Why even bother to ask? If free will is indeed an illusion, then you didn't willingly ask this question, it was inevitable... and anyone answering does not do it by choice, they are compelled to do so, with no say or control to do otherwise. When you had the illusion to decide to post this video, did you not realize that it wasn't a decision at all, it was an inevitable consequence of how all the particles in the universe were arranged at that moment? You have no free will to decide whether free will is an illusion, or instead that the whole proposition of this video is preposterous nonsense. Nothing you do or think has any meaning, that too is an illusion. Lol, just kidding, you do have free will, and you know it, otherwise you would ponder the consequences of this preposterous nonsense, and would end up in hopeless despair at the meaninglessness of all that you ever do, and curl up in a fetal position in the corner of your living room and sob uncontrollably until they hauled you away to the insane asylum.
I loved the talk and demonstration of talking about ideas about reality. It is a disappointment to know the relative rarity of it versuses all the crazy group think alluded to about our current era of the political derangement. It is sad to think, "People will believe anything, if given a community to be in!" Thank you for posting!
I'm more and more inclined to go with Arthur Schopenhauer on this one - A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills. Men · You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
And, arguably, the first part of that is a tautology. Whatever it is he does, he willed it by definition. But he had no say in the willing of it. Even so, one could say the first bit isn't even true because there is technically no "he" there to will it in the first place.
no i don`t think it is an illusion. we are bound by probabilities but we can put our energy toward influencing the uncertainty that exists, and in this way can influence our own futures
Free will is impossible by more metrics than one. It just doesn't make sense. But humans love feeling like they're in control and your own answer is evidence for the urge to defend feeling that way.
@@matterasmachine Whatever happens on quantum level cannot create some paradoxical personal freedom. Its magical thinking. Your ego is trying to wiggle itself out from understanding that it controls nothing.
@@MarkoKraguljac of cause it gives free will. your ego makes you use your free will to find yourself excuses for being a loser. Those who win never say that it was predefined. Only losers.
Galen couldn't be further from the truth. The illusion of free will is actually a rather flimsy illusion, easily overcome. And when you do overcome it you will be better off.
Nobody knows with any certainty whether free will exists, or whether it's an illusion. Not you, not me, not the authoritative sounding guy in the video. It is an open question and nobody has a definitive answer.
I wish Galen would have a conversation with Susan Blackmore about this because he's right on free will not existing but it being a necessary illusion is nonsensical.
I’d love him to be interviewed on Sam Harris’ podcast. Sam believes the illusion of free will is itself an illusion, that a close, introspective examination of how we make decisions leads us to see there is no free will.
@@ianthomas4891 yes. Sam is correct. And Galen is wrong. The illusion is itself an illusion. Galen is just falling for it. And failing to overcome free will, is simply because of a lack of trying.
But then the truth-claim that there exists no freewill itself will have no discursive credibility since it'll be like a solipsist trying to convince the world that there exists no one but oneself (which is irrational since if you actually believe solipsism to be the truth, persuading others to believe in it is against your truth-claim as such). Likewise, when one tries to convince other people of their theory, they necessarily have to presuppose that their audience has some sort of freedom to analyze, reflect upon and maybe even come to a consensus with others through discussion and disagreements. This is why freewill can be described as a [socially] necessary illusion (if at all it actually is an illusion). Also, Sam Harris' arguments against freewill are famous, but one should also reflect upon the other experimental models and results that emerged after the famous Libet experiment, which ofc are not that accessible to the public since the scientists involved are not as eager as Sam to convince the world of their credulity by becoming an internet sensation with a fanbase of obtuse, wannabe intellectuals.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 on the balance of things, taken from my own experiences, I tend towards there not being any free will in an absolute sense. Yet I can't deny the fact that there exists an altogether opaque point based around my day to day belief that I *do* have free will. Whenever one comes across people arguing that it _doesn't_ feel as though we have the ability to choose between options - that is to say, choosing in the moment, and when not actively considering the case - they almost always immediately follow such statements as "the illusion of free will is an illusion" with incredulity that others cannot immediately see the objective truth of their position. Which is of course incoherent nonsense. If they truly believed that the illusion is itself an illusion (ie. believed this beyond the intellectual case) , then they quite simply wouldn't hold any opinions with regards to absolutely anything whatsoever. In fact, they wouldn't be alive to hold opinions in the first place, having long since died of starvation from an inability to decide when, where, and what they should consume for food! As stated, I'm inclined to think there isn't any such thing as free will, and even that the illusion of free will is itself in some senses illusory - but not in _all_ senses - because that would invalidate any such statements beginning with 'I' think. No, 'I' wouldn't think. Which would have to be the point, wouldn't it?
