common sense give him the money. the decision we make shape our lives. for example if you have sex b4 mariage you coudl have children that you will never see. God will forgive you for your sins if you repent but you still have to deal with the concequences.
There is Gods will and self will. Matt 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
2 Pet 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
By the fact you make reference to Gods will I think it need be stated that the word translated predestinate in the Rom 8:29 is the greek word proorizo. It is a construction of pro meaning before and orizo which is the same as the english word horizon and according to the scriptures it means to be bound in the light. Not everyone is bound beforehand for the light. God didn't give his LAW to all of the world before Christ likewise he doesn't now. There are 2 kinds of will in the scripture.
if there's free-will why would anyone choose evil, which is something not good? Why would any1 purposely choose that which is not good over that which is good? If he's too weak to choose good then is it his fault that he's weak, and if he can choose to be strong why wouldn't he do that which is supposedly better than weak?
the reason that person turns to evil is because of factors throughout his life that he does not control. like his family for example. If as a child he is brought up by parents who steel he might grow up to steel but it is up to him what he decides to do. it is not that he is week but the decisions he makes. and some people are mentally ill can not help to be evil
@ozzygp11, I think ozzy gp has the right sort of idea, i personally belive determisim is the more likely theory, tho i can not say for sure. it is more likely, genetics and the environment a child is raised in, determine not only the perception of good and evil, but the choice the child would more likely choose. for example your idea of good and evil will most likely vary alot from another person with a different background. good and evil are after all, a meer point of view shared by a no of ppl
Determinism is nihilism. According to determinism you cannot blaim anyone for anything they do because it is predetermined by its causality. How can you punish someone for a "crime" if their environment and/or genetics lead them to do it.
How can you blame someone for blaming someone? You see how your silly criticism quickly becomes an infinite regress, because you aren't considering the actual nature of morality, why it evolved, etc.
I am not a Determinist! I do believe I can blame someone for something they did. Determinists would rationally label everyone innocent because it was a cause that affected them to do what they did. Both credit and blame are based on the presumption that one chose and thus is held accountable for his/her actions. If someone put a gun to my head and wanted my wallet I could pull out my gun and shoot his ass! Dying is not an issue for me, dying slowly is; the latter is potentially avoidable.
Vids, I realize that you don't have much patience for those who disagree with you, but I'll attempt to indulge you for a moment.
If you make the claim, a determinist cannot blame others -- then you are applying faulty logic. Because if a determinist believes that no one can be blamed, then he himself cannot be blamed for punishing.
However, very few determinists hold the position that determinism changes morality.
If determism doesn't change morality then what is the significance of its mention? If you don't really have control of your fate or choice then why the fuck worry about consequences thereof.
If we knew that God exists and that he did indeed have some moral order for our existence then that would change my prespective on moralit a lot. lol
On the other hand, if we knew that God didn't exist and that we were just apes from evolution, then I wouldn't give a fuck about anyone but myself and those I loved.
True it is a purely human concept. Still it's based upon reality of natural laws that ARE real. I classify "laws" here as tendencies to some way of acting. And there are some tendencies we all agree upon and give names to some of them as "good" and others as "evil". Good nor evil nor morality do not exist elsewhere than in the minds of humans, but the minds of humans have made these generalizations according to tendencies we perceive in the outer workings of the world.
Yes, however the "law" of good and evil is truely modified for every human being; everyone has their own set of standards. To have a state impose those already "predetermined" standards on the population is absurd and "corrupt" if there ever could be real corruption. If people really agreed with the laws of the state they wouldn't have to be coerced, forced, or punished to obey; if slaves really believed in slavery why would any of them want to escape? Will Sheeple ever wake up?
The human view is undoubtedly distorted. We cannot deny that. Can we agree upon that slavery is "evil" and freedom to choose who leads you is "good" I think we can, though.
Btw, many slaves DID believe in slavery. They didn't think life on other circumstances is logical/possible. I'm not talking about imposing a set of standarts. I'm talking about following the ones that are clearly already there - predetermined by nature. I think we can agree upon the basics such as mindless slaughter is bad?
LOL. In the same way slaves didn't think they could live without slavery we don't think we can live without the state. Mindless slaughter is bad? Haha it requires your mind to slaughter anything, you mean emotionless slaughter? "We" might agree on that but that doesn't mean everyone will: look at the war and government-based threats self-imposed on society that continues to plague even our present times. Tell me that's not "mindless slaughter". Killing thinking and feeling animals for food?
I've not argued that. You've brought up the state and farming only now. And the present time self-imposed society. I agree with most of your points here. We live in a terrible time. I argued that there "is" a thing we could call morality. And that the major points of it, is something that every healthy human being can see that is right. Always two nations in war accuse the other for starting it. That's good at least they understand how terrible it is to start one.There are always agreeable parts
I watched all of Burnvictim77's philosophy Blogs on Free Will and I realized something; Its a pointless subject. You can't change the truth or in this case affect it differently anyway so why try? If humans have such a subjective perception of the universe and its Objective laws then how do we know that anything we learn or conclude is not corrupted by bias, instinct, emotion, etc.?
You might be right but it still doesn't take any philosophy (or at least much) to identify the existence of an apple. Agreeing on things further burrows us into the pit of certainty; this is perhaps the greatest threat to the human search for truth. Because the more you think you know it all the less you try to learn. Sciences are supposed to be rigorously tested... how can you test human free will versus human determinism? And why haven't philosophers come to any conclusion on the subject?
agreeing on things is important in practical life. and you never stop learning new things, but then again you can never fit entire universe in your brain, you will always have a simplified truth inside your head, but thats not a problem if we a) realize its not the truth, b) have a common understanding usable in practice
@vidsofgargator Dont look at it so much as punishing someone. Look at it more in terms of avoidance of the harm they will do. If I see a huge birdshit heading right toward my head, obviously Im going to whip out the old ACME umbrella. But that doesnt mean I blame the birdshit. Like us, its only doing whats in its nature: to fall in accordance with gravity after the bird drops it out its ass!
The brain is a mathematical machine of organic evolution, with trillions of neurons. Sacrificial love and delayed gratification are simply options that the human brain may be better able to calculate than primitive animals.
Hah, if you could figure out the finished result of calculations of trillions of neurons, then you'd win much more than a nobel prize.
Anyway, what determinists are saying breaks down to this:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Everything is causal.
Freewill relies on the necessity of acausality. There is no evidence for the existence of acausality, therefore there is no logical reason to believe it exists.
I would love to see a cardboard box move without cause.
Lack of predictability has nothing to do with determinism. Would you say the weather has freewill?
"There is no evidence for determinism in human behavior."
That is logical fallacy. It like saying "Gravity is prevalent on every planet we are able to measure on, but it's never been tested on a Pluto. Therefore I refuse to believe gravity exists on Pluto until we can test it there".
"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."
If I choose to use drugs and my brother doesn't, then what "law" can you invoke to explain these differences? Is there a unique "law" guiding me and another "law" which guides my brother? But how is that a "law"?
Appealing to "unique molecular structures"--as an answer to the problem of behavioral differences--doesn't solve this since biology, itself, is bound by laws.
