Nice video Dom0ne. I would add that critique 5 "God says quite clearly in the bible that we have freewill." is actually completely without any basis whatsoever. It may be the popular view but the Bible actually says we don't have free-will (Romans 9). Logically; if we had free-will God would not be omnipotent. Clearly as you pointed out God is omnipotent. "Freewill" in the Bible is "nedabah" in Hebrew and means "from one's own heart". It doesn't have anything to do with that kind of freewill.
Love the vid! However whenever this question is posed to Christians, their response is this, "god transcends space and time, therefore exceeding our understanding of his gift of free will." can't really argue with that line of bullshit.
"I'm quietly confident that between now and the rest of time, our understanding of QM will grow and therefore it's "randomness" will die."
Brilliant. Electrons behaving randomly is utter nonsense, I can't believe scientists actually think this. Electrons behave as deterministically as dice do when they are rolled. Its just that we lack the technology to understand their motions so we call it random.
Just a note that I'm particularly proud of. I arrived at the conclusions in this video absolutely independently about 10 years ago. I'd never studied it or heard anything remotely concerning the concept.
I too have independently learned these things slowly over time.
@LiberatedMind1 But have you reached the other conclusions as well? That time is infinite, and therefore we will, in effect, reappear eventually, because the universe can only have a finite amount of configurations?
Meaning, from your point of view, when you die you will instantly reappear in your mothers abdomen as an unborn child, with no memory of what has happened, forced to live your life exactly as you lived it the previous life cycle.
"Only a fool would state with absolute conviction that quantum mechanics undermines determinism."
Only a fool would state anything with absolute conviction - but it is very difficult to de-bunk the random component in quantum mechanics. The strength of this position is greatly under-estimated by many people.
can you say determinism is a form of acumulations of alreaddy desided values/opinions on what gives effect on youre onpinion/choice on the subject, youre preset determinism desides? but the acumulated values might be more than just 100%.. it could be 40% for 50% agianst and 10% for and agianst or neither. at a young age you form youre own deterministic "set" if its to you still unsure where to go? I have some truble being sure what the term determinism meens, or Im just overthinkin
@painterQjensen Determinism - All things and subsequent actions have a cause(s). This holds regardless of whether the cause is known or not. So, ANY given creature is directed by its genetics (initial "programming"), experience, & environment which create an on going development of WHO/WHAT that person is at ANY moment.
Determinism, though, is pretty much impossible in principle; it would externalise the "laws of nature" from the "nature" to which they apply, and that introduces a new problem: where did these laws "come from" if they are externally imposed on reality? This then introduces a meta-realm, metaphysics and [ugh] possibly even a "god" concept. Instead of determinism I would suggest that reality is internally consistent, and from that emerges a level of predictability that can be [more]
@rozeboosje described in the form of "laws" that in their form look "deterministic". These "laws" can only ever be more and more accurate as they become more and more sophisticated, but they can never become actual reality. In order for reality to be perfectly predictable, it must be viewed from an external perspective, and an external perspective from reality is impossible ;-)
@rozeboosje "an external perspective from reality is impossible" 1) I'd certainly disagree with your bold use of the word impossible.2) Humans have a great an ability to hypothesis with accuracy (following rules/laws).3) There are 7 billion realities on this planet. More if you include other species. 4) Yes, it's impossible for an individual to escape THEIR reality and externally perceive it. But this leaves many other options that deserve creative consideration.
@rozeboosje It's not important to say where the laws came from (although exceptionally interesting). Laws, rules, behaviours clearly exist. They are not imposed on reality, they are reality.
I don't think determinism argues anything contrary to internal consistency, certainly my definition doesn't necessitate that.
However I did use the tool of an infinitely intelligent agent in this video solely as a means of illustrating/explaining complex predictability..
@Dom0nePhilosophy You're making the common determinist's mistake of conflating reality with accuracy. "Laws of nature" aren't real. They don't exist "out there" imposing how reality should behave on reality. The "laws of nature" that we, humans, invented are not prescriptive, they're *de*scriptive. And they're accurate, very accurate, thanks to predictability emerging from reality due to it being internally consistent. But accuracy is not synonymous with reality [more]
@rozeboosje "You're making the common determinist's mistake of conflating reality with accuracy". Really? On the most basic premise, I think I was quite clear when I said that there are 7 billion+ realities. I'm not sure how a massively subjectively aware statement like that can be conflated with the objective statement you asserted.
No, existence has objective characteristics, we subjectively attempt to decipher and describe them.
Please view the 2 videos in my "Deconstructing Life" series.
@Dom0nePhilosophy That doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with your position on "free will". Don't get me wrong. It is still perfectly valid to observe that a lot of our behaviour and responses to situations are due to automatic processes in our brains and to assert that as such we don't have much, if any control over our decisions. In any case, "pure" free will would be useless. What point would there be in being able to "freely" [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy make decisions that bear no relation to our wants and needs? What value would there be had in even having *that* kind of "free will"? I'm perfectly happy with a "will" that allows me to establish the options that are open to me and to make a considered decision based on what I establish is available to me. And whether that process is mechanical or not, I experience it as a degree of "freedom" and that is good enough for me.
@Dom0nePhilosophy Of course it is, but if we're going to be antagonistic about it then I can equally validly observe that your remark that over seven billion of us will experience reality in over seven billion individual and unique ways is equally irrelevant to the topic of "free will". I'm sorry, Dom. I did not make my comments to be antagonistic, and if they come across that way, I do apologise. But I do have to disagree with the idea of reality being deterministic [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy as well as the idea of it being "objective". Both notions are dualistic and ultimately absurd. Both *demand* a point of view external to reality and therefore impossible to attain. "External to reality" is "outside reality" is equivalent to "not real". Nor does the rejection of "objectivity" mean an acceptance of "subjectivity". The objective/subjective dichotomy itself is also dualistic and also absurd.
With regard to "free will", it doesn't matter [more]
@rozeboosje You're confusing philosophy with science. Indeterminism is impossible to prove, as is determinism...however one of them is accurate. Our perception of it is irrelevant to its "truth".
Of course we take ownership. Murderers will continue to be punished, and athletes will continue to be praised. I cannot conceive of any reality where our "programming" will arrive at a different conclusion to this.
@Dom0nePhilosophy I have never considered philosophy and science as being "at odds" with each other or in any way incompatible. I really don't think in dualistic terms, and I wouldn't say that my rejection of "determinism" must necessarily entail embracing some opposite notion called "indeterminism". My rejection of determinism is based on solid logic. Think about it. Is reality somehow self-determining? Then it can't be "deterministic" as that removes from [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy reality the ability to influence itself. Determinism always involves the object of its label to be helpless, unable to change the course that is imposed on it. Of course that then leads to the next objection: imposed from *where* exactly. If it's from within reality, then reality IS self-determining, and it *can't* be deterministic. That only leaves the idea that any determinism to which reality would be subject is imposed on it from [more]
@rozeboosje "Determinism always involves the object of its label to be helpless, unable to change the course that is imposed on it". I don't like the term "helpless", or somehow externally "imposed". The object has its own characteristics/behaviours, perfectly analogous to human beings within a deterministic model.
Why things are prescribed and why the laws of existence are as they are, is not being discussed in this video. God, nature, chance. Take your pick.
@Dom0nePhilosophy I'd pick "nature" or "chance". But of course both of those are aspects of reality, and reality would thus be self-determining, and therefore not deterministic; things, in that case, are NOT "prescribed" nor are they "subject" to "laws of existence". Even if one wanted to invent a "god" to play the role of the "law-giver", I would argue that in order for that "god" to be "real" it would be subordinate to reality which would then still not be deterministic.
@Dom0nePhilosophy a source *external* to reality. And as I pointed out, that is synonymous with "not real". So determinism cannot be imposed on reality from within OR from without, and reality is therefore NOT deterministic. That doesn't make it "indeterministic", "random", a "free for all" or totally bonkers though. Reality IS internally consistent, otherwise we *would* be living in lala land....
The same type of argument applies to "objectivity". That requires that [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy the supposedly "objective" observer can observe and reason about the object of its statements from a completely external perspective, without affecting it at all. That is literally impossible. Every observation is an interaction and it changes both observer and what is observed, though it's valid to point out that many of our observations are SO macroscopical and the effect on the observed object SO minute that we can practically and [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy pragmatically treat them almost as if they *are* objective. The effect of the observation is SO infinitesimal against the scale of what we observe that the differences are immeasurable. But while we can practically treat some of the laws of nature we invented as "objective" it would be a mistake to think that it is "true" to state that they really are. Not terribly important in daily business, but crucial in a philosophical context.
@rozeboosje And it would be an objective characteristic of the object to be macroscopically affected by observation. In the same way as a ball reacts to being thrown. Stating that something/existence can't be truly objective because we influence it, by viewing it, makes no sense.
