You really helped me in understanding Strawson's arguments. My professor failed to do what you did, which is to explain simple arguments in a dense amount of time hahaha.
This "basic argument" is basically just a restating of the determinist position, that all events are the result of all previous states. As such, it is using a certain specific view of causality, that doesn't need to be true. It is also an argument against a free will position that no-one holds. The description of free will is that it is not unlimited or unrestrained, but that it is the ability of the mind to focus attention. And that it is a choice. Once the choice is made, other thought processes will cascade from that, that are determined, but there was something that could have happened otherwise, and that was at the moment of the choice. The most convincing argument for free will is in the nature of "objectivity". To be objective, and use concepts like "truth", "proof", "knowledge", "validity" or "convince", we need to be able to "know" that we have looked at a thing and used a reasoning process to form our conclusions about it. If pure determinism is correct, we simply cannot say that we are doing that, because our thoughts are determined, just like everything else. Your thoughts about the non-existence of volition are only there (according to you) because of a causal cascade that leads back to the beginning of the Universe. How could your thoughts on free will have been any different? If they couldn't have been different, what validity does that argument contain? answer: none. Free will is a founding axiom of knowledge. Without it, your thoughts and arguments carry no more weight than if I had split open a rock on the beach and found the same message "free will is an illusion" written inside. That would have been a purely determined outcome too. Would you trust it if you saw it on the rock? How is the rock any different to a determined brain? Finally, I introduce the "fallacy of self-exclusion", where we see free will opponents claiming to use a human reasoning process, to discover that that process is impossible. We can make statement like "I am a compulsive liar", that are nonsense and self-refuting, and the argument that free will is an illusion is like that. You are claiming to have knowledge that then refutes your route for getting it. The "brain part" of all this is still not explainable, but you still cannot get underneath the philosophical problem of human reason having free will as a foundational requirement, if anything is going to be "true" or "false".
There's a video meant for this in the near future. I hope you'd wait for it. However, in a nutshell, it is No Free Will, that allows for knowledge and convincing, not Free Will. There is no "already presupposed axiom called free will" that needs no proof and evidence in itself 😄, something which gives even octopuses free will
I'll just add a few points. I can't wait that long. Reason, logic and truth makes slaves of us all. It matters that 2+2=4. It matters that you understand it. Suppose you understand that 2+2=4. Are you free not to understand it? No. Not if you do in fact understand it. Are you free to understand it, if you don't understand it? No. Whether you understand or not isn't under your control. But the difference matters. You are a part of reality, whatever it is altogether, with its laws that govern its existence. Where is the freedom in this? Your beliefs about the world are formed in a perfect crucible of prior causes. If I say something now that changes your mind, it will be through no free will of your own. The universe is pulling your strings. But your beliefs about the world matters as there is a huge difference between knowledge and delusion. Knowledge doesn't require free will. All knowledge requires is no free will rather. Once we know Earth is spherical, we are not free to believe Earth is flat. More, in that video 👍
@@CuriosityGuy I don't have the space here or the time to fully explain, but what I will say is that you have not understood my points. That is probably because of me. Your idea of "freedom" is not one that free will advocates would promote. Ala Sam Harris, you are partial-strawmanning the free will position. His "take-downs" on free will are of a type of free will that no-one believes in anyway. If you are genuinely interested in the real case for free will, here is a good place to start: First in a series on free will: ruclips.net/user/livevOQ1CerS3Ac?si=OF1LmNQqor2vcn-A Determinism as self-refuting: ruclips.net/user/livetx3_TRAcgd8?si=2k8TzOIlV6Z0Fv_y Lastly, a thought occurred to me about your 2+2=4 example. Imagine using a calculator to do a sum not unlike this, but more complicated for simple math in your head. You have no clue as to whether the answer is correct or not, because it is beyond your mental powers to do the calculation yourself. What confidence do you have that the answer is correct? How do you know that the calculator isn't just following it's programming, but the programming is wrong? You may ask "who created this calculator?" and "what method did they use?" in order to try to make your judgement on how confident you should be. If you ask these questions, you are back at the foundational level again, asking how the human that made the calculator knew the programming would give correct answers. If no-one made the calculator - it is just a determined entity that you come across one day - then what level of confidence could you have in it's answers? It is determined to give the answer it gives. You could go through a process of testing and validating the calculator, but then you are just doing the same human-type action of building one. Denial of free will is the same as saying that we are the same as a calculator that no-one made. Our answers would be determined and as such EVERYTHING we claim to know as true or false is entirely arbitrary. Thank you for your time. (Although, by your lights you had no choice but to give it).
