Emails of the Week - Aug 31 2010 - Freedomain Radio

[AdamOuissellat]

I think you may have missed something in your critique of determinism. Your analogy to rocks rolling down the hill isn't fair. This is because shouting at them will have some (negligible) effect on the rocks. If you see particles of dust falling to the ground then shouting at them (if it is loud enough) will cause them to have a different path towards the ground than if you had not shouted. And with humans, shouting is not negligible. If the T.V can hear you then isn't shouting at it reasonable?

[shlockofgod]

@AdamOuissellat "This is because shouting at them will have some (negligible) effect on the rocks"

He was talking about the content of what was being shouted (Go left, Go right). not the actual shouting.

"If the T.V can hear you then isn't shouting at it reasonable?"

That takes YOU out of the causal chain. You are also a TV. IF everything you do is completely determined then there is no reasonable or unreasonable action. There is only what is determined.

[AdamOuissellat]

@shlockofgod Ahh okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Gjeremy]

@PostITnoteGUY

Thank you for the comment,

Should Free Will be described more off the limbic system then of the neocortex.

I believe so, wink, wink. ;)

[Hanahleia]

If a determinist is saying that you "should" believe in anything, then perhaps these determinists don't fully understand the implications of determinism, which is something I don't think people really discuss. I've heard Ramesh Balsekar go over implications of determinism, such as the pursuit of happiness in trying to possess the most gratification in pleasure is a pointless pursuit, since the amount of pleasure you'll receive in your life has already been predetermined in the determinst's p.o.v

[MRTEED]

I really have a beef with your television input argument for free will. Just because yelling at your tv doesn't work doesn't mean the tv doesn't run on an cause/effect basis. Thats like trying to wake someone up with a dog whistle. A frequency is being made, but the person does not hear or respond to that stimulus.

[TomMichaels101]

You can't get the marks unless you repeat the dogma.

What an appropriate homonym.

You can't get the Marx unless you repeat the dogma.

[TomMichaels101]

Stefan: What audio compressor are you using on your videos here? It gives such a distinct sound to your work (and is like a connective tissue of sorts among your assorted clips).

[razoorsharp]

Stef.. any plans to start in europe?

The Dutch need some lessons in freedom BADLY!!!

[bunsh1ch1]

@razoorsharp Ya, since they don't have a government right now maybe Stef could try and sell them on giving Archo-Captilism a try.

[sowiesosso]

So you think that state education is making you stupid. You got your paper on the university. Than you claim that anything true or valid must go in the meat-grinder of blablabla. I guess that the state-education made you think within the box and now you are only able to think within this box. To claim that science in these days is beyond any state of science in the past is an assumption that is implemented by the state. This assumption is not proven anywhere and certainly not by you. PARADIGMA

[Prometheusforliberty]

More like a complex robot with AI than a TV

[rob101x]

If no good determinist will debate with others, then it's safe to say that you have never spoken with a good determinist.

Therefore, you have only spoken with bad determinists.

So claiming any kind of conclusion in the realm of "free will v. determinism" is a bit like Mike Tyson fighting a Girl Guide.

[petkol]

How do you manage to not loose your voice?

~Norseman

[StephHuegi]

Does it really matter that you consider it contradictory for a determinist to argue with you? Sure he might not be showing great integrity, but if the determinist is "destined" to argue with you he will, no matter if it is contradictory to his position. Also, as others have mentioned: Even if an argument is predetermined, it might change your "input" as a t.v. and the reason why the determinist wants to argue is maybe just that someone else acknowledging that they are right is satisfying.

[t2491tom]

lol the first 20 seconds are hilarious!

[kokopelli314]

The problem isn't between free will and determinism. The problem is why so many choose not to exercise free will.

[t2491tom]

@kokopelli314 Oh boy you got that right!

[Gjeremy]

Determinism does not negate responsibility. If a murder happens someone did it. If stefbot is into non aggression except in self defense he must first determine what is and is not aggression and defense. He is determined to do this by swarms of electricity in his brain. You determine your own actions but how can we take responsibility if determinism is false. I don't act randomly. Punishment for crimes instead of rehabilitation is violent. I determined to stop violence. It is my responsibility.