@rozeboosje Objects contain matter, is matter a construct of your mind? How does your mind come into being? Is it dependent upon matter ie your brain?
@Dom0nePhilosophy Yes, it is. Doesn't make it unreal, though. Again, rejecting "objectivity" doesn't imply having to accept a free for all. If we construe an object such as a "rock" that you can I can communicate about, that rock will be VERY real and I could bash your head in with it, or vice versa. But objects are construed by minds that emerge from feedback loops within feedback loops within a reality that is all encompassing.
@rozeboosje Yes "construe". Construe is an exceptionally subjective term and has nothing to do with an "objective truth", and nothing to do with this video.
Alcoholics and drug-takers construe that they see ufo's and pixies. Objective reality is oblivious to this.
@Dom0nePhilosophy If I "construe" a pixie or a ufo, I typically cannot communicate this to you in a way that would allow you to re-construct the object within your own mind, and that's a sure fire way of knowing that I'm either bat-shit insane or abusing some substances. But if I "construe" that the particular configuration of reality that I hold in what I "construe" to be "my hand" is a massive club with which I am going to bash your brains in, then it's highly likely [more]
@rozeboosje I'm not sure you're "getting this". You're very much trying to understand this from a strongly subjective stance ie words like construe. There are 7 billion realities, there is only one existence to which all of these realities are based. Forget the reality bit, concentrate on the existence part. Yes it's impossible to be perfectly objective, but at least try, you'll be rewarded.
@Dom0nePhilosophy I think we've reached an impasse, Dom. I've tried to explain to you on a number of occasions that I will refuse to engage in dichotomous thinking, including the "objective/subjective" dichotomy, and yet you seem intent on dragging it back to that. All the same, I enjoyed this conversation, and apologies for posting SO much text in these comments. I got a bit carried away [blush]
@rozeboosje No worries, i've enjoyed it. I certainly don't see a middle ground between determinism and indeterminism. But certainly, subjectivity corrupts any truthful and accurate representation of existence....in my opinion :D
@Dom0nePhilosophy that your mind will construe the situation in a very similar way, and you will understand what I am planning to do and take evasive action and go on the counter attack. Again, you're slipping into dualism, taking the rejection of "objectivity" as embracing lunacy in which anything goes. I'm not going there.
@Dom0nePhilosophy how mechanistic the processes are that lead to your decision making. In the end, the buck will still stop with you. You will be held responsible for your actions and you will have to take responsibility for and control of your actions. Your consciousness can help you with that, as it's a substrate-independent process that cannot be directly extrapolated from the physical properties of the brain that gives rise to it. [more]
@Dom0nePhilosophy We are like "Turing machines" that can feed back into their own experiences of reality. We can contemplate our own existence, or own wants, needs and desires, the options that are available to us and the priorities we can set for ourselves. If we accept that responsibility we can attain a certain degree of freedom, even if it isn't "pure".
@rozeboosje ''If we accept that responsibility we can attain a certain degree of freedom, even if it isn't "pure".''
No. No room for free will AT ALL. Even the decision to 'accept that responsibility' is either causally determined or a fluctuation of quantum indeterminacy. You have NOWHERE to hide 'free' will.
@MyContext Well I know that twins (clones) separated at birth for whatever reason when tracked down tend to be closer in the choices they made to that point then the population. They have the same kind of job and and like the same kind of things and such. What a surprise hey? I killed my twin brother last year. He didn't see that coming. Actually when he was dying he said I beat him to it by one second, lucky me. :-)
There have been computer simulations on population dynamics which suggest that there is a randomness to the way events unfold. The simulations involved two very similar species in the exact same environment and same conditions at the beginning of each run. With no changes in the environment the outcome as to which species became dominant could not be predicted. Populations were different for each run.
@Dom0nePhilosophy You're right. It's just something that I remembered when you talked about "replaying" every event all over and said the outcome would be the same each time. Fascinating video.
@deepashtray Thank you very much. Certainly in that "coin flipping experiment" I presented, i can't stress enough the concept and importance of the term "identical". Not "exceptionally close", but absolutely identical. Peace!
In your theory, you have completely left out the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Yes, Newtonian Determinism says that we are all on a big giant clock that has been ticking away for billions of years and everything we do, regardless of the act, is pre-determined, so thereis no free will, etc. Einstein loved it. But the Eisenberg said that there is great uncertainty, as in the case of electrons that randomly move out of the way or at several points simultaneously. Einstein was wrong.
@NavyMedicUSMC Yes because its irrelevant, as is chaos theory etc, well unless you don't understand the subject. I've covered QM so many times.
Whether a random mammalian species at one particular finite point in time has the ability to predict future events or not is irrelevant to its objective truth.
Dogs can't predict solar eclipses, so does that mean that solar eclipses are random?
The uncertainty principle describes us, not existence.
@Dom0nePhilosophy So what about a murderer? Does your principal suggest that is was simply his victim's "time to go"? Is aspiration then a waste of time? These are not insignificant matters. They are very relevant to the discussion.
As far as Heisenberg and Chaos Theory, I do have an understanding of the subject. It looks to me as though you are dismissing all other possibilities in order to promote your theory as the sole answer. Is that how science works, in your mind?
@NavyMedicUSMC When have I been rude to you? Why are the actions of a murderer distinct from the actions of a flower arranger, or first aider, on any basis other than our subjective reaction to it?
"Is aspiration then a waste of time?". Why would it be? If it was, what would that have to do with the concepts veracity?
OK, why is chaos theory, and uncertainty relevant?
"and seemingly very in love with your own sense of intellect".
Incorrect! I AM in love with my intellect...and sarcasm.
@NavyMedicUSMC The disconnect seems to be over what is random. My notion of random only speaks to my level of knowledge, however, that does not speak to whether a thing as order/rules or not. If a thing has a set of rules, then it is deterministic REGARDLESS of whether we know the rules. So, the only weakness in the presentation is whether or not anything is truly without rules. However, given the regularity of everything known, rules seem to be inherent in everything.
@bigboy45454545 "Genes and the innateness of who we are is what this whole video is about". No it's not.
"You say we have no choice in anything we do. This simply isn't true".
Good argument.
"and have to make silly videos". I make awesome videos! "It's known that choice is made in our minds before we're actually aware of it".
So you concede, it is arrived at, rather than a conscious "free" choice. Are you aware that that is a deterministic argument countering free will? Oooops :D
@bigboy45454545 It's a PART of the video, used primarily as an analogous tool to introduce people to the concept. In of itself, genes alone do not precisely determine human behaviour and/or decision making.
Derp! :D
This is probably a discussion you're not going to win.
@bigboy45454545 You're an idiot! Did you, or did you not already state that Ben Johnson's drug use somehow disproves determinism? Read my response to that stupidity. Also read the response i gave to you about 5 minutes ago regarding, that PART.
Also most importantly, USE YOUR BRAIN. I covered environment in the video at length. How the f^%k did you miss it? Please go away!
@bigboy45454545 I'm aware of the prescribed, causal connotations of steroid use on the human body. You're once AGAIN humorously proving the argument you're trying to defeat.
Drugs have behaviours, and follow rules. Which is why he took them to run faster, as opposed to thwarting cholera. Note: Steroids don't affect your genetics.
Why don't you just say that eating food disproves determinism. ie hungry "person A" is slower than "person A" with good nutrition?
@bigboy45454545 "Your argument that a person is who they are simply by inheritance".
Do you remember when I said that that is NOT the case? Do you remember? It was a massive, 10 minutes ago.
Steroids do not alter genes. Similarly asprin doesn't alter genes. Similarly hamburgers don't alter genes.
A question to test how little you understand the argument you are opposing. How would a deterministic view explain ben johnsson's 9.79s run. There are loads of antecedents. Lets see how you do.
@bigboy45454545 Premise: We start with genetic predispositions. ALL events interact with that predisposition to develop the person you become. So, the notion of choice is NOT inherently yours but a product of the events that came before combined with the moment in which you made a decision - and this continues...
@NavyMedicUSMC It seems to be difficult to convey, so many become quite frustrated in the process. It can be an issue of Social Graces vs Truth - each has merit...
@MyContext Alright your premise sounds plausible. But what makes us make the decisions that we make? That's rhetorical sort of, I don't think we can really know, can we? Is it preferences because of our genetics? I don't know, can we know? What about a person who loses senses for some reason? We choose because of our senses don't we? Again I don't know.
@bigboy45454545 Yes anabolic steroids affect the muscle. Eating food affects the muscle. Training affects the muscle. Importantly your chromosomes are not altered. Your genes are not altered. If Ben took a DNA test before taking steroids and after, they would be identical!
Why don't criminals just take steroids to beat dna tests? IDIOT!
@bigboy45454545 Here's your moronic quote again. You repeated it several times "a muscle made with steroids is different than one's regular muscle, on the genetic level".