09:25 Why would someone as smart as him have a negative opinion of someone that chooses to support a certain political party if he understands that they have absolutely no choice in which side they choose to support?
The 'negative opinion' itself is choiceless, as well. Opinions happen, and he alludes to how 'crazy ideas' get propagated and maintained in groups. His arguments tend to veer the mind's focus toward finding the agency of such thoughts/ideas, and the assumed agent's construct. Becoming conscious is well-described in Plato's Cave Allegory.
However many "selves" have inhabited my body over multiple decades, there is surely a more or less coherent account of the causal or development relations between these. That's not a "narrative" that's up for grabs; the account is either true or false, albeit possibly opaque to some degree, about how you got to where you are. Naturally external influences play an enormous role in that causal account, but they are unlikely to be the whole story, since two individuals subject to similar influences can turn out quite different. Now whether one wants to call the unity of this sequence of "selves" an individual, as in the previous sentence, or itself a SELF - an über, master self of shorter-duration "selves" - seems merely semantic. We still need, or in any case could dearly use, a term to refer to that biography, which is certainly more than just the history of a physical body. (Anscombe says somewhere that knowing autobiographical facts, such as knowing where "I" - call that whatever you like - was born, brought up, who "my" parents were/are, "my" schooling", religion, experiences, etc. - are essential to personal identity). What difference does it make if I claim not to identify with the child that formerly inhabited my body, if that child played an obviously essential role in the development of my current "self", in a vastly different way from how any other child or adult might have influenced me?
Out of interest, what is the relationship between free will and reason? Are they the same thing or can they exist independently? Does the fact that humans can apply reason prove that free will is real?
Don't think so. Applying reason might just be evolutionary advantages, so some people have by genes or upbringing a reasoning program in their mind that gets turned on by certain kind of triggers.
Richard Blackburn Free will is about having options we can select. Try believing the earth is flat and let me know how you get on. There is no connection between free will and reason.
And evolution ? The entire brain has evolved and all its workings, why not consider that. Self consciousness, and the concomitant free will, are evolutionarily advantageous. The brain may be responsible for all actions, and free will an illusion, and if so it has evolved that way. Maybe necessarily because free will is simply not possible, or maybe it is possible, and was tried, but proved to be not as advantageous as the chimera of free will. I don't know. But I would consider evolution, rather than culture. Culture is just a subset of evolution.
So evolution decided to benefit itself by illuding itself, then benefit itself again by realizing its illuding itself? LOL. Also if the brain is illuding itself why stop at just that? Any comprehensible thought could be an illusion, including the one that free will doesn't exist.
@@niftyszn9469 I have no recollection of writing my comment. Never assume "teleology" - that Evolution has a goal. Evolution is a process. Eg Conway's Game-of-Life cellular automata : they just adapt to an environment. Spinoza - "We are just a spark in an infinite purposeless universe" Montaigne :- “Whoever considers as in a painting the great picture of our mother Nature in her full majesty…whoever finds himself there…as a dot made with a very fine brush; that man alone estimates things according to their true proportions.”
I have memories of past events but I dont believe in a complete calculated history going back billions of years. I certainly don't have all that information of past events, and I don't believe that information exists anywhere. Missing information is possibilities. I don't believe our days are created by past events. Needless to say I am not religious and I don't believe in any higher power keeping records of everything.
The free will illusion is in two parts. It starts with the belief we can select either option A or B in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past prior to the choice. Choices just aren't like that in reality and we can just check and see. The initial illusion gives us the impression that we are ultimately responsible for which option we select, which Galen Strawson points out is impossible and is the second part of the illusion. I don't think we have to live with the illusion. I think we only need to get clear about what it is to have options we can select in the circumstances, to overcome the illusion.
There's not enough scientific evidence to prove there is free will. But a growing body which proves that we do not consciously 'choose' to act. When it comes to the justice system we don't need to prove intent to know that most convictions surround behaviour. Do we need people who murder, commit other acts of violence, larceny, etc to still be free to walk on the streets? Do we necessarily have to convict only on 'intent'? Only people who have a less than enviable psychological profile are likely to commit most crimes. And then why are we so intent on 'punishment' as a deterrent rather than rehabilitation as a cure? Are we still so savage that we howl for blood rather than curing sick minds? Either way, we are lied to and deceived by so many institutions such as advertising, the media, our elected representatives in govt. I for one am tired of living in a world where we need more pretending and less truth.