In principle, physics operates uniformly; humans do not.
And so, "freewill" is the proverbial "law unto itself".
The fact that there is a contrast between the beliefs of freedom and determinism, on the one hand, and your particular belief in "determinism", on the other, is good evidence that you are "free". Why believe that there's any "rational" difference between "freedom" and "determinism" if your beliefs happen to be wholly determined? Why believe that you believe anything at all, if beliefs are merely a matter of "causal" necessity?
Will implies choices can effect a probable outcome.
Causal determinism has been redifined by quantum mechanics. Unless you are one those small precent that actually subscribes to a non-local hiden variables interpretation. Even so there remains a degree of probability do to the uncertianity principle as it applies to space-time. The point is that so long as an event has a degree of probability then self owned will is possible.Physicalist, monist, logical empiricist.
For an example of free will, as supported by a materialist world view, see the deleyed choice quantum easer experiement.
Once again I am saying that free will exists.
That hard determinism can not be said to exist as it would violate intrinsic qualities of our universe. And that I am not a dualist or idealist, nor am I a theist.
'uncertainty principle' alludes to randomness not free will-free will must allow actions to be determined by the agent. The 'will' is always free. objective reasoning allows us to transcend prior inclinations
This would be true if there was no way to increase a probable outcome. However conscious interaction can have a causal effect on a system to increase a probable event occurring vs the probability of that same occurrence without conscious interaction.
Did you even look up my suggested example?
See the delayed choice quantum easer.
I would argue that will is free by virtue of self owned consciousness but that the power to choose is hedged by probability.
right on there, the number one rule in nature is "self Preservation" at that very moment when facing the gunman, free will on a lesser scale might save your life if your free will chooses "Self Preservation" such a fine line.
So do you believe in determinism? What if we are operating under a logical system in which not every cause necessitates its effect. That might put a wrench in determinism I think. What if it's our free will which ultimately decides which effect proceeds the cause. I don't know. Maybe this makes sense and maybe it doesn't, kind of like anything deeply philosophical in my opinion.
If a society develops that causes less pain and suffering for more individuals then previous societies, such as absolute monarchy's or dictatorships, that isn't really free will. The fact that that society got that way is just as deterministic as an asteroid colliding into a planet. Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson didn't make "free will" decisions to build a better society than what was previously there.
Their decisions are just part of the social evolution that made the world as it is today. A long series of pre-existing conditions had to occur for MLK to be born. Just as MLK grew up to become an important figure for advancing the civil rights movement, pre-existing conditions have to occur to cause a storm or any other type of natural phenomenon that probably has a stronger bearing on the outcome of world events than most people think.
On the other hand, firesteel, a bad person, like a serial killer or hitler, doesn't have free will either (When I say bad; I mean someone or something that causes pain to conscious beings). The suffering caused by them is no different from the suffering inflicted on those who's home and lives are ravaged by a tornado or a hurricane. We may be aware of the events going on around us, as sentient beings, but that doesn't mean there's free will.
Until Time travel into the past can be proven, I can't believe that we, self aware beings, have any true bearing upon the universe. Since its an impossibility (there's really no medium or memory in the fabric of the universe that could keep past events on record), the universe only has a bearing on us, not the other way around.
Well I appreciate your comment replies and frankly you may well be right. However as total determinism has been disproven (quantum mechanics, black holes etc) I believe that free will is at least possible. Although of course I have no decisive evidence. Ultimately of course, it makes absolutely no difference.
I think black holes and quantum mechanics might just be an extension of a determinist system. Are you saying that the the uncertainty principle disproves determinism? Randomness is pretty much a system in which an outcome has so many variables effecting it, that its virtually impossible to predict. Rather than randomness being this abstract, there might be method to the madness that's yet to be discovered.
I mean, if, with current quantum physics, the placement of an electron, at any given moment, can be predicted with a probability, that isn't all that random. If you roll a die, its hard to predict, with accuracy, what the outcome's going to be, unless you're Rainman. You'll know that you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a five, and if you take a course in conventional physics, you might be able to plot something out on paper.
It shows me that there might need to be new advances in computer technology and discoveries in the field of quantum physics before pure determinism can be disproved. I don't know though; I'm not a quantum physicist. I'm just a guy that reads Scientific American.
Thank you, but modesty aside I think I may already be right when is comes to whether or things are totally determined. The inherent randomness found in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is what we consider to be true randomness. It's nothing to do with complexity or human being's limited capabilities, but with the very nature of what it is.
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
Justified by who and in what respect? Man is responsible over himself and the outcomes caused by himself. He can eithor justifiy his actions or not. Are you saying that man's being a product of uncontrollable causes makes him not responsible for himself?
I struggle with this one. If determinism is true then any imaginable action performed is justified simply because it was meant to be and I had no choice at all. Meaning that every choice i have is of equal value regardles if its good, bad, moral or immoral
The way I see it, is there are essentially 2 levels of reality. One level is that it is a deterministic reality, that is 'true reality'. Then there is a second level, 'practical reality', which is how we experience it.
From a practical view, even though we are not, we feel that we are free. 'True reality' on the other hand, is beyond us and cannot be used as a justification for any action. It's nice to know the nature of the universe, but is not something that can be used by the average person.
Agreed... the society must act as if people can choose so we can punish people. When people argue that there is no free will therefore I'm not guily... they forget that we are all actors without free will so we will still punish in accord with our psychology.
Read Paul Bloom's book, Descartes Baby, which explains why human beings are natural dualists and why we buy into this concept of a Ghost in the machine... even though it makes no sense.
Justified by who and in what respect? Man is responsible over himself and the outcomes caused by himself. He can eithor justifiy his actions or not. Are you saying that man's being a product of uncontrollable causes makes him not responsible for himself?
X-actly....there is only one thing anyone person wil do in an given situation
Y? becoz you or any individual will only make one choice becauz of the predispositions we inhreit mixed with the sum of our experiences and the person those things has made us into
You have a bright mind and I think you're entirely right. I also think that any person could get to the same conclusionsif rational, unless religious. I share you're ideas, keep up the thinking!
I think this interpretation is too pared down. Is there no mystery, nothing outside of cause and effect? Is everything, either/or, if/then ? What a boring existence. I choose the mystery or art over the misery of science. It just makes things a bit more interesting. I enjoyed listening to you speak though. You are a man of structures
Good joke, disguising a very important question. Who indeed is behind this sense of will? If its not free, if all "I" am is a reaction machine, then what is left of "me"? Who am I? Is my sense of separate self merely a necessary illusion created by awareness? And what exactly am I craving freedom from? Who is Will?
Define good and bad? Is stoning good? It is in the bible. Is slavery good? It is in the bible. Is good to be completely selfless and give away your possessions to charity and then die of starvation? Defining good and evil is very important.
Lmao , to be free is to depend on something . Let me expain 'Free Will' you depend on your Will to be Free so you dont actually free lol. This World become way too easy to understand Lmao. So if was someone absolute ,will you not depend on Him to be free ?
liberty= free, will= desire... they go hand in hand logically in my mind.. This kid is brite, and thinks deeply.... I admire that. the only advice that i would give is not to try and rationalise with an irrational model( a violent felon). Keep the logic simple and clean. examine free will in a scenario of calm ambience. violence is not rational. kewl vid
really cool. I have a lot to say, but mostly just agreeing with you. Determinism doesn't destroy will or culpability, just requires a more careful understanding of language and reality. Anyway, really cool, well said.