Who said it?
I'll repeat the question you ignored :D This is simply to test how little you understand the argument you are opposing. How would a deterministic view explain ben johnsson's 9.79s run. There are loads of antecedents. Lets see how you do. C'mon!
@Dom0nePhilosophy You are a genuinely rude individual aren't you? Just two clicks north of troll status, I believe. These are discussions and you have to expect counter theory or arguments on your points. No need to flame people who come to your page. You are an egotist and seemingly very in love with your own sense of intellect. Never mind my other questions. I no longer wish to have the slightest interaction with you.
every 6 seconds the choice is already made by the biological process of the brain , conciousness has never been in control , merely observed its own effects ,
Even those who try to fall back on a fuzzy interpretation of quantum physics and chaos theory still have to commit a pretty long leap of logic; unpredictability does not imply autonomous control by the consciousness, but rather suggests the reverse.
Now, that's a very general definition of free will. But it is fucking handy. Why? Because we now have a test we can perform. We can consider what we'd allow would let someone off the hook for their action. Whatever we allow would let someone off the hook, is incompatible with free will. See?
None of you would allow 'determinism' as an excuse, would you? No. So free will does not require an absence of determinism.
Oh, sorry - this argument is about 1000x too subtle for u all.
@Clear404 Letting someone off the hook is not incompatable with freewill. All the term means is that someone can choose to be good or choose to be bad...FREELY.
"None of you would allow 'determinism' as an excuse, would you?" As an excuse for WHAT?
@julzabro If I decided to rape someone just because I felt like it, and then offerred up 'determinism' as an excuse, you'd not let me off the hook. So, you'd hold me morally responsible for what I did. And that means you'd judge I'd done it freely despite the fact of determinism.
It is fast becoming clear to me that you can't reason in a straight line. I don't know why I bother with you people - I'd have more luck preaching anti-racism to a nazi.
@Clear404 "Now, that's a very general definition of free will. But it is fucking handy." Well, SURE it's handy! It's always handy to simply redefine the definition of words so that they fit ur illogical premises but you don't get to create ur own definitions while calling US unable to argue unless u wish 2 look insane!
@julzabro If I'm just 'redefining' words, you must mean that my definition is not accurate. So presumably you think that free will is not necessary for moral responsibiity. So you think that someone can be morally responsible without free will.
Explain. Provide an example, or fuck the fuck off you fuckity fuck cunt piss shit arse fuck poo shit stain urine infection abortion cunt.
Tell you what, because most of you can't argue for shit, and tend to drive discussions into the sand disputing irrelevancies, I'll give you my definition of free will. Here it is:
Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent.
Deny that if you want, but by denying that you'd be claiming one can be morally responsible without free will, and that's a claim that needs defence - so you'd need to defent it (ooo, bit of shit comes out your arse).
@Clear404 Finally, 200 comments later, a definition. Praise the lord!
"Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent".
Not very objective or scientific is it!
It is entirely based on a concept of morality, a concept that is absolutely SUBJECTIVE, TRANSIENT, EVER-CHANGING...and quite importantly an entirely insular creation of the mind, with objectively no difference to any other function of brain process.
Lets dig further. Pray tell, how is morality forged?
@Clear404 Rest assured mr.404 my explanation for the existence of behaviours that humanity will usually and subjectively describe with that most tenuous of words "morality" will be forth coming. I simply require of you a direct address of my comment. That's how discussions work. (I'm even gonna kindly let you off the previous 50 evaded challenges to you). See, i'm "morally responsible".
"Morality" without "free will", ooooh that's difficult
"Free will" without "morality"? hmmm interesting? :D
@Dom0nePhilosophy Er, if you had half a brain you'd realise that my definition of free will was implicit in the premises of my original argument.
What do you mean 'not very scientific or objective'? I have literally no idea what that means.
In case you're in any doubt about the power and influence of my definition of free will, the kind of case I'm making is one based losely on that made by Peter Strawson in the 1960s - a case that totally transformed the free will debate. Be humble, cunt.
@Dom0nePhilosophy You then assert that morality is subjective. As well as being quite obviously false, you provide nothing whatsoever in support of this claim. It is the 'conclusion' of an argument - where's the argument? What evidence do you have that morality is 'subjective'? U think that the fact there are different opinions about whether a given act is right or wrong shows it to be 'subjective'? How does that work exactly? What's your argument? What are your steps?
@Clear404 Note, I clearly stated that in discussions its customary to answer then ask, I'm now waiting on 51 answers. Right due to your evasiveness I'll answer, again.
Morality is subjective because 1) It fulfils the def of "subjective". ie "particular to a given person; personal", or "relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc" or "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered". cont
@Clear404 2) Morality is dependent upon culture, teaching, circumstance, era, etc. Anything that is even remotely affected by or influenced by these concepts cannot be called objective.3) Morality is defined as "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct". There are 7 billion different definitions of "good conduct" presently in world. Many more since the beginning of human consciousness.
Another def: "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct". Ideas are subjective
@Clear404 4) Our interpretations of what can justifiably be considered "moral" can only emanate from the interaction between our genes and our environment. If you state that a god designed our dna etc, that is irrelevant and unprovable. Nothing else can contribute to our creation of morality. 5) It is indistinguishable from any interpretation of our environment. 6) Everything HAS to enter our consciousness through our subjective filter. Science reveals consensus. Morality emphatically doesn't.
@Clear404 In response I expect you to go through each of the 6 points. There are many more! Now I ask of YOU.1) Where does morality come from? 2) Give an example of an act of OBJECTIVE morality or immorality. And please explain why you believe this to be the case? 3) Give an example of an act that is "free". 4) If morality is indeed subjective, do you accept that your premise disintegrates? 5) I believe people that use strong swear words on youtube are immoral. Discuss.
@Dom0nePhilosophy No, you still haven't said which premise you dispute. I'm not going to answer any of your ill-formed and misguided questions. They're all irrelevant until you make them relevant by saying which premise you dispute. You really are an idiot. Challenge a fucking premise! And present an 'argument'. Clearly show your premises - like I did. Or are you frightened?
@Dom0nePhilosophy Just say which premise you dispute and why. You haven't done that yet. I'm not responding to anything you say until you say which premise you dispute and why. Be clear.
@Dom0nePhilosophy No, it is customary after someone has presented a deductively valid argument for a thing, to say which premise you disagree with and why. For instance, if you think that the term 'free will' has so unfixed a meaning that it could refer to just about anything, then show that by showing - with an argument - how someone could be morally responsible yet lack free will.
I'm not answering any question - ANY question - you ask me until you say which premise you deny
@Dom0nePhilosophy First, you don't know what 'subjective' means. Second, what are you hoping to achieve by insisting that morality is subjective? I mean, what premise do you take this to be challenging? Simple question. Just answer it - do you claim that we can be morally responsible without free will, or do you claim that we lack moral responsiblity? Which one?
@Clear404 "Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent" Freewill or having the ability 2 choose freely has NOTHING 2 do with transformation. IF a free agent DOES transform it's not DUE 2 having the freedom 2 do so. We KNOW this cuz some who HAVE freewill do not EVER bcome moral.
@julzabro Oh, and like Dumbone you too commit a basic fallacy. If someone is morally responsible, then they have free will. It does not fucking follow that if someone has free will they are morally responsible. Think about it. Witches have black cats. It doesn't follow that if Susan has a black cat she's a witch.
If someone is morally responsible they are necessarily free. Deny that if you want, but you'd need to provide an argument to support it as it is counter-intuitive.
How would Quantum theory affect to determinism? Making argument for Quantum theory with determinism vs free will, is like saying that rocks have a free will.
@Dom0nePhilosophy I generallysupport your video and very appreciative you replied and so quickly, but when you said we are fated to our genes....hopefully we can change them one day.....although we are still tied to what ever we change them to...so i answer my own question. I never believed in free will although if we do have it...its so incredibly limited/restricted due to the "laws" of existence that it appears like there is no free will.
We're not fated to our genes. We're fated to the the interaction of our genes with our environments. ie identical genes in different environments produce different behaviours.
Presented from a completely different perspective, we're fated to the prescribed behaviours of matter. We are matter, our brains are matter, our environments are made of matter.
@Dom0nePhilosophy "We'll usher in the dawning of an apocalypse where we'll all run round in flames with two heads screaming at our stupidity." <- LOL, Thank You!
A far superior stance is that of FATALISM - best described by Michael Hoffman at: (dot) egodeath (dot) com under the headline: Timeless Block-Universe Determinism - I highly recommend reading the whole web- site but this essay in particular delineates why thinking in terms of fatalism truly is superior.
@MrTrda This is the perfect forum for you to express your views as opposed to simply naming random people and websites. You'll find it more rewarding in the long term.
Please note, fatalism is the biggest pile of $&^*"%$& ever, and I've certainly never heard it being described as superior to anything. I'm here to learn....continue please.