[FDRspanish]

Is the accountant student kidding himself? I still have to meet an accountant who istn't a statist. They depend and promote statism with every cell of their bodies. So far in my experience: Economists: 90% Statists; Lawyers: 98% Statists; Accountants: 100% Statists. If you start your mafia carrer already knowing it's funded on violence, and you still choose it... well guess what you are. You could perfectly study buesiness and become an entrepreneur and make an honest living, and earn more money

[1schwererziehbar1]

i disagree with the television set thing. if you talk to someone you are changing the input so even if you look at him as a television set it makes sense to talk to him. determinist here.

[t2491tom]

@1schwererziehbar1 That is quite an argument, but it's a shame I don't have the ability to no longer believe in free will since I have none. ; )

[1schwererziehbar1]

@t2491tom

apparently you still don't get it.

the laws of physics do NOT say that it is impossible to change your opinion.

[unclesamfatg]

@1schwererziehbar1 yes but when you chose your opinion its still determined by causality. or are you not a determinist?

[t2491tom]

@1schwererziehbar1 I'm sorry but I can't change my opinion. I do not have that choice.

[egokick]

Your analogy breaks apart because the 2 deterministic systems of television sets facing each other do have an effect on each other, the light and sound they emit intermingles and creates something new and then you use this flawed analogy to claim that humans cannot be deterministic because they effect each other. If 2 deterministic systems can effect each other then determinism is not a self contradictory theory as you claim.

[ozzycriss]

Scientist=Priest , Data=Bible , You can't understand said Data/Bible So Scientist/Priest will Translate for you . He is raised up on high or altered . Worship at the alter of science the altar is seen as endowed with greater holiness. 

[N7a7v7i]

My thoughts on free will versus determinism...

...if, as a determinist you accept that people can choose to believe in what is true because of reason and evidence, then you've essentially just blurred the definition so hopelessly that there is no longer any meaningful distinction between free will and determinism whatsoever.

[N7a7v7i]

Stef... have you experienced sexual abuse by a clown or something? That was just... a startling metaphor. xD

[MrDorkusMaximus]

Stefan has taught me so much. I copiously thank him. However, I do disagree with his "free will" posit. Simply because people can change our minds, doesn't mean that we do it with "free will". Most of us are always making choices which benefit us. Did we make the choice because it was the "right" thing to do? In what context? In the context that hopefully it would improve our lives, either through creature comforts, or the approval of peers. Where's the free will in that? Sail on, Bro' Stefan.

[GoddaM777]

people communicate with something that may or not be real all of the time, they call it "prayer," and some would call this construct God, or Allah, or whatever strikes their fancy...

[N7a7v7i]

@GoddaM777 Prayer is often more for the person praying than for any really religious purpose. After all, God is just the projection of our unconscious mind onto external reality.

[GoddaM777]

@N7a7v7i I agree, completely, merely observing on the point of (not) communicating with someone that isn't real--sadly, there is a greater majority of people who believe they are communicating with inflatable clowns LOL

[whitechocolatespace]

I also have a difficult time with the free will/determinism debate. To make the comparison to shouting at rocks to fall in a certain direction is an unfair analogy IMO.  It takes the verbal debate too literally and makes the human impotent in relation to the rocks. What would happen if someone threw their own rocks to make the falling rocks go left or right? That's not evidence of free will.

[egokick]

@whitechocolatespace the rock anology was also confusing, he was using a human in the analogy to prove that humans cannot be deterministic. Also, if the rocks were not falling faster than the speed of sound, him shouting at the rocks to go one way instead of the other does have an effect on the rocks (sound vibrates the atoms in the rocks) just not the effect that he wanted.

[whitechocolatespace]

@egokick That seems like an awful lot to infer regarding the rocks. My question is why can't humans have an effect on other humans like the wind and gravity have on rocks? I'm just pointing out that determinism and free will isn't as clear cut as stefan is claiming it to be.