@@matterasmachine What about philosophy then? "You do what you do because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be able to be responsible for how you are. But you can't be ultimately responsible for the way you are, because you'd have to be there already to set yourself up. That leads to an infinite regress" What is your response to this?
@@Luftgitarrenprofi you don’t have to have ultimate free will to have free will. You can have only slight amount of choices you can make and that already be a free will. Free will is the possibility not to do what you should do. Free will is the possibility to make mistakes. Error probability that is greater then 0.
@@matterasmachine So I'm guessing by ultimate free will you mean libertarian free will and by should you mean can/could? Because should would imply ethics. I'd agree that libertarian free will neither makes sense, nor is it necessary. But not many people outside of religious philosophers hold that view. So what you're saying seems more akin to compatibalism. A skeptic/incompatibalist would say that we have will, but by virtue of our own experience can't say where our thoughts or desires come from. They just are. And if we can't control our thoughts or desires arising, then we can't say that we are in control of what we want. If we don't control what we want, then how do we justify the "free" in will? We can never go against our desires, because we are always bound to do what we want most even we're trying to prove that we have free will by chosing chocolate over vanilla even though we hate chocolate. What are we free from if not even from our own wants, thoughts and desires seemingly reactionary in their very nature? Aside from all that you dodged the question by answering a constructed one. You can't avoid the infinite regress, even with the redefined compatibalist Interpretation of free will.
You see something you can't explain and then you decide to call it an illusion and force others to believe it too??? What is your definition of a lowlife human again?
No free will in anything - we don't know where our thoughts come from. Not only free will is an illusion - our existence is an illusion. I don't know what I am and I have seen that I'm alone in being.
Free will is not an illusion. Just the fact that you are sitting around opining on it and designing experiments to measure proves the point. You can't do all that with 2 thngs - consciousness and free will. Determinism works well on inanimate objects. Physicists and philosopher do not understand the phenomenon of life - how and why we have life and higher intelligence. Nobody does.
hi, Galen Strawson has a beautiful voice. I wonder if he is interested in reading Divine Comedy as prose from modern-day English. Could you please convey this message to him? thank you.
This topic is stupid. Even many neuroscientists think so. If free will doesn’t exist, how is it that we’re able to follow rules and laws that despite our deterministic behavior? Lol dumb conversation. Then going into “moral responsibility” is another silly topic.
Because we have brains wired to follow rules. If we had free will then where is it coming from? It would have to come out of thin air or itself would be determined. The notion of free will makes no sense from the start.
17 years of spiritual practices -Free will is illusion. We are not, god is. All enlightened beengs befor me came to same realisation. It final realisation. Relax be blissfull.
Dude, the bloke at the doorstep reportedly patently freewilling, well, not at all, he could presumably be, or deliberately begin, pondering the, and that, very circumstance and so escapes the 'patent'-ness of it and so, what's more, get to the truth of it and us. So end of, there's no religious anything anywhere.
@@vids595 I don't understand a lot of the arguments I am seeing in the comments. Isn't it firmly established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate at its very core?
That makes no sense. Besides, random events at the quantum level are thought to be indeterministic, whereas random events in nature would be deterministic even if they aren't predictable.
Do you think free will is an illusion? Let us know below! To check out more interviews visit iai.tv/debates-and-talks?RUclips&+comment&
Why even bother to ask? If free will is indeed an illusion, then you didn't willingly ask this question, it was inevitable... and anyone answering does not do it by choice, they are compelled to do so, with no say or control to do otherwise. When you had the illusion to decide to post this video, did you not realize that it wasn't a decision at all, it was an inevitable consequence of how all the particles in the universe were arranged at that moment? You have no free will to decide whether free will is an illusion, or instead that the whole proposition of this video is preposterous nonsense. Nothing you do or think has any meaning, that too is an illusion.
Lol, just kidding, you do have free will, and you know it, otherwise you would ponder the consequences of this preposterous nonsense, and would end up in hopeless despair at the meaninglessness of all that you ever do, and curl up in a fetal position in the corner of your living room and sob uncontrollably until they hauled you away to the insane asylum.
Great to see Strawson doing open convos like this. He's done some great work and made so much of it available. Recommended.
i've heard "the truth will set you free"
I loved the talk and demonstration of talking about ideas about reality. It is a disappointment to know the relative rarity of it versuses all the crazy group think alluded to about our current era of the political derangement. It is sad to think, "People will believe anything, if given a community to be in!" Thank you for posting!