@Dom0nePhilosophy The future is already decided because of the nature of time, not because of the nature of linear causality. The future is predecided whether or not there is pure randomness. Pure randomness is an unwarranted and unnecessary assumption that renders determinism too vulnerable and limits its applicablity to only one kind of world. My theory of predetermination, 'block universe determinism' or 'block universe fatalism', is superior because it is more robust.
@MrTrda 'block universe fatalism', is superior because it is more robust. This theory holds whether or not there is pure randomness. Predetermination is provably true -- that is, logically consistent -- without bringing in the unnecessary hypothesis of the lack of true randomness.
@MrTrda The main feature of the block-universe concept is the idea of space-like time. The future is like another place that already exists. All events sit statically and eternally in their respective spacetime coordinates. The total life-history of a chooser-entity is a worldline floating forever in the frozen marble block of spacetime. The time axis itself does not flow; it sits forever.
@MrTrda The standard conception of 'determinism' stands or falls with universal intercausality. This is a very weak foundation, because there very well might be some pure randomness in the world. The time axis itself is eternally frozen -- that's the reason that there is no genuine freedom, only the sense of freedom. Universal intercausality is not the reason there is no genuine freedom.
@MrTrda Choice, movement through time, and the power of agency are all epiphenomenal and largely illusory, whether or not there is pure randomness. My theory of block-universe causality is immune to the fact of whether there is pure randomness. Future acts are predetermined whether or not there is pure randomness.
@MrTrda Future acts are predetermined whether or not there is pure randomness. Future acts are predetermined because of the real nature of time and agency, not because of universal intercausality that is completely devoid of any pure randomness.
@MrTrda Also read Rudy Rucker: _The Fourth Dimension_. He talks about the block universe and shows it with cartoons.
In modern philosophy, 'fate' has been completely misinterpreted. Modern philosophy has not refuted fatalism, but has misunderstood what the position of fatalism actually claims.
@MrTrda Determinism, as conventionally defined, puts forth a false conceptualization of our freedom. It is basically correct, but it needs to be re-envisioned. It is too full of conventional, confused thinking about how we "move through" time.
@MrTrda Fatalism merely claims that the future is frozen, predecided -- not that that future is orderly or predictable. The position of Fatalism has all the advantages of the position of determinism, but without the indefensible auxiliary assertions.
Therefore, fatalism, classically understood is superior to determinism. Fatalism is simply frozen-ism -- that the future is as predecided as the past. Determinism as it is always conceived, implies that the future has not happened yet --
@MrTrda Determinists should convert to the slimmer position, fatalism -- and make sure its true conception is communicated perfectly clearly: that every single thought has already been predetermined, and all time is frozen eternally along a single, fixed time axis in the block universe. One writer has called for an adjustment of determinsim into "hyperdeterminism" in their groping toward the ancient position of fatalism, which could be called Universal Static Predetermination.
@MrTrda The future can only be what it must be. Every thought occurs the only way it can. The standard definition of determinism states that "Every future thought is already specified due to the current state of affairs." But determinism seems to feel that the future does not exist "yet". I say, the future already exists, at a different spacelike point. This has been called "hyperdeterminism" but it is really Fatalism.
@MrTrda Einsteins "frozen-block universe" theory dictates that time is NOT linear. Upon entering the "mystic altered state" it becomes obvious that actions are not determined simply by cause and effect but because both actions have always been permanently pre-set; the entire set of actions came into existence all at once. The similarity of each time-slice of a stream of actions produces the sense of continuity of the ego-entity across time and the sense of smooth motion through time.
Although most of what I am, genetics, and most of what I do, actions, are not conscious, there is a portion of what I am and do that is directed by consciousness.
We make plans which, in turn, changes what we will do! (Note the will.) Although experimental evidence shows that we do not have free will in the moment we do have freedom to make plans. Sometimes plans of what to do in the next 3 seconds, but plans.
well thanks DomOne.... i look forward to your next post....always interesting.....im gonna check out and call it a night (or morning from my time zone)....thanks for the laughs and another great post.....till next time.......have a "smurfy" day
in any rational discussion insults are irrational.....they lead (well in my mind) to an insure mind.....and its just rude........are you a rational person or not..(your comments suggest otherwise)...rational people dont need to resort to insults......what does that say about your character or your principles and ethics.....im just saying
@TheeJediSmurf You say that 'in any rational discussion insults are irrational'. What does that even mean? Insults neither add to, nor DETRACT from the rationality of an argument. Here:
1. If we have moral obligaitons, we have free will, dick cheese,
interesting vid dom, and i get youre saying we can't escape cause & effect (aimed at the xtians freewill dealy?) but i feel i should bring a few things up:
kohlbergs moral dev. theory (not a great eg of research but...) suggests morality at its best will be altruist but can be used circumstantially.
a key point of cb theory is understanding/negating the cause of our effect.
.'. we *are* free to make conscious choice. but also, the effect of that is *we* are responsible for it.
@RippdUb Thank you. No, not aimed at christians at all. Its aimed at humanity, christians don't hold the patent for god, or the concept of fw. I made this video because I believe it is accurate of our existence.
I see no differentiation between morality or any other act when discussing determinism. Morality is merely a creation of our minds, a means of quantifying/expressing aspects of our environment from a VERY subjective perspective.
@Dom0nePhilosophy yeah agreed morality is completely subjective. my post was mostly a response to all the other posters who seem to think morality equates to societal law, and to those who think determinism can be an excuse to behave however they want with impunity. and i guess my point was that we can learn/be trained to recognise a lot of what determines behaviour, and take that into account when making choice and to make better choices. but yeah, all response is programmed.
Freewill is an illusion so inescapable that for all intents and purposes it might as well be viewed as real(except perhaps in some legal instances). That is to say, I could show you irrefutable evidence right now that you have no free will, and yet your illusion of freewill would persist, just as mine is even as I write this.
random..
Bamsefar87 1 day ago
Nice video Dom0ne. I would add that critique 5 "God says quite clearly in the bible that we have freewill." is actually completely without any basis whatsoever. It may be the popular view but the Bible actually says we don't have free-will (Romans 9). Logically; if we had free-will God would not be omnipotent. Clearly as you pointed out God is omnipotent. "Freewill" in the Bible is "nedabah" in Hebrew and means "from one's own heart". It doesn't have anything to do with that kind of freewill.
Rybot9000 4 days ago
The fact that this video opens with Jake One/MF Doom's Trap Door instrumental makes this that much better
OconefskyK 5 days ago
Love the vid! However whenever this question is posed to Christians, their response is this, "god transcends space and time, therefore exceeding our understanding of his gift of free will." can't really argue with that line of bullshit.
Cockeye1987 2 weeks ago
What is the song called at the beginning? I need the answer ASAP!
obeynachito 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm quietly confident that between now and the rest of time, our understanding of QM will grow and therefore it's "randomness" will die."
Brilliant. Electrons behaving randomly is utter nonsense, I can't believe scientists actually think this. Electrons behave as deterministically as dice do when they are rolled. Its just that we lack the technology to understand their motions so we call it random.
LiberatedMind1 2 weeks ago in playlist Biological Determinism / Compatibalism
Just a note that I'm particularly proud of. I arrived at the conclusions in this video absolutely independently about 10 years ago. I'd never studied it or heard anything remotely concerning the concept.
I too have independently learned these things slowly over time.
LiberatedMind1 2 weeks ago in playlist Biological Determinism / Compatibalism
@LiberatedMind1 But have you reached the other conclusions as well? That time is infinite, and therefore we will, in effect, reappear eventually, because the universe can only have a finite amount of configurations?
Meaning, from your point of view, when you die you will instantly reappear in your mothers abdomen as an unborn child, with no memory of what has happened, forced to live your life exactly as you lived it the previous life cycle.
Ree1981 4 days ago
@Ree1981 That's not how infiniteness works. There doesn't need to be a finite amount of configurations.
On topic: This video changes nothing. I will still check both sides of the street before crossing rather than thinking "it doesn't matter if I check".
obesechicken13 1 day ago
Comment removed
LiberatedMind1 2 weeks ago in playlist Biological Determinism / Compatibalism
Really enjoyed this. I can't see how anyone could watch it and not end up believing in determinism.
Confusling 3 weeks ago
@Confusling indeed, randomness is nothing more than an illusion
LiberatedMind1 2 weeks ago
@Confusling agreed
LiberatedMind1 2 weeks ago in playlist Biological Determinism / Compatibalism
For humanities sake plz don't use this computer voice programm if you make another video
I had more fun reading your video description than listening to this computer generated voice...
darkfiete 1 month ago
@darkfiete That aside the video is great
darkfiete 1 month ago
Very intersting I will have to think about this more.
Darkwolverine06 1 month ago
Very interesting take on everthing. I have to agree that determinism is the explanation of reality.