[Araki0ikarA]

"If I put an inflatable clown in your bed...." lol

[Baitnator]

Hey Stefan, as i understand Mises himself did not deny the possibility of hard determinism and did not see it particularly contradictory to free will, im not really sure i get his argument thou, but perhaps you can elaborate on that? Its a kinda life consuming question for some people who, quite paradoxical are very much rationalist, and cant help to come to the particular conclusion that everything must have a prior cause. oh yea btw i think its in "Theory and history"(Mises)

[whitechocolatespace]

@Baitnator I agree. With the subjective theory of value, Mises argues that our actions are guided by that. So in large effect, actions can be determined. However, I personally believe people have free will in order to change their values and therefore, their actions.

[Marchije]

Re: Marriage: I was surprised by these comments. Whose business is it of my community? And why should they NOT care if I stray on my bf or gf versus caring if I stray from my wife/husband? Do you really need a contract to indicate that you are committed to someone? And does the absence a contract make infidelity ok or "more" ok? And if you need your community to remind you of your commitment, then did you really love your spouse in the first place? I'd love to hear more discussion on this.

[chitchcott]

When's your European tour?

[Terra7Q]

Stef! Verbal communication is one your "inputs" just like the current of electricity going into a tv is an "input" you completely misunderstood the potential inputs and the desired effect. By being a machine that responds to auditory input you are still a machine just like a automated phone system or a voice massage recorder.

All of your activity has a describable cause to it's existence. Freewill is a metaphysical concept that is not based on cause and effect.

[zeropointapathy]

I think your television set analogy starts to break down because it fails to account for the crucial difference between human beings and televisions: interaction. While the processes that make up human beings are apparently deterministic, your deterministic interaction with those processes does affect and change them. Now it's true that human beings don't think of themselves this way, but since when was our common sense feeling about ourselves an argument for the nature of reality?

[modelmark]

@zeropointapathy exactly in the very same video he says:logic is derived from the consistent behaviour or reality. But human brains do not behave consistently and are non causal. Yet human brains are part of reality.

Completely irrational embarrassing nonsense and disregarding tons of scientific evidence about the behaviour of matter and self detonating, because he uses logic to disprove causality.

[conquesimo]

Suppose there are two rocks bouncing down a hill alongside each other. Neither rock can choose its path. Both rocks are destined for a one and only one path. In this scenario, it turns out that the rocks will collide and continue along their separate paths. Neither rock chose to collide, but nevertheless, both rocks are on a path they wouldn't otherwise be on without the collision.

Neither rock has free will but they still influence each others' paths. Determinism is not contradictory.

[fumanchu1k]

@conquesimo The fact that you are forced to use an analogy involving sentient rocks to explain determinism is pretty defeating in and of itself.

[conquesimo]

@fumanchu1k To say that I'm "forced" to use an analogy using rocks is kind of silly. I'm merely picking up the analogy that Stef used and taking it one step further to show that his conclusion is invalid. If anything, my use of the Stef's rock analogy to disprove his own conclusion emphasizes just how flawed his argument is.

[ExquisiteDoom]

How do you know wether determinism is true or not when you can't rollback time and see the difference in responses a human being would have to just about anything? You can't know wether or not you were meant to change someone's mind or not as you can't possibly test it. You can't tell wether or not you were supposed to change one's mind in one try or 5 tries or never. Free will or determinism have got to be a false dichotomy.

[timsharper]

Thanks for the vid!

[BaDSPLeR]

No good speakers come to New Zealand!

[erhnamdj]

If a rock bounces down a hill, and the sounds it make happen to resemble the words: "Stef! My man! You should believe in determinism!"

Then, in that case, do we have proof that free will is valid since the rock has acknowledged your free will?

[hughtub]

I do believe everything is determined, that is, in the same manner that with enough understanding of the natural behavior and motivations of an ant, we could predict individual and group ant behavior to a very high level of precision. Humans are just a higher order. Physics teaches how non-living objects interact deterministically, but psychology and chemistry teach us how humans are guided by their inputs. We don't yet have the level of understanding/technology to accurately predict behavior.

[egokick]

@hughtub An ant mill is a phenomenon where a small group of army ants separated from the main foraging party lose the pheromone track and begin to follow one another, forming a continuously rotating circle. The ants will eventually die of exhaustion

[captaincody665]

Stef! When am I going start seeing you doing TED talks?