I found your presentation of the subject very relaxed and easy to follow and not rambling.Compared to some other pundits....keep it up! Can't respond vid wise due to tech problems. Don't know why but Krishnamurti came to mind...after listening to you, go figure!(as you say in the US of A)
Vedanist Swami Vivekananda said "the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe" it cannot be found here
Kinda like a fish in a bowl of water- as EVERYTHING the fish has encountered has been under water, it assumes that the bowl is submereged also.
Just a thought - if man is a summation of cosmic forces (I agree), and if it is that man is substantially a part of the Universe (I agree), that would seem to mean he is "free" in so far as he is identified with the Universe as a whole. Further, much of the angst surrounding this issue is created by a false mental division between "us" (another topic) and the myriad of forces which come together "in" us. They're not "in" us, they ARE us...or rephrased (I think just as correctly) we ARE them.
love it. Thats great, well put Painted Porch (and Burn Victim). This false mental division is the cause of separation and disconnection between each "other" and our world. Absolute connection and unity, is how I define "Love". When we see ourselves as the whole, we care equally for all.
love it. Thats great, well put Painted Porch (and Burn Victim). This false mental division is the cause of separation and disconnection between each "other" and our world. Absolute connection and unity, is how I define "Love". When we see ourselves as the whole, we care equally for all.
BurnVictim, would love to know what u think about this?
Would that not essentially break down your entire life to nothing but the summation of all things past before it? Would that not that mean I am just a mathematical equation with legs?
Would this not mean that every decision I make has already been put forth as "will happen" ?
Ah, I can't read all this philosophic talk right now. Hearing it's easier. But, for the record everything is deterministic, but man as a being with an ego makes his own choices, though they're not free, entirely since we are all made of the same consciousness, and there is higher order on a larger scale.
Untrue, quantum physics destroyed that. causality still holds, but more (than one) outcomes are equally possible, ALL things considered. One star for scientific misinformation to the YT audience.
That's you who just because considers himself to be rational, is convinced that he can make of science (and scientific evidence) what his rationality suggests him, not what observation proves. That's Aristotle's reasoning, it's gone! More specifically: every effect has a cause does not mean every cause has a FIXED effect. Too complicated? Please, go ahead with ad hominem...
Apparently you confuse causality with determinism. They're NOT the same thing, don't revolt my argument to your satisfaction! I'm NOT saying that effects have don't have causes, I'm saying that the same cause may have more than one determined effect (A=>B does NOT imply B=>A). Do a series of identically prepared spin-x -> spin-y Stern-Gerlach experiments. See if given answer 1 for x (YES or NO) you can predict the second answer (YES or NO) with more than 50% accuracy.
Call it what you want! I call it, how THIS universe functions.
And BTW, there's still a closed set of outcomes also within purely quantum events, you don't get a cow from an electron. I still call it causality, only, not fully deterministic. You can get only B or C from A, 50%. B or C are still "caused" by A (causality), only that we don't know whether A will give one or the other (that'd be deterministic causality).
Claiming falsity, namely: "scientific concept (duh???) that [...] every cause has a FIXED effect. [...] The universe [...] leads to a necessary outcome." I have an unfortunate tendency to disagree with false, refuted or unsubstantiated scientific claims, that's my thing, it's not your fault.
I don't think there's scientific evidence either way, the concept is also not well framed and defined. Nevertheless I don't answer to difficult questions with either God did/does it nor with it doesn't exist, I'd like a true answer. Finally, against FW, the all-is-predetermined argument doesn't apply because of Physics, so it all boils down to causality. But free doesn't equate uncaused. No inconsistency.
My view on <i>free will</i> (and I've blogged about this) is that whether or not it exists depends on how you define it (any dualist definition is pure poppycock, IMO). As for QM, those who invoke it to escape determinism, don't seem to realize that they're damning themselves to be random (rather than determined) automatons. I guess they just don't have the <i>will</i> to think it through.
Ya know, I don't think I like you in your videos and comments as a whole. You seem to be one of the many that take a stance of universal responsibilty and reward regardless of free will being imposed upon by outside forces uncontrollable to the participant. Yet I was actually surprised by your capabilty to grasp this concept. Keep digging!
people WANT to believe our brains are not made out of phyisical matter, and that our minds are different than a billiard ball lets say, buts it IS made out of matter, and everything that is made out of matter is completely mechanical.
well, i completely understand you on every level, and as far as quantum goes, i dont think they will prove there is randomness. on a deep level of comprehension, i know there cannot be randomness, it makes no sense, the idea of uncaused causes.
This is an old gambit: When a hard determinist gets seriously challenged, then he or she retreats to either the soft determinist or compatibilist position. Nothing new here.
good analogy, however, you dont really define the existentionalist visualization of existence versus essence.even then, should we consider it nil and sway to descartes, there is still free will ( as a individual agent)
also, if socrates when he posit meletus about the idea of instruction ,inre to the youth of athens being influenced by his antics. laying claim that no human does themself wrong and then stating that no one told him he was doing wrong.kind of throws a wrench in the choices.don't you think?
aaalllssoooo, we have locke and our good friend kant to toss in for good measure. be careful for the essence of the fact that pythagoras was in love with the logic of numbers is in your speech. locke: if what i think is expereince, then my expereince is a extension of an external source. kant: what is unknown remains unknown, but held as a viable force.
(Cont.)As such, any words that you utter about determinism are merely noises and neurological impulses that you cannot help generating. Now the noises you make seem to be asking me to consider the truth of determinism, but if determinism is true, then the noises that you make cannot be thoughts, as the word "thought" requires the very volitional form of consciousness that you deny.
There is nothing in volitional that makes it contrary to determinism. Your whole argument is semantic, because we've traditional attached very broad defintions to words which include a Western Judeo-Christian/libertarian free will perspective.
Will can exist in determinism. So can thought and consciousness. So can a decision. It's just that the nature of these things must be examined. We still use them to mean things, but the significance behind them changes.
While determinism, as you described it, quite adequately characterizes the way most people think and act most of the time, it overlooks the reflective aspect of human consciousness almost completely. In effect, it is only a half-truth which, when you understand truth as something aiming for completeness, a half-truth just does not measure up inasmuch as the ash-heap of history is simply piled sky-high with such things.
Read up on the life of Saint Paul, read Saint Augustine's "Confessions," read Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground," and throw-in in a little bit of Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" in on the side. Then, and only then, with full cognizance of the meaning of this small collection of writings, ask me how I can say that reflection puts your version of determinism seriously into question.
Simplicity is what you want? Then if determinism is true, then everything that you think or say is caused by forces outside of your control, and one cannot help doing and saying what one does or says, regardless of what may or may not be foreseen.