@@vids595 That is true! Your right about that!
I'm more and more inclined to go with Arthur Schopenhauer on this one - A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills. Men · You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
And, arguably, the first part of that is a tautology. Whatever it is he does, he willed it by definition. But he had no say in the willing of it. Even so, one could say the first bit isn't even true because there is technically no "he" there to will it in the first place.
no i don`t think it is an illusion. we are bound by probabilities but we can put our energy toward influencing the uncertainty that exists, and in this way can influence our own futures
Magical thinking
Free will is impossible by more metrics than one. It just doesn't make sense. But humans love feeling like they're in control and your own answer is evidence for the urge to defend feeling that way.
@@MarkoKraguljac look at quantum mechanics, magical thinker
@@matterasmachine Whatever happens on quantum level cannot create some paradoxical personal freedom. Its magical thinking. Your ego is trying to wiggle itself out from understanding that it controls nothing.
@@MarkoKraguljac of cause it gives free will. your ego makes you use your free will to find yourself excuses for being a loser. Those who win never say that it was predefined. Only losers.
Galen couldn't be further from the truth. The illusion of free will is actually a rather flimsy illusion, easily overcome. And when you do overcome it you will be better off.
Nobody knows with any certainty whether free will exists, or whether it's an illusion. Not you, not me, not the authoritative sounding guy in the video. It is an open question and nobody has a definitive answer.
I wish Galen would have a conversation with Susan Blackmore about this because he's right on free will not existing but it being a necessary illusion is nonsensical.
I’d love him to be interviewed on Sam Harris’ podcast. Sam believes the illusion of free will is itself an illusion, that a close, introspective examination of how we make decisions leads us to see there is no free will.
@@ianthomas4891 yes. Sam is correct. And Galen is wrong. The illusion is itself an illusion. Galen is just falling for it. And failing to overcome free will, is simply because of a lack of trying.
But then the truth-claim that there exists no freewill itself will have no discursive credibility since it'll be like a solipsist trying to convince the world that there exists no one but oneself (which is irrational since if you actually believe solipsism to be the truth, persuading others to believe in it is against your truth-claim as such). Likewise, when one tries to convince other people of their theory, they necessarily have to presuppose that their audience has some sort of freedom to analyze, reflect upon and maybe even come to a consensus with others through discussion and disagreements. This is why freewill can be described as a [socially] necessary illusion (if at all it actually is an illusion). Also, Sam Harris' arguments against freewill are famous, but one should also reflect upon the other experimental models and results that emerged after the famous Libet experiment, which ofc are not that accessible to the public since the scientists involved are not as eager as Sam to convince the world of their credulity by becoming an internet sensation with a fanbase of obtuse, wannabe intellectuals.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 on the balance of things, taken from my own experiences, I tend towards there not being any free will in an absolute sense. Yet I can't deny the fact that there exists an altogether opaque point based around my day to day belief that I *do* have free will. Whenever one comes across people arguing that it _doesn't_ feel as though we have the ability to choose between options - that is to say, choosing in the moment, and when not actively considering the case - they almost always immediately follow such statements as "the illusion of free will is an illusion" with incredulity that others cannot immediately see the objective truth of their position. Which is of course incoherent nonsense. If they truly believed that the illusion is itself an illusion (ie. believed this beyond the intellectual case) , then they quite simply wouldn't hold any opinions with regards to absolutely anything whatsoever. In fact, they wouldn't be alive to hold opinions in the first place, having long since died of starvation from an inability to decide when, where, and what they should consume for food! As stated, I'm inclined to think there isn't any such thing as free will, and even that the illusion of free will is itself in some senses illusory - but not in _all_ senses - because that would invalidate any such statements beginning with 'I' think. No, 'I' wouldn't think. Which would have to be the point, wouldn't it?
09:25 Why would someone as smart as him have a negative opinion of someone that chooses to support a certain political party if he understands that they have absolutely no choice in which side they choose to support?