[Gjeremy]

stefbot, I know your an atheist so you most likely do not believe in dualism. I think that your definition of Free Will is good. I would add the concept of swarm intelligence to it. Rocks obey the laws of physics but so do humans except rock atoms don't swarm. Proteins swarm the make cells and cells swarm to make people. Information via electricity swarms in our brains to create ideas. So free will is more like energy than rigid objects. If energy is not physical how would that affect free will?

[qncsc]

@Gjeremy - interesting concepts. i don't think stefbot is going to get your thinking, though. he has a good mind and good ability with certain concepts. but your thinking (from my experience) is not going to resonate bc you draw from a more mathematical construct. he is NOT that, i have learned. imo, he has his limitations with reasoning along the lines that you produce. he is highly literal, whereas your ideas are more abstract.

[1983Bantam]

Damn, Stef, your run-down on determinism and free will was concise and devastating. I hadn't been convinced by your arguments until I heard this - bravo, sir.

[asperin]

If you're a TV set, the determinist is not trying to talk to you, he's trying to push different buttons to affect your functioning.

[Jollyprez]

Determinists like it because then nothing's their fault. It's in their genes. Or their lack of an inheritance. Or because they're an oppressed minority. Etc..

[egokick]

@Jollyprez I will admit that I enjoy knowing the actual causes of problems. Genes, inheritance and opression do have an effect on individuals, are you claiming they do not? then I will oppress you, steal all your money, and expose you to radiation and it will have no effect.

[Jollyprez]

@egokick That's a ridiculous assertion - that I claim that cause and effect do not operate. And that is not what Mr. Molyneaux is claiming, either. Rather, I was speaking in the modern welfare-state-mentality sense, where the people aren't responsible for their plight, it's all these other things out of their control. It's an escape-hatch morality.

[chriswroads]

Im glad you have decided to step it up a notch

[aurlis2012]

school sucks was a great podcast, although i kinda already knew most of it already. i posted a question on your channel but you didn't answer it this video.. Emails of the Week part 2??

[Voy2378]

OMFNG

free will part is just awful. TV and rocks analogies are pure BS.

People ARE machines.

[TheCapitalistdog]

@Voy2378

You can choose to accept or reject that you have free will. But the fact remains, you have a choice. ;-)

[Voy2378]

@TheCapitalistdog

I will accept it or reject it. It doesn't mean that I have free will.

[asperin]

@TheCapitalistdog

And that choice is determined by previous events.

[Moragauth]

Do determinists always prove determinism by assuming it?

[asperin]

@Moragauth

Depends on previous events of their own life.

[aurlis2012]

@Voy2378 gonna have to back that arguement up

[Voy2378]

@aurlis2012

Actually I won't. Free will aka ghost in the machine, god ,Santa, Invisible Pink Pimp are all in the same category. There are no indications that there is a ghost in a machine. If you are talking about my attack on TV and the rocks- laws that define their behavior are the same as the laws that define behavior of the human brain. I know that QM tells that universe is random but it doesn't mean that free will exists- it only kills determinism.

[FlailingJunk]

@Voy2378

Arguing with a machine is fine but analogizing a machine as a different type of machine is BS?

[Voy2378]

@FlailingJunk

So what if you are a machine- in a sense that every object that can perform some "complicated" task is a machine?

I sense that you are using the same argument as stefbot-

0. there is no free will

1. If there is no free will people are machines

2. you don't talk to a machine like TV

3. you (ignoring 0. LOL) decide to stop talking to people or free will exists.

[FlailingJunk]

@Voy2378

I would point out the continuing inconsistency of your argument, but you completely ignored that in my previous post so I wont bother. It is clear that your issue has nothing to do with me or my position.

[Panpiper]

@Voy2378 Determinists need to study some quantum mechanics.