I think intellectual understanding that we have no free will is a very good thing and I am glad I believe this. I get more empathy for others, I hate less, I realize the strength of dogma more. Having no free will is also coupled with the fact that I think that we always try to make the best decisions that we can. I have never talked with anyone you admitted to making his worst decisions because of the way he is. But I still want to believe where there was real importance that I had the freedom to reflect the best rational for my actions. But this is how we decide and act. No big deal except losing hate, increasing empathy, increasing emphasis on education or whatever. The big loss is Abrahamic religions blaming everything on Eve.
Absolutely wonderful video! I agree that we can feel the nonexistence of free will. There's no illusion of free will. I just disagree with you in that I don't think we need meditation or psychedelics: We just need to pay attention to great videos like this one. Thankyou very much!😀
The Basic Argument absolutely shows that we are not morally responsible, or even responsible more generally, for being who we are, the way we are in our totality, our thoughts and mental states, and our actions. As stated in the video, free will would require us to be completely responsible for those things by definition, but a vicious infinite regress is simply logically impossible to obtain. Ergo, nothing can be causa sui. So, free will is logically impossible, provided that free will requires that we are morally responsible and/or responsible more generally for our actions. Not even God could satisfy the condition of being causa sui, because that’s incoherent - if God exists, God couldn’t have chosen to be God, nor could he have created himself ex nihilo (from nothing or nonexistence) or any of his attributes/characteristics for the same reason we can’t. It follows that God could not have free will and would also not be morally responsible or responsible more generally for being who he is, the way he is in his totality, and what he does, etc. Also, the Basic Argument holds true regardless of which ontology (physicalism, dualism, idealism, etc.) is true, and regardless of whether determinism is true or false (as stated in the video).
If fatalism means "inevitability and predeterminism, regardless of your thoughts and desires" to you, I am not a fatalist. You obviously, make causal unfree decisions. A lot of things that happen to you, happen through you, not extrinsic of you.
Wish you luck. Good content 😊
This channel has real potential
You really helped me in understanding Strawson's arguments. My professor failed to do what you did, which is to explain simple arguments in a dense amount of time hahaha.
Just found this gem of a comment today! This means a lot! Thank you so much 😊
This "basic argument" is basically just a restating of the determinist position, that all events are the result of all previous states. As such, it is using a certain specific view of causality, that doesn't need to be true. It is also an argument against a free will position that no-one holds.
The description of free will is that it is not unlimited or unrestrained, but that it is the ability of the mind to focus attention. And that it is a choice. Once the choice is made, other thought processes will cascade from that, that are determined, but there was something that could have happened otherwise, and that was at the moment of the choice.
The most convincing argument for free will is in the nature of "objectivity". To be objective, and use concepts like "truth", "proof", "knowledge", "validity" or "convince", we need to be able to "know" that we have looked at a thing and used a reasoning process to form our conclusions about it. If pure determinism is correct, we simply cannot say that we are doing that, because our thoughts are determined, just like everything else. Your thoughts about the non-existence of volition are only there (according to you) because of a causal cascade that leads back to the beginning of the Universe. How could your thoughts on free will have been any different? If they couldn't have been different, what validity does that argument contain? answer: none.
Free will is a founding axiom of knowledge. Without it, your thoughts and arguments carry no more weight than if I had split open a rock on the beach and found the same message "free will is an illusion" written inside. That would have been a purely determined outcome too. Would you trust it if you saw it on the rock? How is the rock any different to a determined brain?
Finally, I introduce the "fallacy of self-exclusion", where we see free will opponents claiming to use a human reasoning process, to discover that that process is impossible. We can make statement like "I am a compulsive liar", that are nonsense and self-refuting, and the argument that free will is an illusion is like that. You are claiming to have knowledge that then refutes your route for getting it.
The "brain part" of all this is still not explainable, but you still cannot get underneath the philosophical problem of human reason having free will as a foundational requirement, if anything is going to be "true" or "false".
There's a video meant for this in the near future. I hope you'd wait for it. However, in a nutshell, it is No Free Will, that allows for knowledge and convincing, not Free Will. There is no "already presupposed axiom called free will" that needs no proof and evidence in itself 😄, something which gives even octopuses free will
I'll just add a few points. I can't wait that long.