The 'negative opinion' itself is choiceless, as well. Opinions happen, and he alludes to how 'crazy ideas' get propagated and maintained in groups. His arguments tend to veer the mind's focus toward finding the agency of such thoughts/ideas, and the assumed agent's construct. Becoming conscious is well-described in Plato's Cave Allegory.
it is necessary to resign from imprisonment and violence. than free will will not be the illusion
However many "selves" have inhabited my body over multiple decades, there is surely a more or less coherent account of the causal or development relations between these. That's not a "narrative" that's up for grabs; the account is either true or false, albeit possibly opaque to some degree, about how you got to where you are. Naturally external influences play an enormous role in that causal account, but they are unlikely to be the whole story, since two individuals subject to similar influences can turn out quite different. Now whether one wants to call the unity of this sequence of "selves" an individual, as in the previous sentence, or itself a SELF - an über, master self of shorter-duration "selves" - seems merely semantic. We still need, or in any case could dearly use, a term to refer to that biography, which is certainly more than just the history of a physical body. (Anscombe says somewhere that knowing autobiographical facts, such as knowing where "I" - call that whatever you like - was born, brought up, who "my" parents were/are, "my" schooling", religion, experiences, etc. - are essential to personal identity). What difference does it make if I claim not to identify with the child that formerly inhabited my body, if that child played an obviously essential role in the development of my current "self", in a vastly different way from how any other child or adult might have influenced me?
Does everything use free will?
Out of interest, what is the relationship between free will and reason? Are they the same thing or can they exist independently? Does the fact that humans can apply reason prove that free will is real?
Don't think so. Applying reason might just be evolutionary advantages, so some people have by genes or upbringing a reasoning program in their mind that gets turned on by certain kind of triggers.
Richard Blackburn
Free will is about having options we can select.
Try believing the earth is flat and let me know how you get on. There is no connection between free will and reason.
And evolution ?
The entire brain has evolved and all its workings, why not consider that.
Self consciousness, and the concomitant free will, are evolutionarily advantageous.
The brain may be responsible for all actions, and free will an illusion,
and if so it has evolved that way.
Maybe necessarily because free will is simply not possible,
or maybe it is possible, and was tried, but proved to be not as advantageous as the chimera of free will.
I don't know. But I would consider evolution, rather than culture.
Culture is just a subset of evolution.
So evolution decided to benefit itself by illuding itself, then benefit itself again by realizing its illuding itself? LOL. Also if the brain is illuding itself why stop at just that? Any comprehensible thought could be an illusion, including the one that free will doesn't exist.
@@niftyszn9469 I have no recollection of writing my comment.
Never assume "teleology" - that Evolution has a goal.
Evolution is a process.
Eg Conway's Game-of-Life cellular automata : they just adapt to an environment.
Spinoza - "We are just a spark in an infinite purposeless universe"
Montaigne :- “Whoever considers as in a painting the great picture of our mother Nature in her full majesty…whoever finds himself there…as a dot made with a very fine brush; that man alone estimates things according to their true proportions.”
@@vinm300 I never said evolution had a goal, I personafied it to make my point more clear.
@@niftyszn9469 That's why I gave your comments a like - they are combative and keep one on one's toes.
Could free will itself be morally responsible?
How can a non entity have or be responsible?
"Know thyself" is referring to The Self.
what's that
@@Hyporama The one question that can't be answered. No "thing".
I have memories of past events but I dont believe in a complete calculated history going back billions of years. I certainly don't have all that information of past events, and I don't believe that information exists anywhere. Missing information is possibilities. I don't believe our days are created by past events. Needless to say I am not religious and I don't believe in any higher power keeping records of everything.
you would be burnt at the stake,for saying that a while ago
We have a free will within boundaries 😇
What boundaries?
Philosophy quickly becomes just personal opinions. Socrates aside, I don’t see much in this kind of debates.
The free will illusion is in two parts. It starts with the belief we can select either option A or B in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past prior to the choice.
Choices just aren't like that in reality and we can just check and see.
The initial illusion gives us the impression that we are ultimately responsible for which option we select, which Galen Strawson points out is impossible and is the second part of the illusion.
I don't think we have to live with the illusion. I think we only need to get clear about what it is to have options we can select in the circumstances, to overcome the illusion.
Even your claims and beliefs about free will are illusions. So why should anyone take you seriously? 😂
There's not enough scientific evidence to prove there is free will. But a growing body which proves that we do not consciously 'choose' to act. When it comes to the justice system we don't need to prove intent to know that most convictions surround behaviour.
Do we need people who murder, commit other acts of violence, larceny, etc to still be free to walk on the streets? Do we necessarily have to convict only on 'intent'? Only people who have a less than enviable psychological profile are likely to commit most crimes. And then why are we so intent on 'punishment' as a deterrent rather than rehabilitation as a cure? Are we still so savage that we howl for blood rather than curing sick minds?