Madkevin88 1 month ago
"Only a fool would state with absolute conviction that quantum mechanics undermines determinism."
Only a fool would state anything with absolute conviction - but it is very difficult to de-bunk the random component in quantum mechanics. The strength of this position is greatly under-estimated by many people.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot Actually random or unpredictable? The digits of PI are not random, although there is no formula to get all of the digits.
MyContext 1 month ago
This video should be featured. Great job
TehMorbidAtheist 1 month ago
@TehMorbidAtheist Thank you!!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
can you say determinism is a form of acumulations of alreaddy desided values/opinions on what gives effect on youre onpinion/choice on the subject, youre preset determinism desides? but the acumulated values might be more than just 100%.. it could be 40% for 50% agianst and 10% for and agianst or neither. at a young age you form youre own deterministic "set" if its to you still unsure where to go? I have some truble being sure what the term determinism meens, or Im just overthinkin
the subject.
painterQjensen 1 month ago
@painterQjensen Determinism - All things and subsequent actions have a cause(s). This holds regardless of whether the cause is known or not. So, ANY given creature is directed by its genetics (initial "programming"), experience, & environment which create an on going development of WHO/WHAT that person is at ANY moment.
MyContext 1 month ago
Determinism, though, is pretty much impossible in principle; it would externalise the "laws of nature" from the "nature" to which they apply, and that introduces a new problem: where did these laws "come from" if they are externally imposed on reality? This then introduces a meta-realm, metaphysics and [ugh] possibly even a "god" concept. Instead of determinism I would suggest that reality is internally consistent, and from that emerges a level of predictability that can be [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje described in the form of "laws" that in their form look "deterministic". These "laws" can only ever be more and more accurate as they become more and more sophisticated, but they can never become actual reality. In order for reality to be perfectly predictable, it must be viewed from an external perspective, and an external perspective from reality is impossible ;-)
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje "an external perspective from reality is impossible" 1) I'd certainly disagree with your bold use of the word impossible.2) Humans have a great an ability to hypothesis with accuracy (following rules/laws).3) There are 7 billion realities on this planet. More if you include other species. 4) Yes, it's impossible for an individual to escape THEIR reality and externally perceive it. But this leaves many other options that deserve creative consideration.
Really this is irrelevant anyway
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@rozeboosje It's not important to say where the laws came from (although exceptionally interesting). Laws, rules, behaviours clearly exist. They are not imposed on reality, they are reality.
I don't think determinism argues anything contrary to internal consistency, certainly my definition doesn't necessitate that.
However I did use the tool of an infinitely intelligent agent in this video solely as a means of illustrating/explaining complex predictability..
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy You're making the common determinist's mistake of conflating reality with accuracy. "Laws of nature" aren't real. They don't exist "out there" imposing how reality should behave on reality. The "laws of nature" that we, humans, invented are not prescriptive, they're *de*scriptive. And they're accurate, very accurate, thanks to predictability emerging from reality due to it being internally consistent. But accuracy is not synonymous with reality [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje "You're making the common determinist's mistake of conflating reality with accuracy". Really? On the most basic premise, I think I was quite clear when I said that there are 7 billion+ realities. I'm not sure how a massively subjectively aware statement like that can be conflated with the objective statement you asserted.
No, existence has objective characteristics, we subjectively attempt to decipher and describe them.
Please view the 2 videos in my "Deconstructing Life" series.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy That doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with your position on "free will". Don't get me wrong. It is still perfectly valid to observe that a lot of our behaviour and responses to situations are due to automatic processes in our brains and to assert that as such we don't have much, if any control over our decisions. In any case, "pure" free will would be useless. What point would there be in being able to "freely" [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy make decisions that bear no relation to our wants and needs? What value would there be had in even having *that* kind of "free will"? I'm perfectly happy with a "will" that allows me to establish the options that are open to me and to make a considered decision based on what I establish is available to me. And whether that process is mechanical or not, I experience it as a degree of "freedom" and that is good enough for me.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje Your happiness is irrelevant to the discussion.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy Of course it is, but if we're going to be antagonistic about it then I can equally validly observe that your remark that over seven billion of us will experience reality in over seven billion individual and unique ways is equally irrelevant to the topic of "free will". I'm sorry, Dom. I did not make my comments to be antagonistic, and if they come across that way, I do apologise. But I do have to disagree with the idea of reality being deterministic [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy as well as the idea of it being "objective". Both notions are dualistic and ultimately absurd. Both *demand* a point of view external to reality and therefore impossible to attain. "External to reality" is "outside reality" is equivalent to "not real". Nor does the rejection of "objectivity" mean an acceptance of "subjectivity". The objective/subjective dichotomy itself is also dualistic and also absurd.
With regard to "free will", it doesn't matter [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje You're confusing philosophy with science. Indeterminism is impossible to prove, as is determinism...however one of them is accurate. Our perception of it is irrelevant to its "truth".
Of course we take ownership. Murderers will continue to be punished, and athletes will continue to be praised. I cannot conceive of any reality where our "programming" will arrive at a different conclusion to this.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy I have never considered philosophy and science as being "at odds" with each other or in any way incompatible. I really don't think in dualistic terms, and I wouldn't say that my rejection of "determinism" must necessarily entail embracing some opposite notion called "indeterminism". My rejection of determinism is based on solid logic. Think about it. Is reality somehow self-determining? Then it can't be "deterministic" as that removes from [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy reality the ability to influence itself. Determinism always involves the object of its label to be helpless, unable to change the course that is imposed on it. Of course that then leads to the next objection: imposed from *where* exactly. If it's from within reality, then reality IS self-determining, and it *can't* be deterministic. That only leaves the idea that any determinism to which reality would be subject is imposed on it from [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje "Determinism always involves the object of its label to be helpless, unable to change the course that is imposed on it". I don't like the term "helpless", or somehow externally "imposed". The object has its own characteristics/behaviours, perfectly analogous to human beings within a deterministic model.
Why things are prescribed and why the laws of existence are as they are, is not being discussed in this video. God, nature, chance. Take your pick.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy I'd pick "nature" or "chance". But of course both of those are aspects of reality, and reality would thus be self-determining, and therefore not deterministic; things, in that case, are NOT "prescribed" nor are they "subject" to "laws of existence". Even if one wanted to invent a "god" to play the role of the "law-giver", I would argue that in order for that "god" to be "real" it would be subordinate to reality which would then still not be deterministic.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy a source *external* to reality. And as I pointed out, that is synonymous with "not real". So determinism cannot be imposed on reality from within OR from without, and reality is therefore NOT deterministic. That doesn't make it "indeterministic", "random", a "free for all" or totally bonkers though. Reality IS internally consistent, otherwise we *would* be living in lala land....
The same type of argument applies to "objectivity". That requires that [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy the supposedly "objective" observer can observe and reason about the object of its statements from a completely external perspective, without affecting it at all. That is literally impossible. Every observation is an interaction and it changes both observer and what is observed, though it's valid to point out that many of our observations are SO macroscopical and the effect on the observed object SO minute that we can practically and [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy pragmatically treat them almost as if they *are* objective. The effect of the observation is SO infinitesimal against the scale of what we observe that the differences are immeasurable. But while we can practically treat some of the laws of nature we invented as "objective" it would be a mistake to think that it is "true" to state that they really are. Not terribly important in daily business, but crucial in a philosophical context.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje And it would be an objective characteristic of the object to be macroscopically affected by observation. In the same way as a ball reacts to being thrown. Stating that something/existence can't be truly objective because we influence it, by viewing it, makes no sense.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy objects are constructs of the mind ;-)
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje Objects contain matter, is matter a construct of your mind? How does your mind come into being? Is it dependent upon matter ie your brain?
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy Yes, it is. Doesn't make it unreal, though. Again, rejecting "objectivity" doesn't imply having to accept a free for all. If we construe an object such as a "rock" that you can I can communicate about, that rock will be VERY real and I could bash your head in with it, or vice versa. But objects are construed by minds that emerge from feedback loops within feedback loops within a reality that is all encompassing.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje Yes "construe". Construe is an exceptionally subjective term and has nothing to do with an "objective truth", and nothing to do with this video.
