-worlds interpretations.
@@jeringeorge6394 no, control ascertains power more than free will. Randomness allows chance and unrestriction for the free will question, and while we're not sure where that extent may lie, it definitely gives free more odds than determinism.
@@kosmos6467 many worlds isn't entirely deterministic and local hidden variables have been disproved since they violated bell's inequality theorem.
@@497novakl Many-worlds is entirely deterministic and there are non-local hidden variable interpretations such as pilot wave theory.
We are not taking about morals and how to treat people. We are taking about what is reality.
To not be aware or acknowledge that humans have free will choice in this 3D 5 sense space time continuum, is to abdicate personal responsibility and to justify being an immoral bag of shit child who wants to have a psuedo scientific blame game for their erroneous notions and behaviours in this incarnation.
Ridiculous.
These scientific explanations get so technical, only to circle jerk themselves back to the ever comfortable "well, we really don't know" explanation. Nonsense
No. They are different questions entirely. That's the point. When you look at someone you admire in there personality you're not asking yourself the question of what reality is.
I can only describe free will as meaning of oneself. Your experiences, emotions, everything about you
Joe asked, can we intervene at the point where determinism is a problem? And yeah the answer is yes, we do this all the time perceptually, but it’s still deterministic: this is not moral luck. Moral luck are the circumstances that make “immoral” actions consequential or not. What joe was referring to was education.