Very nice point (from Hume) on the relation between free will, morality, punishment, and reward. It's actually the first plausible and convincing explanation to reconcile free will and morality I've heard from so many RUclips videos on free will.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
A very well presented and comprehensive discussion on the subject, though I'm a staunch determinist. Those who claim free will should explain when free will emerged. Did Neanderthals have free will? How about monkeys? Worms? Isn't it a bit anthropocentric to claim only humans have free will? At what age does free will start? Does free will have degrees? Somewhat free? Very free?
EVERYTHING traces back to the initial state of the universe at Bing Bang, including the galaxy and the planet your ancestors have evolved on. Including the parents you were born to. Including your choice of ice cram. Even including one's own definition of "belief", "thought" and "rationality". There's simply no logical argument against HARD determinism. It's as valid as any mathematical construct.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Cont...
Dear kids that were described as Willful as you can see, hear and feel a Willful person loves themselves like no one . This is your strength not your weakness. God's knowledge is our true nature and if someone finds you loving yourself and react negatively it is their lack of knowledge of our true nature. Love or fear are our only choices and they both land in the same spot. One is the hard way and one is not.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Cont...
So Hume said you are responsible for your actions if they "follow from you character"? But how are "you" responsible for your character? Also, throughout most of history punishment has had little or nothing to do with the rehabilitation/deterrence of the individual being punished - which Dorter suggests is its principal purpose.
Wait. The spinach ice cream example: "He chose spinach ice cream" and it was an "uncaused event." No, it was, like any other choice, acc. to those who hold of agent causal fw, just another choice and what caused it, was the same as all other choices he makes. It would be absurd to make such a choice in this scenario, but that doesn't make it, "uncaused."
Don't let your arrogance motivate you to reject this fellow's argument with confidence. I doubt that anybody here can present a coherent argument for or against Free Will. I thought he did quite well - that he actually made some good points and that's about the most we can hope for from anybody tackling this insanely difficult subject.
The arguments against free will are: 1) We can demonstrate having options is compatible with determinism. 2) We don't experience having free will. 3) It's an incoherent concept that makes a nonsense of choice making. More detail needed but the case against very much seems water tight. The resistance comes from people not accepting it more than any good arguments for free will.
I think as soon as you want to start smuggling in free will somewhere it becomes incredibly difficult to explain how it works. Determinism is fundamentally quite easy
Determinism and random are not the only options. Reliable causation is required for any sort of organized response to the environment. The purpose of choice in living organisms is precisely so that they can respond appropriately to local conditions with intention. Free or not free is a value judgement, not a physical state.
But how can I choose freely to consider the long term effects of my actions instead of instant gratification? Isn‘t this also determined by the experiences I made in the past concerning the decision between the two options?
telekatze, those are reasonable questions, but I think backwards. Previous experience does not control your present decisions. Everything that happens to you, and every choice you make goes into making you into an individual, a unique person, who will then make choices based on who you are. Apparently the predetermined construction of your brain has the largest effect on whether you even have the ability to delay gratification or control your impulses, so this avenue of "freedom" is not equally distributed to everyone.
Chains. Freedom is always just free from chains. In other words, you have the potential to construct potential thoughts, and that is the freedom. Anything past that will make determinism a definite conclusion.
@@nevaarneyok4448 I mean that the freedom of mind is what creates the freedom of action. Only by restricting the freedom of mind can you restrict the free use of body. If one is free to use the mind, they are free to use the body. The only things that can stop you are death and chains, and even then, you can still refuse to comply and exercise free will by choosing to disobey: by choosing death over compliance.
Emotions. Emotions are our free will. Intellect suggest to emotion. Emotion approves or disapproves back to intellect and action or inaction are taken place. We must be humbled in preparation for the afterlife. Humility is an emotion
At the very end of the speach Kenneth Dorter said that we are free to choose to be rational or to be irrational but we are not free of causality. If I understood it right it means that we are free to choose the most basic axioms for constructing our worldview but we are not free from causality which determines everything else since the basics have been chosen. What do you guys think of that?