Alcoholics and drug-takers construe that they see ufo's and pixies. Objective reality is oblivious to this.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy If I "construe" a pixie or a ufo, I typically cannot communicate this to you in a way that would allow you to re-construct the object within your own mind, and that's a sure fire way of knowing that I'm either bat-shit insane or abusing some substances. But if I "construe" that the particular configuration of reality that I hold in what I "construe" to be "my hand" is a massive club with which I am going to bash your brains in, then it's highly likely [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje I'm not sure you're "getting this". You're very much trying to understand this from a strongly subjective stance ie words like construe. There are 7 billion realities, there is only one existence to which all of these realities are based. Forget the reality bit, concentrate on the existence part. Yes it's impossible to be perfectly objective, but at least try, you'll be rewarded.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy I think we've reached an impasse, Dom. I've tried to explain to you on a number of occasions that I will refuse to engage in dichotomous thinking, including the "objective/subjective" dichotomy, and yet you seem intent on dragging it back to that. All the same, I enjoyed this conversation, and apologies for posting SO much text in these comments. I got a bit carried away [blush]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje No worries, i've enjoyed it. I certainly don't see a middle ground between determinism and indeterminism. But certainly, subjectivity corrupts any truthful and accurate representation of existence....in my opinion :D
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy [grin] I actually agree with that.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy that your mind will construe the situation in a very similar way, and you will understand what I am planning to do and take evasive action and go on the counter attack. Again, you're slipping into dualism, taking the rejection of "objectivity" as embracing lunacy in which anything goes. I'm not going there.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy how mechanistic the processes are that lead to your decision making. In the end, the buck will still stop with you. You will be held responsible for your actions and you will have to take responsibility for and control of your actions. Your consciousness can help you with that, as it's a substrate-independent process that cannot be directly extrapolated from the physical properties of the brain that gives rise to it. [more]
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy We are like "Turing machines" that can feed back into their own experiences of reality. We can contemplate our own existence, or own wants, needs and desires, the options that are available to us and the priorities we can set for ourselves. If we accept that responsibility we can attain a certain degree of freedom, even if it isn't "pure".
rozeboosje 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rozeboosje ''If we accept that responsibility we can attain a certain degree of freedom, even if it isn't "pure".''
No. No room for free will AT ALL. Even the decision to 'accept that responsibility' is either causally determined or a fluctuation of quantum indeterminacy. You have NOWHERE to hide 'free' will.
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy Causally determined? By what? And the opposite of "causal determinism" is not "quantum randomness".
rozeboosje 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyContext Well I know that twins (clones) separated at birth for whatever reason when tracked down tend to be closer in the choices they made to that point then the population. They have the same kind of job and and like the same kind of things and such. What a surprise hey? I killed my twin brother last year. He didn't see that coming. Actually when he was dying he said I beat him to it by one second, lucky me. :-)
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
There have been computer simulations on population dynamics which suggest that there is a randomness to the way events unfold. The simulations involved two very similar species in the exact same environment and same conditions at the beginning of each run. With no changes in the environment the outcome as to which species became dominant could not be predicted. Populations were different for each run.
deepashtray 1 month ago
@deepashtray What does that have to do with determinism?
Not that it's remotely relevant to the topic, but are you aware how computers manufacture randomness? It's quite interesting.
But i repeat, this has nothing to do with determinism.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy You're right. It's just something that I remembered when you talked about "replaying" every event all over and said the outcome would be the same each time. Fascinating video.
deepashtray 1 month ago
@deepashtray Thank you very much. Certainly in that "coin flipping experiment" I presented, i can't stress enough the concept and importance of the term "identical". Not "exceptionally close", but absolutely identical. Peace!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy I would like to go back and find that study, but it was a long time ago. I think you would have appreciated it. Thanks.
deepashtray 1 month ago
@deepashtray It does sound interesting, if you find it, let me know.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
In your theory, you have completely left out the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Yes, Newtonian Determinism says that we are all on a big giant clock that has been ticking away for billions of years and everything we do, regardless of the act, is pre-determined, so thereis no free will, etc. Einstein loved it. But the Eisenberg said that there is great uncertainty, as in the case of electrons that randomly move out of the way or at several points simultaneously. Einstein was wrong.
NavyMedicUSMC 1 month ago
@NavyMedicUSMC Yes because its irrelevant, as is chaos theory etc, well unless you don't understand the subject. I've covered QM so many times.
Whether a random mammalian species at one particular finite point in time has the ability to predict future events or not is irrelevant to its objective truth.
Dogs can't predict solar eclipses, so does that mean that solar eclipses are random?
The uncertainty principle describes us, not existence.
Our knowledge is uncertain, existence isn't!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy So what about a murderer? Does your principal suggest that is was simply his victim's "time to go"? Is aspiration then a waste of time? These are not insignificant matters. They are very relevant to the discussion.
As far as Heisenberg and Chaos Theory, I do have an understanding of the subject. It looks to me as though you are dismissing all other possibilities in order to promote your theory as the sole answer. Is that how science works, in your mind?
NavyMedicUSMC 1 month ago
@NavyMedicUSMC When have I been rude to you? Why are the actions of a murderer distinct from the actions of a flower arranger, or first aider, on any basis other than our subjective reaction to it?
"Is aspiration then a waste of time?". Why would it be? If it was, what would that have to do with the concepts veracity?
OK, why is chaos theory, and uncertainty relevant?
"and seemingly very in love with your own sense of intellect".
Incorrect! I AM in love with my intellect...and sarcasm.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@NavyMedicUSMC The disconnect seems to be over what is random. My notion of random only speaks to my level of knowledge, however, that does not speak to whether a thing as order/rules or not. If a thing has a set of rules, then it is deterministic REGARDLESS of whether we know the rules. So, the only weakness in the presentation is whether or not anything is truly without rules. However, given the regularity of everything known, rules seem to be inherent in everything.
MyContext 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545
Why are people so stupid?!
When did I say determinism is controlled by, and innately found within the isolation of genetic inheritance? Please think before commenting.
Why do you believe anabolic steroids or indeed simple training is incompatible with a deterministic universe?
Note: This is where I and particularly you realise that you haven't got a clue. Just think next time, that's all.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "Genes and the innateness of who we are is what this whole video is about". No it's not.
"You say we have no choice in anything we do. This simply isn't true".
Good argument.
"and have to make silly videos". I make awesome videos! "It's known that choice is made in our minds before we're actually aware of it".
So you concede, it is arrived at, rather than a conscious "free" choice. Are you aware that that is a deterministic argument countering free will? Oooops :D
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 It's a PART of the video, used primarily as an analogous tool to introduce people to the concept. In of itself, genes alone do not precisely determine human behaviour and/or decision making.
Derp! :D
This is probably a discussion you're not going to win.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 You're an idiot! Did you, or did you not already state that Ben Johnson's drug use somehow disproves determinism? Read my response to that stupidity. Also read the response i gave to you about 5 minutes ago regarding, that PART.
Also most importantly, USE YOUR BRAIN. I covered environment in the video at length. How the f^%k did you miss it? Please go away!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 I'm aware of the prescribed, causal connotations of steroid use on the human body. You're once AGAIN humorously proving the argument you're trying to defeat.
Drugs have behaviours, and follow rules. Which is why he took them to run faster, as opposed to thwarting cholera. Note: Steroids don't affect your genetics.
Why don't you just say that eating food disproves determinism. ie hungry "person A" is slower than "person A" with good nutrition?
It's the SAME ignorant stupidity!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "Your argument that a person is who they are simply by inheritance".
Do you remember when I said that that is NOT the case? Do you remember? It was a massive, 10 minutes ago.
Steroids do not alter genes. Similarly asprin doesn't alter genes. Similarly hamburgers don't alter genes.
A question to test how little you understand the argument you are opposing. How would a deterministic view explain ben johnsson's 9.79s run. There are loads of antecedents. Lets see how you do.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 Premise: We start with genetic predispositions. ALL events interact with that predisposition to develop the person you become. So, the notion of choice is NOT inherently yours but a product of the events that came before combined with the moment in which you made a decision - and this continues...
@NavyMedicUSMC It seems to be difficult to convey, so many become quite frustrated in the process. It can be an issue of Social Graces vs Truth - each has merit...
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext Alright your premise sounds plausible. But what makes us make the decisions that we make? That's rhetorical sort of, I don't think we can really know, can we? Is it preferences because of our genetics? I don't know, can we know? What about a person who loses senses for some reason? We choose because of our senses don't we? Again I don't know.
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 Yes anabolic steroids affect the muscle. Eating food affects the muscle. Training affects the muscle. Importantly your chromosomes are not altered. Your genes are not altered. If Ben took a DNA test before taking steroids and after, they would be identical!
Why don't criminals just take steroids to beat dna tests? IDIOT!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "But an examination of the muscle built with steroids would be shown to be different".
Yes OBVIOUSLY! You stated that it changes your DNA! YOU clearly do not understand how they work. You're an idiot! What have I said that is inaccurate?
Here's your moronic quote "a muscle made with steroids is different than one's regular muscle, on the genetic level".
Do steroids change the muscle on a genetic level? Yes or no?
This is all irrelevant, pointless and idiotic!!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 Here's your moronic quote again. You repeated it several times "a muscle made with steroids is different than one's regular muscle, on the genetic level".
Who said it?