Nice, was just looking through your backlog and saw this. I might attach this to a video I did on design. You do a great job explaining the topic, which is partially related.
you may not be trying to incorporate humor into your politics, but "it's not really germane. it's not any of the jacksons really" is just hilarious. i was completely listening to your points and then i just burst out laughing at that one. i had to go back and catch what you were saying while i was laughing ;)
I got into a similar "discussion" with a friend of mine over Free Will and the like...ha ha...it ended with her confused and me laughing...inside of course.
What's with the "school" lesson? Did you take a class or read some books, and now you're going to instruct the rest of us? Save it for your class. Signing off early from this one. Brother!!
soon you will see my own views of the issue. i share your intense curiosity regarding the issue. you have inspired me to face the evil video camera. the unexamined life is indeed not worth living.
I agree that for the materialist, they pretty much have to go with determinism. But quantum mechanics, shows the fundamental nature of the universe being "noncausal" . In other words, no amount of knowledge of any situation could ever predict a given result. The same would hold even for basic brain processes such as synapses, where you have uncertainty involved in every nerve transmission. This is the door for free will.
Hi, I think I love you! ^_^ Heh, I love philosophy. This is the first video of yours and if you have more of these, I'm going to be your fangirl. Possibly your youngest and/or only female fangirl. :P I'm writing my college essay on this topic and you are basically retelling it.
But sometimes choice is not motivated by conscious reasoning, there is the subconscious to be taken into account which can be in conflict with the conscious self, you know all that freudian stuff about the ego and repression etc. All though alot of freud's stuff has been discredited. But there remains conflict between our base desires and what is precribed as right/wrong in society etc. I decided to type this...
But then wasn't there the whole thing about 'god gave men free will'? I'm not arguing that there is a god btw (or not one). Also in regard to science, science and our understanding is rooted in and limited by the condition of our existence as human beings.
Of course. But how can we gain knowledge apart from our existence as human beings? Either we go with what can understand or we just throw our hands in the air. That is, we need a functional idea of how the universe works, even if it is not exactly true.
Thanks for uploading this. maybe i should subscribe? check out mine?
DurandalDharma 2 months ago
common sense give him the money. the decision we make shape our lives. for example if you have sex b4 mariage you coudl have children that you will never see. God will forgive you for your sins if you repent but you still have to deal with the concequences.
suggesttwo 6 months ago
Nice video man
Bensonians 1 year ago
Predestination in the Bible is not fatalism. You have to be conforming to the image of Christ to be predestinated and this takes work on your part.
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
aparneomai 1 year ago
There is Gods will and self will. Matt 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
2 Pet 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
aparneomai 1 year ago
By the fact you make reference to Gods will I think it need be stated that the word translated predestinate in the Rom 8:29 is the greek word proorizo. It is a construction of pro meaning before and orizo which is the same as the english word horizon and according to the scriptures it means to be bound in the light. Not everyone is bound beforehand for the light. God didn't give his LAW to all of the world before Christ likewise he doesn't now. There are 2 kinds of will in the scripture.
aparneomai 1 year ago
I can predict the movement of billiard balls off the top of my head
runoutman 1 year ago
if there's free-will why would anyone choose evil, which is something not good? Why would any1 purposely choose that which is not good over that which is good? If he's too weak to choose good then is it his fault that he's weak, and if he can choose to be strong why wouldn't he do that which is supposedly better than weak?
thegreatestchallenge 2 years ago
the reason that person turns to evil is because of factors throughout his life that he does not control. like his family for example. If as a child he is brought up by parents who steel he might grow up to steel but it is up to him what he decides to do. it is not that he is week but the decisions he makes. and some people are mentally ill can not help to be evil
ozzygp11 2 years ago
@ozzygp11, I think ozzy gp has the right sort of idea, i personally belive determisim is the more likely theory, tho i can not say for sure. it is more likely, genetics and the environment a child is raised in, determine not only the perception of good and evil, but the choice the child would more likely choose. for example your idea of good and evil will most likely vary alot from another person with a different background. good and evil are after all, a meer point of view shared by a no of ppl
CplDrew 2 years ago
I don't believe in free will " 'God' does not play dice "
thatadamthing 2 years ago
there is no god
uber0wn3r 2 years ago
"It's not any of the Jacksons really"
lol Dry humor. Me likey...
changestation 2 years ago
Determinism is nihilism. According to determinism you cannot blaim anyone for anything they do because it is predetermined by its causality. How can you punish someone for a "crime" if their environment and/or genetics lead them to do it.
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
How can you blame someone for blaming someone? You see how your silly criticism quickly becomes an infinite regress, because you aren't considering the actual nature of morality, why it evolved, etc.
burnvictim77 2 years ago
I am not a Determinist! I do believe I can blame someone for something they did. Determinists would rationally label everyone innocent because it was a cause that affected them to do what they did. Both credit and blame are based on the presumption that one chose and thus is held accountable for his/her actions. If someone put a gun to my head and wanted my wallet I could pull out my gun and shoot his ass! Dying is not an issue for me, dying slowly is; the latter is potentially avoidable.
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Vids, I realize that you don't have much patience for those who disagree with you, but I'll attempt to indulge you for a moment.
If you make the claim, a determinist cannot blame others -- then you are applying faulty logic. Because if a determinist believes that no one can be blamed, then he himself cannot be blamed for punishing.
However, very few determinists hold the position that determinism changes morality.
burnvictim77 2 years ago
If you are interested, we can discuss concepts of morality that do not require a lack of determinism.
burnvictim77 2 years ago
Ok. But what were the concepts of morality that DID require determinism again? Choice? A circular arguement of its allusion?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Causal determinism is a question of metaphysics, not ethics.
burnvictim77 2 years ago
HAHAHA! You are just the best! LMAO.
If determism doesn't change morality then what is the significance of its mention? If you don't really have control of your fate or choice then why the fuck worry about consequences thereof.
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Why do human being want to know how they evolved/were created?
It has no immediate effect on our order or morality.
But you'd like to know, eh?
Hyardacil 2 years ago
If we knew that God exists and that he did indeed have some moral order for our existence then that would change my prespective on moralit a lot. lol
On the other hand, if we knew that God didn't exist and that we were just apes from evolution, then I wouldn't give a fuck about anyone but myself and those I loved.
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Wrong. You would. And you do. Because we HAVE evolved from apes. :P
Theory of evolution cannot be used as a weapon against morality dude.
Hyardacil 2 years ago
Their is no such thing as morality DUDE. ;).
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
True it is a purely human concept. Still it's based upon reality of natural laws that ARE real. I classify "laws" here as tendencies to some way of acting. And there are some tendencies we all agree upon and give names to some of them as "good" and others as "evil". Good nor evil nor morality do not exist elsewhere than in the minds of humans, but the minds of humans have made these generalizations according to tendencies we perceive in the outer workings of the world.
Am I making sense?
Hyardacil 2 years ago
Yes, however the "law" of good and evil is truely modified for every human being; everyone has their own set of standards. To have a state impose those already "predetermined" standards on the population is absurd and "corrupt" if there ever could be real corruption. If people really agreed with the laws of the state they wouldn't have to be coerced, forced, or punished to obey; if slaves really believed in slavery why would any of them want to escape? Will Sheeple ever wake up?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
The human view is undoubtedly distorted. We cannot deny that. Can we agree upon that slavery is "evil" and freedom to choose who leads you is "good" I think we can, though.