Just because somebody knows what you are going to do before you do it doesn't mean that you are forced to do that action? yes, yes it does in order to know what somebody is going to do before they do it means they cannot possibly choose anything else as somebody already knows without doubt what you are going to do, you are forced into whatever decision has been foreseen
There are weakness in interpretation of what the data means, remember they don't know exactly what the extra blood flow in the brain represents, and there are some other issues as well. Here's a couple of starters. First: The way we normally function we've learnt to do a lot of things without having to think about them, it's not always necessary to know what you are going to do before you do it, you've learnt to do it subconciously. Second: Human brains are also subject to what is know in computing as the 'halting problem', boiled down it means it takes longer to know what you are about to do than to actually do it. This is a real thing. It has been possited as the actual reason our brains appear to be choosing before we know ourselves in the experiment mentioned.
Good to see there's some fellow advaitans here to help separate the grain from the chaff for the viewer who was drawned here because of a misleading title. Thanks
Free will is free from a lie. That's why the truth will set you free. A lie is: "you want something for yourself", and when will is free from that lie it sees the truth that "you don't want anything for yourself". Being free means being free from egoistic thoughts because you see it is not what you want but the one who tells you them - the master of this world.
Really bad talk, he is all over the place... "The more we think about something, the more we can do that what we really want"... Ok, but where do those thoughts come from if not from what came before, i.e. determined by the causes of the past? You need to call that determinism and free will an illusion. And if random fluctuation do arise in thought patterns, that is not an argument for free will but against it.
So how to you choose to live your life? And what are your suggestions for others in this regard? Evidently you are dissatisfied or you wouldn't have listened to this talk. In my opinion rather than claim to have all the answers to these kind of questions (free will etc.) a bit of direct honesty with ourselves may be in order. And I claim that apart from perhaps catatonic schizophrenics who feel compelled not to move the rest of us, whether we think we're the most brilliant deterministic philosopher who ever walked this earth, actually do secretly believe in free will in the banal sense of that expression. So my suggestion is to quit trying to be clever and choose rather to do what is best for you!
Gods knowledge does Impact your will be cause if he knows something will happen he can hinder it or make it happen. He calls the shots. We plan he directs. You can will your wants, but your future wills can be altered.
"The difference between philosophy and science is... the main difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy does not deal with objectively measurable phenomena like science does." This is a truth claim. He is stating knowledge. This is a philosophical statement. To take it all one step further. Science is a philosophy. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Science is a knowledge. Thus science is a philosophy. I wish people would actually look up text book definitions before making claims like this.
free will is being free to express your will. the will is determined and it has some freedom. a rock is free to be a rock and a man is free to be a human animal.
free will as a personal perception or free will as a physical phenomenon ... I for one understand that it "feels" like I have free will and we live in a causal universe ... then he mentions quantum theory....sheeesh. quantum mechanics work on orders of magnitude smaller than neurons in the brain and coherence between atoms in the brain negates quantum effects.
Free from identifying with the character by taking responsibility for all you experience and be aware of being the character perceiving. Then you see the only choice was ever to resist for any other choice surrenders naturally back to being aware of it all again. But a non causal event has to point it out to you before your really want it, lol, kidda' a cosmic punchline if you ask me.
There is no such thing as free will. Will is never ever free. Will is the movement of the I, the me, the self, the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain. Will is knowledge. Will is the past. Will is mechanical. Will is the program. The end of will is the beginning of Inner Total Freedom for the very first time in each and every moment of daily life. Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Lucidity. Without Lucidity, there is no Love, Peace, Joy, or Creativity...none whatsoever. There is only their limitations, which are imitations. Fate or destiny is whatever happens to you when there is no Lucidity.