I'll repeat the question you ignored :D This is simply to test how little you understand the argument you are opposing. How would a deterministic view explain ben johnsson's 9.79s run. There are loads of antecedents. Lets see how you do. C'mon!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy Just don't argue with this bigboy45454545. I don't think he understands what determinism even is.
Seanze329 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy You are a genuinely rude individual aren't you? Just two clicks north of troll status, I believe. These are discussions and you have to expect counter theory or arguments on your points. No need to flame people who come to your page. You are an egotist and seemingly very in love with your own sense of intellect. Never mind my other questions. I no longer wish to have the slightest interaction with you.
NavyMedicUSMC 1 month ago
Comment removed
NiceCraft 1 month ago
Comment removed
NiceCraft 1 month ago
Brilliant video -- thank you.
Cubblesnickles 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrDisErect 1 month ago
intial system + entropy = perfect choas
butterfly effect
every 6 seconds the choice is already made by the biological process of the brain , conciousness has never been in control , merely observed its own effects ,
jmm1233 1 month ago
Even those who try to fall back on a fuzzy interpretation of quantum physics and chaos theory still have to commit a pretty long leap of logic; unpredictability does not imply autonomous control by the consciousness, but rather suggests the reverse.
kenn714 1 month ago
While your vid makes sense, what about the uncertainty principle? Doesn't it ultimately undermine everything you said?
777Atum 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, that's a very general definition of free will. But it is fucking handy. Why? Because we now have a test we can perform. We can consider what we'd allow would let someone off the hook for their action. Whatever we allow would let someone off the hook, is incompatible with free will. See?
None of you would allow 'determinism' as an excuse, would you? No. So free will does not require an absence of determinism.
Oh, sorry - this argument is about 1000x too subtle for u all.
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 Letting someone off the hook is not incompatable with freewill. All the term means is that someone can choose to be good or choose to be bad...FREELY.
"None of you would allow 'determinism' as an excuse, would you?" As an excuse for WHAT?
julzabro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@julzabro If I decided to rape someone just because I felt like it, and then offerred up 'determinism' as an excuse, you'd not let me off the hook. So, you'd hold me morally responsible for what I did. And that means you'd judge I'd done it freely despite the fact of determinism.
It is fast becoming clear to me that you can't reason in a straight line. I don't know why I bother with you people - I'd have more luck preaching anti-racism to a nazi.
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 "Now, that's a very general definition of free will. But it is fucking handy." Well, SURE it's handy! It's always handy to simply redefine the definition of words so that they fit ur illogical premises but you don't get to create ur own definitions while calling US unable to argue unless u wish 2 look insane!
julzabro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@julzabro If I'm just 'redefining' words, you must mean that my definition is not accurate. So presumably you think that free will is not necessary for moral responsibiity. So you think that someone can be morally responsible without free will.
Explain. Provide an example, or fuck the fuck off you fuckity fuck cunt piss shit arse fuck poo shit stain urine infection abortion cunt.
Clear404 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell you what, because most of you can't argue for shit, and tend to drive discussions into the sand disputing irrelevancies, I'll give you my definition of free will. Here it is:
Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent.
Deny that if you want, but by denying that you'd be claiming one can be morally responsible without free will, and that's a claim that needs defence - so you'd need to defent it (ooo, bit of shit comes out your arse).
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 Finally, 200 comments later, a definition. Praise the lord!
"Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent".
Not very objective or scientific is it!
It is entirely based on a concept of morality, a concept that is absolutely SUBJECTIVE, TRANSIENT, EVER-CHANGING...and quite importantly an entirely insular creation of the mind, with objectively no difference to any other function of brain process.
Lets dig further. Pray tell, how is morality forged?
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Clear404 Rest assured mr.404 my explanation for the existence of behaviours that humanity will usually and subjectively describe with that most tenuous of words "morality" will be forth coming. I simply require of you a direct address of my comment. That's how discussions work. (I'm even gonna kindly let you off the previous 50 evaded challenges to you). See, i'm "morally responsible".
"Morality" without "free will", ooooh that's difficult
"Free will" without "morality"? hmmm interesting? :D
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy which....premise....of....my....argument.....are....you....disputing? I STILL don't know.
Do you claim that moral responsiblity does not require free will?
Or do you claim that we lack moral responsibility?
Pick one, and fucking defend it. If you don't claim either, then you cannot block my conclusion and must accept the conclusion or give up on reason.
Now, either of the above claims is counter-intuitive. So you need an ARGUMENT to support them. Provideone
Clear404 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy Er, if you had half a brain you'd realise that my definition of free will was implicit in the premises of my original argument.
What do you mean 'not very scientific or objective'? I have literally no idea what that means.
In case you're in any doubt about the power and influence of my definition of free will, the kind of case I'm making is one based losely on that made by Peter Strawson in the 1960s - a case that totally transformed the free will debate. Be humble, cunt.
Clear404 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy You then assert that morality is subjective. As well as being quite obviously false, you provide nothing whatsoever in support of this claim. It is the 'conclusion' of an argument - where's the argument? What evidence do you have that morality is 'subjective'? U think that the fact there are different opinions about whether a given act is right or wrong shows it to be 'subjective'? How does that work exactly? What's your argument? What are your steps?
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 Note, I clearly stated that in discussions its customary to answer then ask, I'm now waiting on 51 answers. Right due to your evasiveness I'll answer, again.
Morality is subjective because 1) It fulfils the def of "subjective". ie "particular to a given person; personal", or "relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc" or "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered". cont
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Clear404 2) Morality is dependent upon culture, teaching, circumstance, era, etc. Anything that is even remotely affected by or influenced by these concepts cannot be called objective.3) Morality is defined as "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct". There are 7 billion different definitions of "good conduct" presently in world. Many more since the beginning of human consciousness.
Another def: "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct". Ideas are subjective
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Clear404 4) Our interpretations of what can justifiably be considered "moral" can only emanate from the interaction between our genes and our environment. If you state that a god designed our dna etc, that is irrelevant and unprovable. Nothing else can contribute to our creation of morality. 5) It is indistinguishable from any interpretation of our environment. 6) Everything HAS to enter our consciousness through our subjective filter. Science reveals consensus. Morality emphatically doesn't.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Clear404 In response I expect you to go through each of the 6 points. There are many more! Now I ask of YOU.1) Where does morality come from? 2) Give an example of an act of OBJECTIVE morality or immorality. And please explain why you believe this to be the case? 3) Give an example of an act that is "free". 4) If morality is indeed subjective, do you accept that your premise disintegrates? 5) I believe people that use strong swear words on youtube are immoral. Discuss.
11 points to answer. Go!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy No, you still haven't said which premise you dispute. I'm not going to answer any of your ill-formed and misguided questions. They're all irrelevant until you make them relevant by saying which premise you dispute. You really are an idiot. Challenge a fucking premise! And present an 'argument'. Clearly show your premises - like I did. Or are you frightened?
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 You'll note that I and MANY others have stated AD NAUSEUM why we believe your premise is flawed/corrupt! You are yet to address them!
Surely by answering my questions, that will embolden your argument? You seem so cowardly and reluctant! Please find the courage of your convictions.
You WILL do the following!
1) Respond to the 11 points raised previously!
2) Find my objections to your premise (many comments ago) and address them!
If you can't, please get lost and stop wasting my time!
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy Just say which premise you dispute and why. You haven't done that yet. I'm not responding to anything you say until you say which premise you dispute and why. Be clear.
Clear404 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy No, it is customary after someone has presented a deductively valid argument for a thing, to say which premise you disagree with and why. For instance, if you think that the term 'free will' has so unfixed a meaning that it could refer to just about anything, then show that by showing - with an argument - how someone could be morally responsible yet lack free will.
I'm not answering any question - ANY question - you ask me until you say which premise you deny
Clear404 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dom0nePhilosophy First, you don't know what 'subjective' means. Second, what are you hoping to achieve by insisting that morality is subjective? I mean, what premise do you take this to be challenging? Simple question. Just answer it - do you claim that we can be morally responsible without free will, or do you claim that we lack moral responsiblity? Which one?
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 "Free will is that which can transform a thing, into a morally responsible agent" Freewill or having the ability 2 choose freely has NOTHING 2 do with transformation. IF a free agent DOES transform it's not DUE 2 having the freedom 2 do so. We KNOW this cuz some who HAVE freewill do not EVER bcome moral.
julzabro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@julzabro Oh, and like Dumbone you too commit a basic fallacy. If someone is morally responsible, then they have free will. It does not fucking follow that if someone has free will they are morally responsible. Think about it. Witches have black cats. It doesn't follow that if Susan has a black cat she's a witch.
If someone is morally responsible they are necessarily free. Deny that if you want, but you'd need to provide an argument to support it as it is counter-intuitive.
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 "denying that you'd be claiming one can be morally responsible without free will"
How can u or any1 know what we'd be like without having the ability 2 choose freely? We'd be whatever we were created to be.
julzabro 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy what about quantum theory which could complicate determinism theory surely?