Btw, many slaves DID believe in slavery. They didn't think life on other circumstances is logical/possible. I'm not talking about imposing a set of standarts. I'm talking about following the ones that are clearly already there - predetermined by nature. I think we can agree upon the basics such as mindless slaughter is bad?
Hyardacil 2 years ago
LOL. In the same way slaves didn't think they could live without slavery we don't think we can live without the state. Mindless slaughter is bad? Haha it requires your mind to slaughter anything, you mean emotionless slaughter? "We" might agree on that but that doesn't mean everyone will: look at the war and government-based threats self-imposed on society that continues to plague even our present times. Tell me that's not "mindless slaughter". Killing thinking and feeling animals for food?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
I've not argued that. You've brought up the state and farming only now. And the present time self-imposed society. I agree with most of your points here. We live in a terrible time. I argued that there "is" a thing we could call morality. And that the major points of it, is something that every healthy human being can see that is right. Always two nations in war accuse the other for starting it. That's good at least they understand how terrible it is to start one.There are always agreeable parts
Hyardacil 2 years ago
I watched all of Burnvictim77's philosophy Blogs on Free Will and I realized something; Its a pointless subject. You can't change the truth or in this case affect it differently anyway so why try? If humans have such a subjective perception of the universe and its Objective laws then how do we know that anything we learn or conclude is not corrupted by bias, instinct, emotion, etc.?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Heh, Firstly because instinct, emotion and bias are also part of the objective universe!
Secondly, none of the great philosophers gave up. So neither should we.
And as I ceep repeating... there are always agreeable parts.
Even the fact that we can agree that an apple is an apple and it is in fact "there" is a big achievement when you think about it.
Hyardacil 2 years ago
You might be right but it still doesn't take any philosophy (or at least much) to identify the existence of an apple. Agreeing on things further burrows us into the pit of certainty; this is perhaps the greatest threat to the human search for truth. Because the more you think you know it all the less you try to learn. Sciences are supposed to be rigorously tested... how can you test human free will versus human determinism? And why haven't philosophers come to any conclusion on the subject?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
Most of them have.
They just disagree with each other.
Hyardacil 2 years ago
agreeing on things is important in practical life. and you never stop learning new things, but then again you can never fit entire universe in your brain, you will always have a simplified truth inside your head, but thats not a problem if we a) realize its not the truth, b) have a common understanding usable in practice
Enleuk 2 years ago
@vidsofgargator Dont look at it so much as punishing someone. Look at it more in terms of avoidance of the harm they will do. If I see a huge birdshit heading right toward my head, obviously Im going to whip out the old ACME umbrella. But that doesnt mean I blame the birdshit. Like us, its only doing whats in its nature: to fall in accordance with gravity after the bird drops it out its ass!
chefshitpiece 11 months ago
so what i understood is that free will is based on posotive and negative which is based on logic?
and we do live in a logical world...
so then does logic say that death is bad?
YellowSpotFungus 2 years ago
Nothing but free will can explain sacrificial love and delayed gratification.
chestertonrules 3 years ago
The brain is a mathematical machine of organic evolution, with trillions of neurons. Sacrificial love and delayed gratification are simply options that the human brain may be better able to calculate than primitive animals.
Sepero1 2 years ago
What calculation leads to suicidal sacrifice for a loved one?
I don't buy it.
Your rationalism has led you to irrational conclusions.
chestertonrules 2 years ago
Hah, if you could figure out the finished result of calculations of trillions of neurons, then you'd win much more than a nobel prize.
Anyway, what determinists are saying breaks down to this:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Everything is causal.
Freewill relies on the necessity of acausality. There is no evidence for the existence of acausality, therefore there is no logical reason to believe it exists.
Sepero1 2 years ago
There is plenty of evidence, it is just ignored.
People don't act in a predictable way.
There is no evidence for determinism in human behavior. There are always exceptions.
Why is this?
chestertonrules 2 years ago
Where is all this evidence for acausality?
I would love to see a cardboard box move without cause.
Lack of predictability has nothing to do with determinism. Would you say the weather has freewill?
"There is no evidence for determinism in human behavior."
That is logical fallacy. It like saying "Gravity is prevalent on every planet we are able to measure on, but it's never been tested on a Pluto. Therefore I refuse to believe gravity exists on Pluto until we can test it there".
Sepero1 2 years ago
I like to play around with my free willy!
bananentaartje 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=3SUwMbyNQz8
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."
Einstein, 1932
ZeketheSwede 3 years ago
If I choose to use drugs and my brother doesn't, then what "law" can you invoke to explain these differences? Is there a unique "law" guiding me and another "law" which guides my brother? But how is that a "law"?
Appealing to "unique molecular structures"--as an answer to the problem of behavioral differences--doesn't solve this since biology, itself, is bound by laws.
In principle, physics operates uniformly; humans do not.
And so, "freewill" is the proverbial "law unto itself".
cognitivemagic 3 years ago
"Rationality" requires libertarian freedom.
The fact that there is a contrast between the beliefs of freedom and determinism, on the one hand, and your particular belief in "determinism", on the other, is good evidence that you are "free". Why believe that there's any "rational" difference between "freedom" and "determinism" if your beliefs happen to be wholly determined? Why believe that you believe anything at all, if beliefs are merely a matter of "causal" necessity?
cognitivemagic 3 years ago
Free implies self owniship.
Will implies choices can effect a probable outcome.
Causal determinism has been redifined by quantum mechanics. Unless you are one those small precent that actually subscribes to a non-local hiden variables interpretation. Even so there remains a degree of probability do to the uncertianity principle as it applies to space-time. The point is that so long as an event has a degree of probability then self owned will is possible.Physicalist, monist, logical empiricist.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
For an example of free will, as supported by a materialist world view, see the deleyed choice quantum easer experiement.
Once again I am saying that free will exists.
That hard determinism can not be said to exist as it would violate intrinsic qualities of our universe. And that I am not a dualist or idealist, nor am I a theist.
What are you, a new age stoic?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
'uncertainty principle' alludes to randomness not free will-free will must allow actions to be determined by the agent. The 'will' is always free. objective reasoning allows us to transcend prior inclinations
jayo18010 3 years ago
This would be true if there was no way to increase a probable outcome. However conscious interaction can have a causal effect on a system to increase a probable event occurring vs the probability of that same occurrence without conscious interaction.
Did you even look up my suggested example?
See the delayed choice quantum easer.
I would argue that will is free by virtue of self owned consciousness but that the power to choose is hedged by probability.
At any rate determinism is not absolute
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
common sense?
Also, why are you vlogging from a mailroom?
isso09 3 years ago
Will is not choice. So what does choice have to do with free will? You must be talking about free choice or something.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
right on there, the number one rule in nature is "self Preservation" at that very moment when facing the gunman, free will on a lesser scale might save your life if your free will chooses "Self Preservation" such a fine line.
raw420x 3 years ago
So do you believe in determinism? What if we are operating under a logical system in which not every cause necessitates its effect. That might put a wrench in determinism I think. What if it's our free will which ultimately decides which effect proceeds the cause. I don't know. Maybe this makes sense and maybe it doesn't, kind of like anything deeply philosophical in my opinion.
peanut18544 3 years ago
Agreed..