Inner Total Freedom: Total Freedom from the I, the me, the self, the observer, the listener, the chooser, the experiencer, the interpreter, the so-called True or Higher Self, which is an illusion invented from the past conditioning of the brain. It acts as a filter, which limits, distorts, shapes and colors all perceptions, and so you never Perceive anyone or anything as it actually is. It is an inner tyrant who tells you what to think, how to feel and what to do. Moreover, it invents the illusion of division, separation, and disconnection from everyone and everything, which leads inevitably to conflict, violence, and suffering. Just like a woman can't be half pregnant, your brain is either Totally Free OR you are functioning at some level of slavery to self-deception. Inner slavery has many levels. Inner Freedom has no levels. Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Love, no Peace, no Joy, no Goodness, no Kindness, no Feeling, no Beauty, no Creativity, no Lucidity, no Truth, no Wisdom, no Communication, no Communion, no Relationship...none whatsoever. Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Happiness, Joy, or Ecstasy. There is only their limitation and imitation. There is only pleasure and suffering, which are opposite sides of the same coin. Without Inner Total Freedom, your every action, regardless of your intention, will continue to contribute to the conflict, violence, and suffering in the world today. You may solve one problem but in so doing you will create a hundred other ones without being aware of it. What you call progress, evolution, or growth, will merely be the movement from one form of tyranny to another form of tyranny. See the danger.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I have always believed that our brains are simply the hardware oS for our bodies, for the allowance of the human condition and experience...that our consciousness is limited in its faculties by the human brain's abilities. If one was born a dog, then their consciousness would be limited by a dog's brain and if someone were born on another planet, to a higher evolved creature with a more advanced brain, that they would have less limitations than a human being and more abilities made available to them by their 'larger' brain. Consciousness is the program of our soul, which tethers us to our current experience and can be understood as how you can run a program on a low quality computer and be limited by its hardware, or run on a high quality computer and have much more, if not complete access to all the program due to the better hardware...and I think this can be observed, not only between different species, but within the same species as well and all bc of 'better hardware' which is how we get Newtons, Aristotles and Einsteins.
+Rodrigo Gallinari that's what I used to think. determinism has all the science unlike freewill. Freewill is an illusion. Freewill might have some philosophical arguments but no sold proof. Check out Sam Harris, he had a book about it.
That's not an argument. Please show me how he is wrong or give me a link so I can investigate for myself. Trust me, I don't like the idea of determinism but I can't come to terms with something with only wishful thinking. How is same wrong other than you just saying he is?
God is absolute free will, when our awareness increases we realize our self free will is limited and when you see truth of One, free will is infinite!!! 💝💝💝 Put it another way, when you give up your self freewill, then freewill is unlimited...
hard determinism on one side, libertarian free will on the other (randomness)-neither results in FW. That leaves, acc. to this lecture: compatibilism. Ok, except for one thing: what if the world is determined? what if the choice of will is random? Also the representation of Hume on moral responsibility was presented in a punitive/rewarding model. That doesn't affect free will vs determinism. It represents behavior modification.
Compatibilism incompatible with logic. Having causation "we can be free from irresponsible, irrational behavior...". Apparent controversy: If there is determinism than there is a cause for either being rational or being irrational. I.e. if there is a cause to be irrational than how can one be rational ) Nice talk though.
Ask one question from yourself after waking from a dream. Q. Who is conscious of the absence of my dream? A: I, who was observable in my dream but is not observable in the universe. B: I, who is observable in the universe but was not observable in my dream. C: : I, who was observing my dream but was neither observable in my dream nor in the universe. If your answer is C then you who were observing your dream are also observing the universe. You are holding the same place in the universe what you were holding in your dream. There is free will for you who are observable in the universe as an actor. There is no free will for you who are observing the universe including you who are observable in the universe.
Free will is simply "free" from reality: that is, any mind or anything else which can lie or err has free will. Even words, symbols, and any other forms of representation of anything can be free of reality, as fictions or errors. Get over it! Err and lie to your "heart's content". LMFAO
He does not know if it’s possible for a 4th dimensional being to even exist, let alone observe us. Lol, This guy needs to slow down and think. Too much Jesus on the brain.
Possibly the worst, most boring ted talk I've had the misfortune to watch. Ben libits 'voluntary action' experiment asserts that all these supposed 'free choices' are made by unconscious brain activity. Free will is indeed an illusion. The uncertainty principle theory in physics does not outweigh deterministic element in physics. Also the uncertainty principle is redundant in explaining phenomenal human experience. Poor argument.
This may be one of those subjects that can drive a person to literal madness, or something far more precious:
Our ability to love.