[Voy2378]

@Panpiper

Well I'm not educated enough to understand the reasons why, but apparently hidden variables(that are deterministic) would violate something...

wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#EP­R_Paradox_.26_Bell.27s_Theorem

[captvanhalen]

9:47 <--- People say "I believe in God" or "I do not believe in God" -- the emphasis is belief. People do not often say "I know God." However, it seems to me that most people interchange the words believe and know without giving second thought to the accuracy of their stated opinions. A great friend of mine once challenged me to make a rational statement about the existence (or non-existence) of God. Can you? :)

[Voy2378]

@"Why get married"

stupid reason IMHO

[LawrenceAugust]

Stefbot-- I can understand your statement about a "public declaration" of "eternal intent" in regards to marriage-- makes sense... but what's your take on divorce? What if people "guiding you back" simply does not alleviate a problematic issue within the marriage? Do you believe in "making it work" despite the problems? Take cheating or some other form of betrayal as an example.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

I can think of a reason to get married, at least in the USA: tax breaks compared to living together! :3

[gustavonarez]

Stef, if someone claims that he could have chosen between A and B, and he choses A, he can't never prove that he could have chosen B since he can't go back in time and 'change his mind'.... Meaning: free will cannot be proven, since our perceivable life is linear...

If determinstics try to change your mind that's beacuse you can take input and change your output, there's no contradiction at all...

[hamletundone]

you gotta lotta book learnin doncha?

[everst]

On determinism: There are infinite external influences on the human mind. To think that the human mind is powerful enough to overcome these influences and make an independent or free choice is preposterous.

[Moragauth]

*shrug* Mere argument from disbelief.

[lovecee01]

See you in AZ Steph. The husband will be thrilled to meet you. I personally, I'll be excited to hear your accent.

[Fetchdafish]

I wonder if Lee Doran will be one of those heavy hitters. A conversation between you and him would be like a dream come true.

[mjcye]

you stop debating with your TV because your debate with her is not one of its input. If human beings are like TVs, debating would still be relevant because what you say is another input to them.

[BroBroDude]

Determinism is incompatible with the position that NO CHOICE EXISTS. Determinism is compatible with the position that CHOICE EXISTS BUT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE EFFECT OF PRIOR CAUSES.

According to the latter view, it is perfectly sensible to debate the subject and attempt to change minds. An argument can and often is among the causes for a choice (change of mind).

[ChrisBovington]

@BroBroDude : But that makes the whole argument rather pointless. Whether we see it as free will or prior causes, people will still make choices. Society only functions well when people are personally responsible for their actions (and choices), since otherwise we are giving each other false information, perpetuating poor choices or misleading prior causes. So what's the point of such an argument if it changes nothing?

[BroBroDude]

@ChrisBovington "Whether we see it as free will or prior causes, people will still make choices. Society only functions well when people are personally responsible for their actions"

Accountability is the not the same thing as responsibility. "Fault" does not exist, but it is nonetheless expedient to punish unproductive social behaviors. It is perfectly sensible to hold people accountable. It is perfectly insane to think they are at fault for what they choose to do.

[ChrisBovington]

@BroBroDude : I think we're just having a semantics debate now. Responsible in my understanding is weaker than accountable. A virus is responsible for making you ill, but you can't hold it accountable. Accountable would have been a better word choice in my first response, but I don't see how you equate responsible with "fault". For that, I guess I would use "blame", though I personally agree with you that "blame (fault)" does not exist, or is at least a very poor way of thinking.

[bball44j]

@BroBroDude

You are assuming that there is a reasonable way to predict someone's behaviour in a certain situation from your assumption that choice is the effect of prior causes. But in fact someone could react randomly (no determinable way to figure out why they acted that way from some other person's perspective) to any given situation.

[bunsh1ch1]

@BroBroDude ........."CHOICE EXISTS BUT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE EFFECT OF PRIOR CAUSE."

To make this statement a person would have to know what consciousness is.

Also, couldn't a person's mental state effect their choice all inputs being the same?

[BroBroDude]

@bunsh1ch1 "To make this statement a person would have to know what consciousness is."

they'd need to have a model of it, yes. Free will exists because we don't have perfect information? k if you say so but then so does everything else unfalsifiable. live your life accordingly and report back with results.