I just wanted to find out if they way i thought was rational.. bcause i tend to get into mean discussions with this topic..
so thank you for saying ecxacly what i think
zennized 3 years ago
You're sexy.
mandalastar 3 years ago
Thank you. Play me some Kinks.
burnvictim77 3 years ago
dude, after all the shit i read, you make the most sense to me about free will and determinism.
Paraz1tul 3 years ago
4:24.
Do you have a tendency towards....
cock much?
Tebbitbreath90012 3 years ago
WORRIED ABOUT FREE WILL? READ THIS.
Then read Daniel Dennetts 'Freedom Evolves' in which he explains how determinism and free will are compatable.
firesteel1 3 years ago
If a society develops that causes less pain and suffering for more individuals then previous societies, such as absolute monarchy's or dictatorships, that isn't really free will. The fact that that society got that way is just as deterministic as an asteroid colliding into a planet. Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson didn't make "free will" decisions to build a better society than what was previously there.
pisscunt 3 years ago
Their decisions are just part of the social evolution that made the world as it is today. A long series of pre-existing conditions had to occur for MLK to be born. Just as MLK grew up to become an important figure for advancing the civil rights movement, pre-existing conditions have to occur to cause a storm or any other type of natural phenomenon that probably has a stronger bearing on the outcome of world events than most people think.
pisscunt 3 years ago
On the other hand, firesteel, a bad person, like a serial killer or hitler, doesn't have free will either (When I say bad; I mean someone or something that causes pain to conscious beings). The suffering caused by them is no different from the suffering inflicted on those who's home and lives are ravaged by a tornado or a hurricane. We may be aware of the events going on around us, as sentient beings, but that doesn't mean there's free will.
pisscunt 3 years ago
Until Time travel into the past can be proven, I can't believe that we, self aware beings, have any true bearing upon the universe. Since its an impossibility (there's really no medium or memory in the fabric of the universe that could keep past events on record), the universe only has a bearing on us, not the other way around.
pisscunt 3 years ago
Well I appreciate your comment replies and frankly you may well be right. However as total determinism has been disproven (quantum mechanics, black holes etc) I believe that free will is at least possible. Although of course I have no decisive evidence. Ultimately of course, it makes absolutely no difference.
firesteel1 3 years ago
I think black holes and quantum mechanics might just be an extension of a determinist system. Are you saying that the the uncertainty principle disproves determinism? Randomness is pretty much a system in which an outcome has so many variables effecting it, that its virtually impossible to predict. Rather than randomness being this abstract, there might be method to the madness that's yet to be discovered.
pisscunt 3 years ago
I mean, if, with current quantum physics, the placement of an electron, at any given moment, can be predicted with a probability, that isn't all that random. If you roll a die, its hard to predict, with accuracy, what the outcome's going to be, unless you're Rainman. You'll know that you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a five, and if you take a course in conventional physics, you might be able to plot something out on paper.
pisscunt 3 years ago
It shows me that there might need to be new advances in computer technology and discoveries in the field of quantum physics before pure determinism can be disproved. I don't know though; I'm not a quantum physicist. I'm just a guy that reads Scientific American.
pisscunt 3 years ago
lol. So you might be right.
pisscunt 3 years ago
Thank you, but modesty aside I think I may already be right when is comes to whether or things are totally determined. The inherent randomness found in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is what we consider to be true randomness. It's nothing to do with complexity or human being's limited capabilities, but with the very nature of what it is.
firesteel1 3 years ago
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
/Einstein
ZeketheSwede 3 years ago
makes me wonder whats in that bottle on the shelf behind him...hmmmmmmmmm
elar4563 3 years ago
Justified by who and in what respect? Man is responsible over himself and the outcomes caused by himself. He can eithor justifiy his actions or not. Are you saying that man's being a product of uncontrollable causes makes him not responsible for himself?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I struggle with this one. If determinism is true then any imaginable action performed is justified simply because it was meant to be and I had no choice at all. Meaning that every choice i have is of equal value regardles if its good, bad, moral or immoral
aa74395 4 years ago
The way I see it, is there are essentially 2 levels of reality. One level is that it is a deterministic reality, that is 'true reality'. Then there is a second level, 'practical reality', which is how we experience it.
From a practical view, even though we are not, we feel that we are free. 'True reality' on the other hand, is beyond us and cannot be used as a justification for any action. It's nice to know the nature of the universe, but is not something that can be used by the average person.
Driven000009 4 years ago
Agreed... the society must act as if people can choose so we can punish people. When people argue that there is no free will therefore I'm not guily... they forget that we are all actors without free will so we will still punish in accord with our psychology.
Read Paul Bloom's book, Descartes Baby, which explains why human beings are natural dualists and why we buy into this concept of a Ghost in the machine... even though it makes no sense.
AniSmith 3 years ago
Justified by who and in what respect? Man is responsible over himself and the outcomes caused by himself. He can eithor justifiy his actions or not. Are you saying that man's being a product of uncontrollable causes makes him not responsible for himself?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Good post.. would be cool to talk to you in person.
daxwax1 4 years ago
thank you for posting this! im trying to understand all this for my philosophy class. very helpful!
soph7133 4 years ago
X-actly....there is only one thing anyone person wil do in an given situation
Y? becoz you or any individual will only make one choice becauz of the predispositions we inhreit mixed with the sum of our experiences and the person those things has made us into
PeterNurse 4 years ago
I agree with all that you're saying. I love the topic of philosophy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
You have a bright mind and I think you're entirely right. I also think that any person could get to the same conclusionsif rational, unless religious. I share you're ideas, keep up the thinking!
positros 4 years ago
thank god there are intelligent people in this world.
thank you for posting.
i enjoyed hearing your ideas.
abecedarian123 4 years ago
I agree
randomagain101 4 years ago
I think this interpretation is too pared down. Is there no mystery, nothing outside of cause and effect? Is everything, either/or, if/then ? What a boring existence. I choose the mystery or art over the misery of science. It just makes things a bit more interesting. I enjoyed listening to you speak though. You are a man of structures
breezyanna328 4 years ago
Who's Will and why do we need to free him?
astecker 4 years ago 2
Good joke, disguising a very important question. Who indeed is behind this sense of will? If its not free, if all "I" am is a reaction machine, then what is left of "me"? Who am I? Is my sense of separate self merely a necessary illusion created by awareness? And what exactly am I craving freedom from? Who is Will?
copicuk 4 years ago
How very simplistic.
stalepriest 4 years ago
Define good and bad? Is stoning good? It is in the bible. Is slavery good? It is in the bible. Is good to be completely selfless and give away your possessions to charity and then die of starvation? Defining good and evil is very important.