Very nice point (from Hume) on the relation between free will, morality, punishment, and reward. It's actually the first plausible and convincing explanation to reconcile free will and morality I've heard from so many RUclips videos on free will.
believe in Free Will ???
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
A very well presented and comprehensive discussion on the subject, though I'm a staunch determinist.
Those who claim free will should explain when free will emerged. Did Neanderthals have free will? How about monkeys? Worms?
Isn't it a bit anthropocentric to claim only humans have free will? At what age does free will start? Does free will have degrees? Somewhat free? Very free?
EVERYTHING traces back to the initial state of the universe at Bing Bang, including the galaxy and the planet your ancestors have evolved on. Including the parents you were born to. Including your choice of ice cram. Even including one's own definition of "belief", "thought" and "rationality". There's simply no logical argument against HARD determinism. It's as valid as any mathematical construct.
We sure are not free from consequences of our actions.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Cont...
Excellent discussion from my professor (circa 2006).
Dear kids that were described as Willful as you can see, hear and feel a Willful person loves themselves like no one . This is your strength not your weakness. God's knowledge is our true nature and if someone finds you loving yourself and react negatively it is their lack of knowledge of our true nature. Love or fear are our only choices and they both land in the same spot. One is the hard way and one is not.
True, and "perfect love casts out fear."
Probably the best argument for compatibilism that i've heard so far.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to mere pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Cont...
Speaker occasionally lose his Focus. Also the volume is way too low.
Compatibilism is such a cop out.
Autonomous volition is generated from within each individual unit of consciousness.
So Hume said you are responsible for your actions if they "follow from you character"? But how are "you" responsible for your character? Also, throughout most of history punishment has had little or nothing to do with the rehabilitation/deterrence of the individual being punished - which Dorter suggests is its principal purpose.
Wait. The spinach ice cream example: "He chose spinach ice cream" and it was an "uncaused event." No, it was, like any other choice, acc. to those who hold of agent causal fw, just another choice and what caused it, was the same as all other choices he makes. It would be absurd to make such a choice in this scenario, but that doesn't make it, "uncaused."
He’s supposing that the event is uncaused for the sake of an example. It’s a thought experiment.
@@TheBasikShow It's a poor analogy he makes with quantum indeterminacy, which is uncaused. A fail as a thought experiment.
Precisely. Quantum indeterminacy has no relation to this example, or "thought experiment" as your adversary below claims.
Don't let your arrogance motivate you to reject this fellow's argument with confidence. I doubt that anybody here can present a coherent argument for or against Free Will. I thought he did quite well - that he actually made some good points and that's about the most we can hope for from anybody tackling this insanely difficult subject.
Uncle Epididymus i agree 😊
Uncle Epididymus
Or it's a simple subject and people just won't accept that free will is an illusion.
The arguments against free will are:
1) We can demonstrate having options is compatible with determinism.
2) We don't experience having free will.
3) It's an incoherent concept that makes a nonsense of choice making.
More detail needed but the case against very much seems water tight.
The resistance comes from people not accepting it more than any good arguments for free will.
I think as soon as you want to start smuggling in free will somewhere it becomes incredibly difficult to explain how it works. Determinism is fundamentally quite easy
Insanely to think you can know
volume is embarrassingly low. who is the sound engineer for this talk? fire them please
Determinism and random are not the only options. Reliable causation is required for any sort of organized response to the environment. The purpose of choice in living organisms is precisely so that they can respond appropriately to local conditions with intention. Free or not free is a value judgement, not a physical state.
But how can I choose freely to consider the long term effects of my actions instead of instant gratification? Isn‘t this also determined by the experiences I made in the past concerning the decision between the two options?
telekatze, those are reasonable questions, but I think backwards. Previous experience does not control your present decisions. Everything that happens to you, and every choice you make goes into making you into an individual, a unique person, who will then make choices based on who you are. Apparently the predetermined construction of your brain has the largest effect on whether you even have the ability to delay gratification or control your impulses, so this avenue of "freedom" is not equally distributed to everyone.
Chains. Freedom is always just free from chains. In other words, you have the potential to construct potential thoughts, and that is the freedom. Anything past that will make determinism a definite conclusion.