"Couldn't a person's mental state effect their choice all inputs being the same?"

No doubt about that. All mental states are effects, however, and one never controls [all] the causes. QED

[rgrannell1]

@bunsh1ch1 that counts as an input

[BroBroDude]

The rocks-down-a-hill analogy is poor. Presenting an argument to a person is not analogous to presenting an argument to a rock; it is analogous to attempting to physically stop or redirect the rock.

Rocks don't have choices; a person does. A person's choices are causally constrained precisely the same way the rock's roll is.

[samsonality]

barbecue and speaking..... is this is private event?

[canerdc]

Determinism is not self contradictory.

When you understand and accept that we are "fully" bound to the laws of physics, you will see it is like a falling rock talking to another falling rock. And the result is inevitable, even tough we don't know it.

[Moragauth]

Has nothing to do with determinism's coherence as applied to conscious human thought...

[Panpiper]

@canerdc Determinism seems to assume a Newtonian physics. However we have learned that the laws of physics are more complex than that, with things like the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics. The universe is not deterministic, it contains rather a high degree of randomness and chaos. Now one could then assert that we are mere machines functioning within that chaos, and that would be truth, but we are also self programing, self aware, volitional machines.

[canerdc]

@Panpiper I agree. We are self aware and as we name it "conscious".

When it comes to physics and the relation to determinism, it gets very complex. First off, uncertainty principle con not imply randomness -see thought exp. Schrödinger's cat-. Also, the observed randomness at the very small level may or may not be real -it can be due to measurements or lack of knowledge- and/or even if it is a fundamentally random system -I highly doubt it-, that doesn't mean we are defying any laws of physics.

[natmanprime]

@canerdc I say self awareness means sentience, a step beyond consciousness, because consiousness has to mean percieving an option, thereby creating freewill and the 'self'. To be aware of the self is to occupy a new position where one can concieve of the self as a concept and thereby define it, which is necessary to be aware of something.

To be conscious is to have a self, not to be aware of it.

Having said all that, you and Panpiper are generally right imho.

rationality is rationalisation.

[natmanprime]

@Panpiper we are indeed in in chaos, in the proper greek meaning of the word. Light travels, and is therefore always shows us the past.

We're in darkness, rationalizing the past with light, in other words.

I kind of agree, the future is not written, because to write it would affect the outcome, undermining what is written.

If that sounds irrational, you'd be correct. That is the nature of being and the universe.

I'm telling you this because you seem to have some understanding.

: )

[adorianvlad]

stef needs no beard; he has a Rex Linn look alike,

from Rush Hour or Cliffhanger movies (provided he has a moustache)

[adorianvlad]

@adorianvlad

watch?v=FbiontrNGQk

sorry, I just think it's funny

[canerdc]

Somebody give me some link to this schoolsucks guy.

[qtronRobespierre]

Excellent response on determinism.11:10

[odin422]

Marriage is not a state affair.

[gilyardk]

yeah i did not miss the Drexel speech

[Ape65]

I love your answer about marriage. My thinking exactly.

[Tohellwithoursouls]

Stefan, I would be interested to learn your appraisal of the conclusions reach by American mathematician Theodore Kaczynski a.k.a. The Unabomber that he was ultimately serving the destructive military industrial complex. I would be amazed if you have not read his manifesto: 'industrial Society and it's Future', although Ted justifies his violent acts in some chapters in others he displays vivid insight into human self deception. P.S. Your voice reminds me of Michael Rennie's as Klaatu, calm.

[roberto8ag]

Hola,

You said:

"'My belief in God is derived from something that actually exists in the world,' well, then you're wrong because God don't exist in the world."

I remember you said in your last video that you believe in rights but you acknowledged that they (rights) don't exist.

So my question is: Isn't your belief in rights also derived from something that actually exists in the world?

[natmanprime]

@roberto8ag good stuff. I can't believe you were marked as spam, I keep seeing that shit on this page.

As to your comments, they were an oasis of much needed reason.

(And anyone who quotes Jung is ok with me!)