Either way, we are lied to and deceived by so many institutions such as advertising, the media, our elected representatives in govt. I for one am tired of living in a world where we need more pretending and less truth.
There's not enough scientific evidence to prove there is no free will
@@matterasmachine What about philosophy then?
"You do what you do because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be able to be responsible for how you are.
But you can't be ultimately responsible for the way you are, because you'd have to be there already to set yourself up.
That leads to an infinite regress"
What is your response to this?
@@Luftgitarrenprofi you don’t have to have ultimate free will to have free will. You can have only slight amount of choices you can make and that already be a free will. Free will is the possibility not to do what you should do. Free will is the possibility to make mistakes. Error probability that is greater then 0.
@@Luftgitarrenprofi by the way, intuition - when you do what you should not - is a clear example of such free will / error.
@@matterasmachine So I'm guessing by ultimate free will you mean libertarian free will and by should you mean can/could? Because should would imply ethics. I'd agree that libertarian free will neither makes sense, nor is it necessary. But not many people outside of religious philosophers hold that view.
So what you're saying seems more akin to compatibalism.
A skeptic/incompatibalist would say that we have will, but by virtue of our own experience can't say where our thoughts or desires come from. They just are. And if we can't control our thoughts or desires arising, then we can't say that we are in control of what we want. If we don't control what we want, then how do we justify the "free" in will?
We can never go against our desires, because we are always bound to do what we want most even we're trying to prove that we have free will by chosing chocolate over vanilla even though we hate chocolate.
What are we free from if not even from our own wants, thoughts and desires seemingly reactionary in their very nature?
Aside from all that you dodged the question by answering a constructed one. You can't avoid the infinite regress, even with the redefined compatibalist Interpretation of free will.
You see something you can't explain and then you decide to call it an illusion and force others to believe it too??? What is your definition of a lowlife human again?
there arn't any low life humans,thats the illusion
Strawson making a modal fallacy with a straight face😂
Necessary illusions are bad science and bad philosophy
No free will in anything - we don't know where our thoughts come from. Not only free will is an illusion - our existence is an illusion. I don't know what I am and I have seen that I'm alone in being.
Because you don't know what being is or can't define it in a satisfying way for yourself doesn't mean you can deny it
Free will is not an illusion. Just the fact that you are sitting around opining on it and designing experiments to measure proves the point. You can't do all that with 2 thngs - consciousness and free will. Determinism works well on inanimate objects. Physicists and philosopher do not understand the phenomenon of life - how and why we have life and higher intelligence. Nobody does.
hi, Galen Strawson has a beautiful voice. I wonder if he is interested in reading Divine Comedy as prose from modern-day English. Could you please convey this message to him? thank you.
This topic is stupid. Even many neuroscientists think so. If free will doesn’t exist, how is it that we’re able to follow rules and laws that despite our deterministic behavior? Lol dumb conversation. Then going into “moral responsibility” is another silly topic.
Because we have brains wired to follow rules.
If we had free will then where is it coming from? It would have to come out of thin air or itself would be determined.
The notion of free will makes no sense from the start.
It's not an illusion. The only illusion is thinking it's an illusion Lol
Maybe even free will uses persons and things?
alot of religious people believe in Free will because of judgment day
We all love Galen
17 years of spiritual practices -Free will is illusion. We are not, god is.
All enlightened beengs befor me came to same realisation. It final realisation. Relax be blissfull.
Also scary that people believe in political government?
Dude, the bloke at the doorstep reportedly patently freewilling, well, not at all, he could presumably be, or deliberately begin, pondering the, and that, very circumstance and so escapes the 'patent'-ness of it and so, what's more, get to the truth of it and us. So end of, there's no religious anything anywhere.
Determinacy is the illusion.
Please feel free to support your claim.
the illusion is the illusion
@@vids595 The double-slit experiment for a start.
@@robertjsmith That looks suspiciously like circular thinking.
@@vids595 I don't understand a lot of the arguments I am seeing in the comments. Isn't it firmly established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate at its very core?
whaat?
it is not
evolution would not exist without random event - so there is free will.
@@vids595 just because you said that? What looks like my random action for you is a result of my free will for me - I do what I wish. It's my will
@@matterasmachine You have will, just not free will.
You dont seem to understand what randomness is. It is only an artifact of out ignorance and inability to make predictions.
@@vids595 that’ only your personal assumption.
That makes no sense. Besides, random events at the quantum level are thought to be indeterministic, whereas random events in nature would be deterministic even if they aren't predictable.