You mean we are free inside,in mind
Freedom and free will aren't the same thing.
@@samikent5422 Disagree. Without one, you haven't the other. If they are inseperable, they are functionally the same.
@@nevaarneyok4448 I mean that the freedom of mind is what creates the freedom of action. Only by restricting the freedom of mind can you restrict the free use of body.
If one is free to use the mind, they are free to use the body. The only things that can stop you are death and chains, and even then, you can still refuse to comply and exercise free will by choosing to disobey: by choosing death over compliance.
The point is we seem like the conscious author but we aren't we seem free to make decisions but we arent
Emotions. Emotions are our free will. Intellect suggest to emotion. Emotion approves or disapproves back to intellect and action or inaction are taken place. We must be humbled in preparation for the afterlife. Humility is an emotion
We do not control how we feel we just do feel or not that does not give us freedom.
At the very end of the speach Kenneth Dorter said that we are free to choose to be rational or to be irrational but we are not free of causality. If I understood it right it means that we are free to choose the most basic axioms for constructing our worldview but we are not free from causality which determines everything else since the basics have been chosen. What do you guys think of that?
You are free to choose to be rational or irrational, but you're not free to choose as to why you prefer one over the other.
@@samikent5422 isn't a "why" for this case a free will itself? You choose one over another just because you do as far as I am concerned
@@IgorChernega My "choice" was predetermined and so was your "concern".
Just because somebody knows what you are going to do before you do it doesn't mean that you are forced to do that action? yes, yes it does in order to know what somebody is going to do before they do it means they cannot possibly choose anything else as somebody already knows without doubt what you are going to do, you are forced into whatever decision has been foreseen
You missed his point completely.
There are weakness in interpretation of what the data means, remember they don't know exactly what the extra blood flow in the brain represents, and there are some other issues as well. Here's a couple of starters.
First: The way we normally function we've learnt to do a lot of things without having to think about them, it's not always necessary to know what you are going to do before you do it, you've learnt to do it subconciously.
Second: Human brains are also subject to what is know in computing as the 'halting problem', boiled down it means it takes longer to know what you are about to do than to actually do it. This is a real thing. It has been possited as the actual reason our brains appear to be choosing before we know ourselves in the experiment mentioned.
RIP my ears when he coughed
At 3:12? Damn, i know. Does he do it again? I just lost my right eardrum. Dont wanna lose my left.
Good to see there's some fellow advaitans here to help separate the grain from the chaff for the viewer who was drawned here because of a misleading title. Thanks
Free will is free from a lie. That's why the truth will set you free. A lie is: "you want something for yourself", and when will is free from that lie it sees the truth that "you don't want anything for yourself". Being free means being free from egoistic thoughts because you see it is not what you want but the one who tells you them - the master of this world.
Know what we are going to do BEFoRE we do it... There is no BEFoRE... Chain of causality starts at the beginning of time... Assumes causality.
if one more person disrespects my angel of a professor ill end you
Will you do this by your own free will?
😂😂
Really bad talk, he is all over the place... "The more we think about something, the more we can do that what we really want"... Ok, but where do those thoughts come from if not from what came before, i.e. determined by the causes of the past? You need to call that determinism and free will an illusion. And if random fluctuation do arise in thought patterns, that is not an argument for free will but against it.
But one reinterprets the past, isn't something linear
So how to you choose to live your life? And what are your suggestions for others in this regard? Evidently you are dissatisfied or you wouldn't have listened to this talk.
In my opinion rather than claim to have all the answers to these kind of questions (free will etc.) a bit of direct honesty with ourselves may be in order.
And I claim that apart from perhaps catatonic schizophrenics who feel compelled not to move the rest of us, whether we think we're the most brilliant deterministic philosopher who ever walked this earth, actually do secretly believe in free will in the banal sense of that expression.
So my suggestion is to quit trying to be clever and choose rather to do what is best for you!
Chandar, you are right on!! That guy gave a really crappy talk.
Chandar van der Zande obviously u didnt understand a shit of the talk.
Espaco Oculto, Chandar received 8 thumbs up. Your comment rudely indicates that you disagree. Are you intelligent enough to explain WHY you disagree?