[SanieClaws]

I can't wait for Drexel! Thank you for coming to talk about how to sell Liberty. I worked as a canvasser on the streets of Philadelphia spreading statist propaganda until I realized the real nature of my actions. I yearn to hit the streets again but this time with the message of Liberty!

[trick0171]

I am only addressing the free will / determinism statements (not arguments) you made. It is a non-sequitur that someone without free will would (or should) stop debating or arguing. We don't tell the rock going down the hill to stop going down the hill that will hit the person at the bottom, but we can put a block that stops the rock. Likewise, a branch can fall from a tree and block the rock.

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

Determinists that debate are more like the branch that effects the rock, where as the debate has a possible EFFECT on the person, or viewers. Such an effect is reason enough for the determinist to debate. If the determinist did not debate, the causality would lead to something undesirable (un-preferable), such as the egocentric point of view that the idea of "free will' creates, and the poor reasoning that is based on something that cannot (logically) exist.

(END 2)

[Moragauth]

If the determinist has not got the free will to determine whether determinism itself is true or not, why should I just not ignore them, regardless of whatever (delusional) views they have on the supposed "egocentric" (as if this is bad) views the idea of free will "creates"? How is it that free will cannot "logically" exist? This is more hogwash to protect determinism from inevitable refutation.

[trick0171]

@Moragauth

It does not follow that free will is a requirement to determine if determinism is true or false.

Free will cannot logically exist because it is incompatible in both a deterministic universe, and an indeterministic universe. If thoughts come about through causal events, those causes could not happen any other way. If they come about through acausal events, that would be even worse as thoughts would be random nonsense that we still have no control over.

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

Since an event can only be causal or acausal, it is a necessary dichotomy, and to suggest they can come about some other way is illogical.

Free will being the ability to choose between more than one VIABLE option, in which that choice is up to the chooser...that is.

I am in the middle of writing a book on the topic that will detail out the logic. Also, I consider myself a hard incompatibilist rather than a hard determinist, but that does not matter much here.

Thanks.

(END 2)

[Moragauth]

It most certainly does follow. If you are unable to make a conscious decision to the effect that something is true or false based on whatever criteria, you were merely determined to believe it anyway, regardless of its veracity. To decide whether it is true or false is itself a choice, an exercise of rational decisionmaking. Else it's just something you were built to say, regardless of its truth...

[trick0171]

@Moragauth

It does not follow that free will is a requirement to make a conscious decision to the effect that something is true or false based on whatever criteria. Even nonconscious items such as a calculator can conclude 2+2=4 without free will.

It does not follow that free will is a requirement to exercise rational decisionmaking, or to elect between options. It is merely that the other options were not viable to select, not that they were not accounted for in the decision, or logical.

[Moragauth]

Ugh, a calculator doesn't decide on whether what its screen says is true or not. It operates on certain rules and gives a result. It does NOT do anything over and above that. It is fine to say humans do not either, but so much the worse for determinism too. Who determines whether they're "viable" or not? It's a judgement call.

[trick0171]

@Moragauth

It operates on certain rules that gives a result that is either true or false (depending on those rules). Same thing with a person who uses the rules of LOGIC. It does not matter if the person "decides" if it is true or false. A creationist "decides" that what they say is true regardless of the logic and evidence. What matters is that the person used a reliable and consistent method to come to the conclusion.

LOGIC determines if they are viable (meaning possible).

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

If something cannot happen due to it's contradiction being true, that thing is not (logically) viable. The notion of free will goes against the rules of logic. It does not matter "who" determines that they do, just that they do. It is only a judgement call if the person that determines the viability cared nothing about the methodologies of logic.

(END 2)

[Moragauth]

This is like arguing in a bloody loop. Yes, it does matter. Else how do you know you are not merely being fed data? You've had no part in determining its truth or falsity. You, like the calculator, operate on certain rules. You've no idea whether those rules yield truth or falsity. You've just been conditioned to spew out certain answers based on certain inputs. So even if determinism were false, you'd still believe it's true.

[Moragauth]

The thing is the calculator has NO awareness of what it is spewing out. We do. You are trying to draw an invalid analogy and forcing it to stick. And it sure has hell matters if a person decides to take evidence for something as true or false (especially if you take knowledge as justified true belief.)