TheOriginalEntz 4 years ago
Lmao , to be free is to depend on something . Let me expain 'Free Will' you depend on your Will to be Free so you dont actually free lol. This World become way too easy to understand Lmao. So if was someone absolute ,will you not depend on Him to be free ?
radeusX 4 years ago
liberty= free, will= desire... they go hand in hand logically in my mind.. This kid is brite, and thinks deeply.... I admire that. the only advice that i would give is not to try and rationalise with an irrational model( a violent felon). Keep the logic simple and clean. examine free will in a scenario of calm ambience. violence is not rational. kewl vid
sleeplessingc 4 years ago
really cool. I have a lot to say, but mostly just agreeing with you. Determinism doesn't destroy will or culpability, just requires a more careful understanding of language and reality. Anyway, really cool, well said.
FrankFacade 4 years ago
If free will is illusionary, then isn't our existence also illusionary?
TrystanCJ 4 years ago
Nope
enterthepigger 4 years ago
I found your presentation of the subject very relaxed and easy to follow and not rambling.Compared to some other pundits....keep it up! Can't respond vid wise due to tech problems. Don't know why but Krishnamurti came to mind...after listening to you, go figure!(as you say in the US of A)
moob744 4 years ago
where is the soul?
watch?v=pGTleaTCXq8
vdizhoor 4 years ago
Libertarianism can also be materialistic.
davidjakewillis 4 years ago
Best video I've watched on this subject yet.
kireikoori 4 years ago
yes this video is awesome
altargirl89 4 years ago
nice .
b88104044 4 years ago
Vedanist Swami Vivekananda said "the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe" it cannot be found here
Kinda like a fish in a bowl of water- as EVERYTHING the fish has encountered has been under water, it assumes that the bowl is submereged also.
Faz1983 4 years ago
theres no free will, we r programed machines, all working to make this world "function".
MAGONZACO 4 years ago
who was the prime mover in this big mix if cause & effect?
Ypsteve311 4 years ago
who says the idea of a prime mover solves the problem?
rainwaterfall 4 years ago
it doesn't, its just the logical conclusion of determinism
Ypsteve311 4 years ago
infinite regression is another probability
rainwaterfall 4 years ago
Just a thought - if man is a summation of cosmic forces (I agree), and if it is that man is substantially a part of the Universe (I agree), that would seem to mean he is "free" in so far as he is identified with the Universe as a whole. Further, much of the angst surrounding this issue is created by a false mental division between "us" (another topic) and the myriad of forces which come together "in" us. They're not "in" us, they ARE us...or rephrased (I think just as correctly) we ARE them.
PaintedPorch 4 years ago
love it. Thats great, well put Painted Porch (and Burn Victim). This false mental division is the cause of separation and disconnection between each "other" and our world. Absolute connection and unity, is how I define "Love". When we see ourselves as the whole, we care equally for all.
copicuk 4 years ago
BurnVictim, would loe to know what u think about this?
copicuk 4 years ago
love it. Thats great, well put Painted Porch (and Burn Victim). This false mental division is the cause of separation and disconnection between each "other" and our world. Absolute connection and unity, is how I define "Love". When we see ourselves as the whole, we care equally for all.
BurnVictim, would love to know what u think about this?
copicuk 4 years ago
thats not what he is saying
firesteel1 4 years ago
im referring to PaintedPorch's reply from 5 months ago. Are you firesteel1? If so, then what is he saying?
copicuk 4 years ago
Hi Burn Victim I am a stroke victim let's boggy.
Colinnnnnnn 4 years ago
Would that not essentially break down your entire life to nothing but the summation of all things past before it? Would that not that mean I am just a mathematical equation with legs?
Would this not mean that every decision I make has already been put forth as "will happen" ?
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
yes.
Barbariandude15 4 years ago
Ah, I can't read all this philosophic talk right now. Hearing it's easier. But, for the record everything is deterministic, but man as a being with an ego makes his own choices, though they're not free, entirely since we are all made of the same consciousness, and there is higher order on a larger scale.
mistaspot1 4 years ago
"every cause has a fixed effect"
Untrue, quantum physics destroyed that. causality still holds, but more (than one) outcomes are equally possible, ALL things considered. One star for scientific misinformation to the YT audience.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Ah, I see that you don't grasp things at all.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
"Ah, I see that you don't grasp things at all."
That's you who just because considers himself to be rational, is convinced that he can make of science (and scientific evidence) what his rationality suggests him, not what observation proves. That's Aristotle's reasoning, it's gone! More specifically: every effect has a cause does not mean every cause has a FIXED effect. Too complicated? Please, go ahead with ad hominem...
schrodcat 4 years ago
I'll make it simple enough for you to respond directly:
Design a test that demonstrates a lack of cause and effect relationship.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Apparently you confuse causality with determinism. They're NOT the same thing, don't revolt my argument to your satisfaction! I'm NOT saying that effects have don't have causes, I'm saying that the same cause may have more than one determined effect (A=>B does NOT imply B=>A). Do a series of identically prepared spin-x -> spin-y Stern-Gerlach experiments. See if given answer 1 for x (YES or NO) you can predict the second answer (YES or NO) with more than 50% accuracy.
schrodcat 4 years ago
"I'm saying that the same cause may have more than one determined effect"
Which is NOT causality, but probabilism.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
"Which is NOT causality, but probabilism."
Call it what you want! I call it, how THIS universe functions.
And BTW, there's still a closed set of outcomes also within purely quantum events, you don't get a cow from an electron. I still call it causality, only, not fully deterministic. You can get only B or C from A, 50%. B or C are still "caused" by A (causality), only that we don't know whether A will give one or the other (that'd be deterministic causality).
schrodcat 4 years ago
So, what is the importance of your disagreement with me?
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Claiming falsity, namely: "scientific concept (duh???) that [...] every cause has a FIXED effect. [...] The universe [...] leads to a necessary outcome." I have an unfortunate tendency to disagree with false, refuted or unsubstantiated scientific claims, that's my thing, it's not your fault.
schrodcat 4 years ago
So, let's tie this back in here - do you think that free will is possible?
burnvictim77 4 years ago
I don't think there's scientific evidence either way, the concept is also not well framed and defined. Nevertheless I don't answer to difficult questions with either God did/does it nor with it doesn't exist, I'd like a true answer. Finally, against FW, the all-is-predetermined argument doesn't apply because of Physics, so it all boils down to causality. But free doesn't equate uncaused. No inconsistency.
schrodcat 4 years ago
My view on <i>free will</i> (and I've blogged about this) is that whether or not it exists depends on how you define it (any dualist definition is pure poppycock, IMO). As for QM, those who invoke it to escape determinism, don't seem to realize that they're damning themselves to be random (rather than determined) automatons. I guess they just don't have the <i>will</i> to think it through.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
cool
hondo1188 4 years ago
wow. i love you
withanoxgoad 4 years ago
Thanks.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
I try to make as few choices as possible, since I create a diffeerent universe each time, and I don't like being quite that responsible.
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
Ya know, I don't think I like you in your videos and comments as a whole. You seem to be one of the many that take a stance of universal responsibilty and reward regardless of free will being imposed upon by outside forces uncontrollable to the participant. Yet I was actually surprised by your capabilty to grasp this concept. Keep digging!
axilla9000 4 years ago
people WANT to believe our brains are not made out of phyisical matter, and that our minds are different than a billiard ball lets say, buts it IS made out of matter, and everything that is made out of matter is completely mechanical.
well, i completely understand you on every level, and as far as quantum goes, i dont think they will prove there is randomness. on a deep level of comprehension, i know there cannot be randomness, it makes no sense, the idea of uncaused causes.