Reason, logic and truth makes slaves of us all. It matters that 2+2=4. It matters that you understand it. Suppose you understand that 2+2=4. Are you free not to understand it? No. Not if you do in fact understand it. Are you free to understand it, if you don't understand it? No. Whether you understand or not isn't under your control. But the difference matters. You are a part of reality, whatever it is altogether, with its laws that govern its existence. Where is the freedom in this? Your beliefs about the world are formed in a perfect crucible of prior causes. If I say something now that changes your mind, it will be through no free will of your own. The universe is pulling your strings. But your beliefs about the world matters as there is a huge difference between knowledge and delusion. Knowledge doesn't require free will. All knowledge requires is no free will rather. Once we know Earth is spherical, we are not free to believe Earth is flat.
More, in that video 👍
@@CuriosityGuy I don't have the space here or the time to fully explain, but what I will say is that you have not understood my points. That is probably because of me.
Your idea of "freedom" is not one that free will advocates would promote. Ala Sam Harris, you are partial-strawmanning the free will position. His "take-downs" on free will are of a type of free will that no-one believes in anyway.
If you are genuinely interested in the real case for free will, here is a good place to start:
First in a series on free will: ruclips.net/user/livevOQ1CerS3Ac?si=OF1LmNQqor2vcn-A
Determinism as self-refuting: ruclips.net/user/livetx3_TRAcgd8?si=2k8TzOIlV6Z0Fv_y
Lastly, a thought occurred to me about your 2+2=4 example. Imagine using a calculator to do a sum not unlike this, but more complicated for simple math in your head. You have no clue as to whether the answer is correct or not, because it is beyond your mental powers to do the calculation yourself. What confidence do you have that the answer is correct? How do you know that the calculator isn't just following it's programming, but the programming is wrong?
You may ask "who created this calculator?" and "what method did they use?" in order to try to make your judgement on how confident you should be. If you ask these questions, you are back at the foundational level again, asking how the human that made the calculator knew the programming would give correct answers.
If no-one made the calculator - it is just a determined entity that you come across one day - then what level of confidence could you have in it's answers? It is determined to give the answer it gives.
You could go through a process of testing and validating the calculator, but then you are just doing the same human-type action of building one.
Denial of free will is the same as saying that we are the same as a calculator that no-one made. Our answers would be determined and as such EVERYTHING we claim to know as true or false is entirely arbitrary.
Thank you for your time. (Although, by your lights you had no choice but to give it).
I think intellectual understanding that we have no free will is a very good thing and I am glad I believe this. I get more empathy for others, I hate less, I realize the strength of dogma more. Having no free will is also coupled with the fact that I think that we always try to make the best decisions that we can. I have never talked with anyone you admitted to making his worst decisions because of the way he is. But I still want to believe where there was real importance that I had the freedom to reflect the best rational for my actions. But this is how we decide and act. No big deal except losing hate, increasing empathy, increasing emphasis on education or whatever. The big loss is Abrahamic religions blaming everything on Eve.
Agree!
Absolutely wonderful video!
I agree that we can feel the nonexistence of free will. There's no illusion of free will. I just disagree with you in that I don't think we need meditation or psychedelics: We just need to pay attention to great videos like this one. Thankyou very much!😀
Good one Curiosity 👍👏
I don't think the infinite regress is impossible.
I mean we could be in one.
Who knows if we are in a simulation we could be rebooted at any moment.
The Basic Argument absolutely shows that we are not morally responsible, or even responsible more generally, for being who we are, the way we are in our totality, our thoughts and mental states, and our actions.
As stated in the video, free will would require us to be completely responsible for those things by definition, but a vicious infinite regress is simply logically impossible to obtain. Ergo, nothing can be causa sui. So, free will is logically impossible, provided that free will requires that we are morally responsible and/or responsible more generally for our actions.
Not even God could satisfy the condition of being causa sui, because that’s incoherent - if God exists, God couldn’t have chosen to be God, nor could he have created himself ex nihilo (from nothing or nonexistence) or any of his attributes/characteristics for the same reason we can’t. It follows that God could not have free will and would also not be morally responsible or responsible more generally for being who he is, the way he is in his totality, and what he does, etc.
Also, the Basic Argument holds true regardless of which ontology (physicalism, dualism, idealism, etc.) is true, and regardless of whether determinism is true or false (as stated in the video).
What do you think about fatalism?
If fatalism means "inevitability and predeterminism, regardless of your thoughts and desires" to you, I am not a fatalist. You obviously, make causal unfree decisions. A lot of things that happen to you, happen through you, not extrinsic of you.
Work on your lighting
But then could even a god be free?
Pls turn off the music.