[trick0171]

@Moragauth

"You've no idea whether those rules yield truth or falsity."

Free will does not help with this so called problem of knowledge. We determine the truth or falsity based on observations and consistency. This is how we know that logic (or math) is a consistent and reliable method. The notion of free will has nothing to do with the observations of those consistencies.

Also, I never said the calculator had awareness, and I never said humans didn't. My analogy only addressed RESULTS.

[Moragauth]

If determinism doesn't allow for the choice to do otherwise, it's pretty much fucked. Free will does. Results mean nothing. A calculator doesn't bother to justify its "results".

[trick0171]

"A calculator doesn't bother to justify its results"

Yet we trust calculators, and computers, because we understand that the logic they are built on is reliable. Same holds for a determinist who comes to conclusions through logic. What matters is the methodology used, for both a "determinist" (or incompatibilist such as myself) as well as for someone claiming they have free will (when they really do not).

(END 2)

[MirageScience]

sorry stef free will does not equal causality.

[AshleyKScott]

I feel for the would-be accountant. I just started my first philosophy class, but I'm way ahead of the others because of your work, Stef. I've already warned a classmate away from sliding into the belief that all ideas, including morality, are relative and I'm so ready to debate in that class. It will be scary but exciting. Thank you so much for your guidance. I did join FDR and donate too btw, living my principles etc.

[Info4People]

Any chance you ever come speak at places in Europe?

[HiddenAuthor]

So Stefbot, in your utopia, do the DROs compete and thus create war or cooperate and thus create a state?

[stefbot]

@HiddenAuthor stefbot not respond to false dichotomy

[TheCapitalistdog]

@stefbot

You MUST choose one, Stef. You either support War or the State. Which is it?!?!? :-P

/sarcasm

[MutantBamHammer]

@stefbot I like how you respond in 3rd person. Very amusing.

[odin422]

@stefbot 15:54 and on LOL.....yeah i can could be happy if i took prozac and got drunk everynight,hahahaha. great stuff.

[HiddenAuthor]

@stefbot False dichotomy? The clients of different DROs would have disputes, forcing the DROs to agree to a protocol for solving the disputes. The DROs would then force non-compliant DROs to agree to the protocol. So entry into the DRO business would be regulated by other DROs thus forming an union and with non-compliant DROs locked out, that union would be a cartel. A cartel is a monopoly. A monopoly with a monopoly on the use of authorized force is a State. Thus a State would be formed.

[Moragauth]

Um, are you done playing fast and loose with terms? They wouldn't "force" non-compliant DROs to do anything. They'd just not do business with them. Those that did would be criminal entities, to be handled as such. Having a protocol =/= having a cartel =/= having a legal monopoly.

[Moragauth]

BTW, it was ENTIRELY a false dichotomy now that I see it. Competition =/= do war.

[HiddenAuthor]

@Moragauth Suppose you ran a DRO and I ran a DRO. Your client had a dispute with my client. Now when you come to me, I say get lost. Then I use force against your clients to protect my clients. Now then you can either back down and nullify your existence as a DRO (who would hire you afterwards) or you fight back.

[Moragauth]

OK, now tell me why this situation must obtain?

[HiddenAuthor]

@stefbot Unless the DROs shunned agreements and shunned protocols for disputes with one another and chose war instead.

[frostedpornflakes]

@HiddenAuthor Competing =/= war, Cooperating =/= State

[jaminunit]

@HiddenAuthor This question has been answered so many times in so many videos! please keep researching :)

[SpykerSpeed]

@HiddenAuthor Does Target go to war with Wal-Mart? No, because there's no social expectation that they should! Plus there's no social expectation that they have a right to steal from their customers (taxation is a superstition only associated with government).

[HiddenAuthor]

@SpykerSpeed Yes because all DROs would be started by legitimate businessmen. No gang anywhere would think of reinventing itself as a DRO. And of course the more legitimate DROs would allow this rather than form a cartel to lock such troublemakers out of the business.

[Info4People]

Ayn Rand is also a great author!

[28318511]

I like that first man's imagery, oh.....