3tangle3 1 month ago
@3tangle3 Yep that's the argument. I've covered this MANY times in previous comments, feel free to trawl through to find them.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@3tangle3
How would Quantum theory affect to determinism? Making argument for Quantum theory with determinism vs free will, is like saying that rocks have a free will.
Tespri 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy what will happen when we can change our own genetics ;)
3tangle3 1 month ago
@3tangle3 We'll usher in the dawning of an apocalypse where we'll all run round in flames with two heads screaming at our stupidity.
But referring to determinism, where do you see the problem?
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy I generallysupport your video and very appreciative you replied and so quickly, but when you said we are fated to our genes....hopefully we can change them one day.....although we are still tied to what ever we change them to...so i answer my own question. I never believed in free will although if we do have it...its so incredibly limited/restricted due to the "laws" of existence that it appears like there is no free will.
Apemanwithcalculator 1 month ago
@Apemanwithcalculator sorry i have two accounts one for music and one for science (this one) :D
Apemanwithcalculator 1 month ago
@Apemanwithcalculator Thank you.
We're not fated to our genes. We're fated to the the interaction of our genes with our environments. ie identical genes in different environments produce different behaviours.
Presented from a completely different perspective, we're fated to the prescribed behaviours of matter. We are matter, our brains are matter, our environments are made of matter.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy "We'll usher in the dawning of an apocalypse where we'll all run round in flames with two heads screaming at our stupidity." <- LOL, Thank You!
MyContext 1 month ago
A far superior stance is that of FATALISM - best described by Michael Hoffman at: (dot) egodeath (dot) com under the headline: Timeless Block-Universe Determinism - I highly recommend reading the whole web- site but this essay in particular delineates why thinking in terms of fatalism truly is superior.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda This is the perfect forum for you to express your views as opposed to simply naming random people and websites. You'll find it more rewarding in the long term.
Please note, fatalism is the biggest pile of $&^*"%$& ever, and I've certainly never heard it being described as superior to anything. I'm here to learn....continue please.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy The future is already decided because of the nature of time, not because of the nature of linear causality. The future is predecided whether or not there is pure randomness. Pure randomness is an unwarranted and unnecessary assumption that renders determinism too vulnerable and limits its applicablity to only one kind of world. My theory of predetermination, 'block universe determinism' or 'block universe fatalism', is superior because it is more robust.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda 'block universe fatalism', is superior because it is more robust. This theory holds whether or not there is pure randomness. Predetermination is provably true -- that is, logically consistent -- without bringing in the unnecessary hypothesis of the lack of true randomness.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda The main feature of the block-universe concept is the idea of space-like time. The future is like another place that already exists. All events sit statically and eternally in their respective spacetime coordinates. The total life-history of a chooser-entity is a worldline floating forever in the frozen marble block of spacetime. The time axis itself does not flow; it sits forever.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda The standard conception of 'determinism' stands or falls with universal intercausality. This is a very weak foundation, because there very well might be some pure randomness in the world. The time axis itself is eternally frozen -- that's the reason that there is no genuine freedom, only the sense of freedom. Universal intercausality is not the reason there is no genuine freedom.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Choice, movement through time, and the power of agency are all epiphenomenal and largely illusory, whether or not there is pure randomness. My theory of block-universe causality is immune to the fact of whether there is pure randomness. Future acts are predetermined whether or not there is pure randomness.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Future acts are predetermined whether or not there is pure randomness. Future acts are predetermined because of the real nature of time and agency, not because of universal intercausality that is completely devoid of any pure randomness.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Also read Rudy Rucker: _The Fourth Dimension_. He talks about the block universe and shows it with cartoons.
In modern philosophy, 'fate' has been completely misinterpreted. Modern philosophy has not refuted fatalism, but has misunderstood what the position of fatalism actually claims.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Determinism, as conventionally defined, puts forth a false conceptualization of our freedom. It is basically correct, but it needs to be re-envisioned. It is too full of conventional, confused thinking about how we "move through" time.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Fatalism merely claims that the future is frozen, predecided -- not that that future is orderly or predictable. The position of Fatalism has all the advantages of the position of determinism, but without the indefensible auxiliary assertions.
Therefore, fatalism, classically understood is superior to determinism. Fatalism is simply frozen-ism -- that the future is as predecided as the past. Determinism as it is always conceived, implies that the future has not happened yet --
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda that it nowhere exists, yet. But for Fatalism, the future exists during all eternity -- over there, ahead of us on the time axis.
There are new tenseless models of time that fit into this. There is another new book called _The Spatialization of Time_ that supports this.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Determinists should convert to the slimmer position, fatalism -- and make sure its true conception is communicated perfectly clearly: that every single thought has already been predetermined, and all time is frozen eternally along a single, fixed time axis in the block universe. One writer has called for an adjustment of determinsim into "hyperdeterminism" in their groping toward the ancient position of fatalism, which could be called Universal Static Predetermination.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda The future can only be what it must be. Every thought occurs the only way it can. The standard definition of determinism states that "Every future thought is already specified due to the current state of affairs." But determinism seems to feel that the future does not exist "yet". I say, the future already exists, at a different spacelike point. This has been called "hyperdeterminism" but it is really Fatalism.
MrTrda 1 month ago
@MrTrda Einsteins "frozen-block universe" theory dictates that time is NOT linear. Upon entering the "mystic altered state" it becomes obvious that actions are not determined simply by cause and effect but because both actions have always been permanently pre-set; the entire set of actions came into existence all at once. The similarity of each time-slice of a stream of actions produces the sense of continuity of the ego-entity across time and the sense of smooth motion through time.
MrTrda 1 month ago
Free will is an illusion. Limited will is not.
Although most of what I am, genetics, and most of what I do, actions, are not conscious, there is a portion of what I am and do that is directed by consciousness.
We make plans which, in turn, changes what we will do! (Note the will.) Although experimental evidence shows that we do not have free will in the moment we do have freedom to make plans. Sometimes plans of what to do in the next 3 seconds, but plans.
Our limited will.
George4943 1 month ago
well thanks DomOne.... i look forward to your next post....always interesting.....im gonna check out and call it a night (or morning from my time zone)....thanks for the laughs and another great post.....till next time.......have a "smurfy" day
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
@TheeJediSmurf Cheers man!!! Oh wait Clear404 is gonna call me sexist for using the word "man".........and that's why there is free will. PROVED :D
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
DomOne.....i think you made a good point.....everything is cause and effect.....i dare anyone to name one single thing that has no cause........
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
in any rational discussion insults are irrational.....they lead (well in my mind) to an insure mind.....and its just rude........are you a rational person or not..(your comments suggest otherwise)...rational people dont need to resort to insults......what does that say about your character or your principles and ethics.....im just saying
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
@TheeJediSmurf You say that 'in any rational discussion insults are irrational'. What does that even mean? Insults neither add to, nor DETRACT from the rationality of an argument. Here:
1. If we have moral obligaitons, we have free will, dick cheese,
2. We have moral obligations, twat
3. Therefore we have free will, cunt artist
Clear404 1 month ago
@Clear404 if you cant answer that yourself.....then i question your thinking.......lol im just saying
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy
interesting vid dom, and i get youre saying we can't escape cause & effect (aimed at the xtians freewill dealy?) but i feel i should bring a few things up:
kohlbergs moral dev. theory (not a great eg of research but...) suggests morality at its best will be altruist but can be used circumstantially.
a key point of cb theory is understanding/negating the cause of our effect.
.'. we *are* free to make conscious choice. but also, the effect of that is *we* are responsible for it.
RippdUb 1 month ago
@RippdUb Thank you. No, not aimed at christians at all. Its aimed at humanity, christians don't hold the patent for god, or the concept of fw. I made this video because I believe it is accurate of our existence.
I see no differentiation between morality or any other act when discussing determinism. Morality is merely a creation of our minds, a means of quantifying/expressing aspects of our environment from a VERY subjective perspective.
Dom0nePhilosophy 1 month ago
@Dom0nePhilosophy yeah agreed morality is completely subjective. my post was mostly a response to all the other posters who seem to think morality equates to societal law, and to those who think determinism can be an excuse to behave however they want with impunity. and i guess my point was that we can learn/be trained to recognise a lot of what determines behaviour, and take that into account when making choice and to make better choices. but yeah, all response is programmed.
RippdUb 1 month ago
*I keep saying Code where I meant Clear. Sorry.
badblueman 1 month ago
2:47 who is that girl? she is HOTT!
FreeworldJTP 1 month ago
Freewill is an illusion so inescapable that for all intents and purposes it might as well be viewed as real(except perhaps in some legal instances). That is to say, I could show you irrefutable evidence right now that you have no free will, and yet your illusion of freewill would persist, just as mine is even as I write this.
Walabinx 1 month ago