So it's freedom from the cage of timid imagination.
you are free to chose what you want but you are not free to shape your wants.
mshanafi good one 👍🏻
Gods knowledge does Impact your will be cause if he knows something will happen he can hinder it or make it happen. He calls the shots. We plan he directs. You can will your wants, but your future wills can be altered.
"The difference between philosophy and science is... the main difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy does not deal with objectively measurable phenomena like science does." This is a truth claim. He is stating knowledge. This is a philosophical statement. To take it all one step further. Science is a philosophy. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Science is a knowledge. Thus science is a philosophy. I wish people would actually look up text book definitions before making claims like this.
No, no free will. 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills'. - Arthur Schopenhauer - en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
free will is being free to express your will. the will is determined and it has some freedom. a rock is free to be a rock and a man is free to be a human animal.
free will as a personal perception or free will as a physical phenomenon ... I for one understand that it "feels" like I have free will and we live in a causal universe ... then he mentions quantum theory....sheeesh. quantum mechanics work on orders of magnitude smaller than neurons in the brain and coherence between atoms in the brain negates quantum effects.
Free from identifying with the character by taking responsibility for all you experience and be aware of being the character perceiving. Then you see the only choice was ever to resist for any other choice surrenders naturally back to being aware of it all again. But a non causal event has to point it out to you before your really want it, lol, kidda' a cosmic punchline if you ask me.
We are not always free to reason. Otherwise everyone would be reasonable. So tell me again about compatibalism.
why "everyone would be reasonable".
And what is reason? For some something sounds reasonable for others this same thing is unreasonable...
A by-product of having a mind. Simple.
There is no such thing as free will.
Will is never ever free.
Will is the movement of the I, the me, the self, the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain.
Will is knowledge.
Will is the past.
Will is mechanical.
Will is the program.
The end of will is the beginning of Inner Total Freedom for the very first time in each and every moment of daily life.
Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Lucidity.
Without Lucidity, there is no Love, Peace, Joy, or Creativity...none whatsoever. There is only their limitations, which are imitations.
Fate or destiny is whatever happens to you when there is no Lucidity.
Inner Total Freedom: Total Freedom from the I, the me, the self, the observer, the listener, the chooser, the experiencer, the interpreter, the so-called True or Higher Self, which is an illusion invented from the past conditioning of the brain.
It acts as a filter, which limits, distorts, shapes and colors all perceptions, and so you never Perceive anyone or anything as it actually is.
It is an inner tyrant who tells you what to think, how to feel and what to do.
Moreover, it invents the illusion of division, separation, and disconnection from everyone and everything, which leads inevitably to conflict, violence, and suffering.
Just like a woman can't be half pregnant, your brain is either Totally Free OR you are functioning at some level of slavery to self-deception.
Inner slavery has many levels.
Inner Freedom has no levels.
Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Love, no Peace, no Joy, no Goodness, no Kindness, no Feeling, no Beauty, no Creativity, no Lucidity, no Truth, no Wisdom, no Communication, no Communion, no Relationship...none whatsoever.
Without Inner Total Freedom, there is no Happiness, Joy, or Ecstasy.
There is only their limitation and imitation.
There is only pleasure and suffering, which are opposite sides of the same coin.
Without Inner Total Freedom, your every action, regardless of your intention, will continue to contribute to the conflict, violence, and suffering in the world today.
You may solve one problem but in so doing you will create a hundred other ones without being aware of it.
What you call progress, evolution, or growth, will merely be the movement from one form of tyranny to another form of tyranny.
See the danger.
You can't force people to do something If I can suggest Please raise your volume
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I have always believed that our brains are simply the hardware oS for our bodies, for the allowance of the human condition and experience...that our consciousness is limited in its faculties by the human brain's abilities. If one was born a dog, then their consciousness would be limited by a dog's brain and if someone were born on another planet, to a higher evolved creature with a more advanced brain, that they would have less limitations than a human being and more abilities made available to them by their 'larger' brain. Consciousness is the program of our soul, which tethers us to our current experience and can be understood as how you can run a program on a low quality computer and be limited by its hardware, or run on a high quality computer and have much more, if not complete access to all the program due to the better hardware...and I think this can be observed, not only between different species, but within the same species as well and all bc of 'better hardware' which is how we get Newtons, Aristotles and Einsteins.