BronzeEleven 4 years ago
i am FREE from choice,
FREE from interference,
FREE to be Caused,
FREE to be effected,
FREE to be planned,
FREE from responciblity,
FREE from expectation,
FREE from death (momentarily)
FREE from God.
This Will is FREE from me
aaronsalad 4 years ago
Freedom from causality isn't possible.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
very well said
waylonh11287 4 years ago
This is an old gambit: When a hard determinist gets seriously challenged, then he or she retreats to either the soft determinist or compatibilist position. Nothing new here.
trentamj 4 years ago
I'm not a compatibilist in the least. I'm saying your argument relies on attaching additional meanings to words that don't necessarily apply.
Such as will=free will. Does not follow.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
good analogy, however, you dont really define the existentionalist visualization of existence versus essence.even then, should we consider it nil and sway to descartes, there is still free will ( as a individual agent)
wiredduck 4 years ago
also, if socrates when he posit meletus about the idea of instruction ,inre to the youth of athens being influenced by his antics. laying claim that no human does themself wrong and then stating that no one told him he was doing wrong.kind of throws a wrench in the choices.don't you think?
wiredduck 4 years ago
aaalllssoooo, we have locke and our good friend kant to toss in for good measure. be careful for the essence of the fact that pythagoras was in love with the logic of numbers is in your speech. locke: if what i think is expereince, then my expereince is a extension of an external source. kant: what is unknown remains unknown, but held as a viable force.
wiredduck 4 years ago
Burnvictim is entirely right. I hate how often semantics can cloud an argument
enterthepigger 4 years ago 2
(Cont.)As such, any words that you utter about determinism are merely noises and neurological impulses that you cannot help generating. Now the noises you make seem to be asking me to consider the truth of determinism, but if determinism is true, then the noises that you make cannot be thoughts, as the word "thought" requires the very volitional form of consciousness that you deny.
trentamj 4 years ago
There is nothing in volitional that makes it contrary to determinism. Your whole argument is semantic, because we've traditional attached very broad defintions to words which include a Western Judeo-Christian/libertarian free will perspective.
Will can exist in determinism. So can thought and consciousness. So can a decision. It's just that the nature of these things must be examined. We still use them to mean things, but the significance behind them changes.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
While determinism, as you described it, quite adequately characterizes the way most people think and act most of the time, it overlooks the reflective aspect of human consciousness almost completely. In effect, it is only a half-truth which, when you understand truth as something aiming for completeness, a half-truth just does not measure up inasmuch as the ash-heap of history is simply piled sky-high with such things.
trentamj 4 years ago
How is reflection not deterministic?
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Read up on the life of Saint Paul, read Saint Augustine's "Confessions," read Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground," and throw-in in a little bit of Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" in on the side. Then, and only then, with full cognizance of the meaning of this small collection of writings, ask me how I can say that reflection puts your version of determinism seriously into question.
trentamj 4 years ago
If you can't explain it in simple terms, I'm going to assume that it is nothing but sophistry - sounds good, but no substance to it.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Simplicity is what you want? Then if determinism is true, then everything that you think or say is caused by forces outside of your control, and one cannot help doing and saying what one does or says, regardless of what may or may not be foreseen.
trentamj 4 years ago
thanks for making this. i am the only determinist i know. i'm glad to see someone with a sense of humor explaining this subject!
crabula 4 years ago
Oh thank you for tackling this subject.
Its very difficult to explain determinism in a proper way but I'd certainly say you did it.
KlausDieSchrecken 4 years ago
superficial and rubbish, do your homework! any 5-year old can produce this nonsense.
yairpi 4 years ago
What homework do you suggest I do?
burnvictim77 4 years ago
I believe the limits of human ability are infinite, so how can something that is infinite be set in stone?
VividHazE 5 years ago
To be a dick:
Perhaps the real question is "How can something set in stone be infinite?"
enterthepigger 4 years ago
Are you Behaviorist burnvictim77?
Shorteus 5 years ago
Nice, was just looking through your backlog and saw this. I might attach this to a video I did on design. You do a great job explaining the topic, which is partially related.
sinixdesign 5 years ago
you may not be trying to incorporate humor into your politics, but "it's not really germane. it's not any of the jacksons really" is just hilarious. i was completely listening to your points and then i just burst out laughing at that one. i had to go back and catch what you were saying while i was laughing ;)
nsroach 5 years ago
I got into a similar "discussion" with a friend of mine over Free Will and the like...ha ha...it ended with her confused and me laughing...inside of course.
paeshe2 5 years ago
What's with the "school" lesson? Did you take a class or read some books, and now you're going to instruct the rest of us? Save it for your class. Signing off early from this one. Brother!!
Fingerwalker1 5 years ago
Okay, but I'll have to give you an incomplete for the semester.
burnvictim77 5 years ago
Haha. Good one! You're alright.
See ya!
Fingerwalker1 5 years ago
excellent.. subscribed
stewie1974 5 years ago
soon you will see my own views of the issue. i share your intense curiosity regarding the issue. you have inspired me to face the evil video camera. the unexamined life is indeed not worth living.
asherules 5 years ago
wow, telling me the things I already know but in so many words? It's boring. Do you have your own ideas or do you only know how to regergitate books?
waakow 5 years ago
What book am I 'regergitating'? I'd love to read to it.
burnvictim77 5 years ago
I agree that for the materialist, they pretty much have to go with determinism. But quantum mechanics, shows the fundamental nature of the universe being "noncausal" . In other words, no amount of knowledge of any situation could ever predict a given result. The same would hold even for basic brain processes such as synapses, where you have uncertainty involved in every nerve transmission. This is the door for free will.
dexarouskies 5 years ago
But noncausal or indeterministic DON'T explain in anyway how 'FREE WILL' is possible, or how it works.
burnvictim77 5 years ago
Hi, I think I love you! ^_^ Heh, I love philosophy. This is the first video of yours and if you have more of these, I'm going to be your fangirl. Possibly your youngest and/or only female fangirl. :P I'm writing my college essay on this topic and you are basically retelling it.
quitejaded 5 years ago
Copycat. I'm telling your professor on you.
burnvictim77 5 years ago
But sometimes choice is not motivated by conscious reasoning, there is the subconscious to be taken into account which can be in conflict with the conscious self, you know all that freudian stuff about the ego and repression etc. All though alot of freud's stuff has been discredited. But there remains conflict between our base desires and what is precribed as right/wrong in society etc. I decided to type this...
BadAlbert 5 years ago
But then wasn't there the whole thing about 'god gave men free will'? I'm not arguing that there is a god btw (or not one). Also in regard to science, science and our understanding is rooted in and limited by the condition of our existence as human beings.
BadAlbert 5 years ago
Of course. But how can we gain knowledge apart from our existence as human beings? Either we go with what can understand or we just throw our hands in the air. That is, we need a functional idea of how the universe works, even if it is not exactly true.
burnvictim77 5 years ago