About Augustus.
I think it would be persuasive too as long as the god he speaks of isn't the one who set up the proverbial dominoes.
FirstWestern Philosopher that we know in any detail
sorry but determinism still makes more sense.
+Francisco Muniz Yep... :(
+Rodrigo Gallinari that's what I used to think. determinism has all the science unlike freewill. Freewill is an illusion. Freewill might have some philosophical arguments but no sold proof. Check out Sam Harris, he had a book about it.
That's not an argument. Please show me how he is wrong or give me a link so I can investigate for myself. Trust me, I don't like the idea of determinism but I can't come to terms with something with only wishful thinking. How is same wrong other than you just saying he is?
Rodrigo Gallinari I actually would like to know.
Francisco Muniz
The concept of freedom is the issue. It's often ill-defined and from fuzzy terms it is difficult to derive absolute answers.
Determinism means everyone is just robotic, ultimately. It's not true at all
God is absolute free will, when our awareness increases we realize our self free will is limited and when you see truth of One, free will is infinite!!! 💝💝💝 Put it another way, when you give up your self freewill, then freewill is unlimited...
hard determinism on one side, libertarian free will on the other (randomness)-neither results in FW. That leaves, acc. to this lecture: compatibilism. Ok, except for one thing: what if the world is determined? what if the choice of will is random? Also the representation of Hume on moral responsibility was presented in a punitive/rewarding model. That doesn't affect free will vs determinism. It represents behavior modification.
Compatibilism incompatible with logic. Having causation "we can be free from irresponsible, irrational behavior...". Apparent controversy: If there is determinism than there is a cause for either being rational or being irrational. I.e. if there is a cause to be irrational than how can one be rational )
Nice talk though.
حكيم
If you find this talk convincing you need to watch more, and better speakers on the subject. So many flaws, so many appeals to emotion.
Please study- RUclips Dr. Bruce Lipton. Thanks.
Please study-RUclips-Dr. Brown Lipton. Thanks,
Pro tip: speed up to at least 1.5, I did 1.75
Update, up to 2x now
Ugh had to watch this for my philosophy class. SO hard to follow.
I thought he was Martin Scorsese lol. Good talk though.
A swing and a miss,...again.
Bad sound. Also, free will is "free to" not "free from."
Ask one question from yourself after waking from a dream.
Q. Who is conscious of the absence of my dream?
A: I, who was observable in my dream but is not observable in the universe.
B: I, who is observable in the universe but was not observable in my dream.
C: : I, who was observing my dream but was neither observable in my dream nor in the universe.
If your answer is C then you who were observing your dream are also observing the universe. You are holding the same place in the universe what you were holding in your dream.
There is free will for you who are observable in the universe as an actor. There is no free will for you who are observing the universe including you who are observable in the universe.
When he started with “we” and “them” bs I knew there was zero scientific backing and probably a fate loving point of view. Yuk
Free will is simply "free" from reality: that is, any mind or anything else which can lie or err has free will. Even words, symbols, and any other forms of representation of anything can be free of reality, as fictions or errors. Get over it! Err and lie to your "heart's content". LMFAO
Just because God knows what we might do, he doesn't control us. Calvinists are so wrong. All Christians don't believe in Calvinism!!
A lot of BS in this one..
Worst ever Ted Talk on free will.
Surprised how poor this presentation is
He does not know if it’s possible for a 4th dimensional being to even exist, let alone observe us. Lol, This guy needs to slow down and think. Too much Jesus on the brain.
He makes too many assumptions.
Possibly the worst, most boring ted talk I've had the misfortune to watch.
Ben libits 'voluntary action' experiment asserts that all these supposed 'free choices' are made by unconscious brain activity. Free will is indeed an illusion.
The uncertainty principle theory in physics does not outweigh deterministic element in physics.
Also the uncertainty principle is redundant in explaining phenomenal human experience.
Poor argument.