I'll preface this by saying that I am not a determinist. I want to agree with u, Stefan.
However, when u say that determinists view human beings just like every other piece of matter in the universe, I think you're simplifying the argument.
Devil's advocate: I will pick up a rock to move it because that's how you interact with inanimate objects. That's not inconsistent with determinism, is it? A person is just like a rock, except it requires a different, more sophisticated kind of interaction.
The consequences of an idea do not effect the validity of the argument.
And no, nothing matters. Its either determined or random (or both) and both ideas undermine the idea of free will. You are made up of the same things as rocks, you are in the same system as those rocks. You are no different and your argument is as determined as anything else.
@etha777 I'm curious to know, by what train of thought did you come to the conclusion that determinism could be a correct worldview?
Is there some scientific data that you studied, perhaps, or did you just state the opinion bluntly, without making any attempt at study? Please don't take this as intended to insult you -- it's just that I have never personally seen any scientific data that could lead to that conclusion, and I'd like to check it out myself:
I'm a determinist. Morality is as illusory as free will. Other determinists try to change your mind out of ignorance. It really doesn't matter. Athiests and determinists go hand in hand. When a person decides to agree with determinism, some give up morality. The moral judgements are ridiculous, most just don't realize it.
A dog is already determined to dog thoughts and same with a human. And like a dog a human is still clockwork and a creature of habit so can be reconditioned. Heaven and hell would only be states of being through a daisy chain of events. It wouldn't matter concerning the brain state of a retard or genius since they are determined by the body which still fires human thoughts. All that matters is input/output by observation so the retard carrying out a task correctly determines it is intelligent
This no belief system within a deterministic universe besides a shell of coping mechanisms. All objects are labels of invented convention to determine a consensual reality like calling that a soap dish. All mental constructs are illusionary and ones 'reality' is a merely a claim or stake. That evens ones notions of right or wrong are basically self preferential, dogmatic, and an evolutionary niche. There is only opportunity lost or gained at any and every given moment in time hence cause-effect.
In continuation of the hard deterministic argument... there are all these flesh machine firings going off that your mind attempts in apprehending Then with every interpretation attempts to intuit a conclusion because the brain naturally schemes since wants to seek closure. Every decision negotiated has a casual effect. It doesn't matter if it is as instantaneous as 1/23rd of a second or 123 days later. Somewhere along the line, every decision effects every action and reaction deterministically
There are a few deterministic arguments, many of which influenced computer computation even. An example would be that you are basically hard wired and conditioned and influenced by your environment, limited senses, and experience. That one is not in fully control of oneself as they think they are. Determined also by ones entire personality which is a evolutionary residual effect. If I push this human robot button here it has deterministic reflexes or if prod a brain nerve that will trigger tears
Stef, I though you were a good guy. Then you are contradicting yourself in this because you are mocking us. If we believe in determinism, then it's our choice to believe in what we want. You are just a product of evolution Stef, face the fucking facts! You make fun of us for not being able to freely choose, but neither can you. Shame on you for rambling about nonsense. You have said nothing!! If i was like a robot, how could i have emotions? Robots have no emotions, nor do Tv or Ipods. Idiot.
Oh my god im laughing so hard... Because everything that Steph described determinist as, they responded him in the exact same way that he was already talking about!! It's as if they didn't watch his video! Hilarious!!!!
@JLeeMagnetic Your an asshole. I can believe in whatever I want to. Steph comes across as completely arrogant. Determinism has been scientifically proven to be true, so Steph is really making a huge mistake for making fun of determinists.
@JLeeMagnetic Yes that is how all you people who believe in ''free will'' always treat people. Arrogant, ignorant, and unwilling to accept the truth. Stef is no different. THe reason why we get mad at him is because he won't listen. He says he is preprogrammed and that is just an excuse. Steph does have the intelligence to understand determinism. The notion of free will is the cause of a lot of suffering in human history. Like Buddha said illusions cause suffering. So give it up Stef!
"Even if they are random, there is still no free will."
Not true. If they are random then there is no determinism because determinism fundamentally requires causation to be coherent. If things are random, then there could still be free will because there would be no rational basis to say there is no free will; however, there could be determinism too because not having determinism would have some consistency of rationality.
If things are random, then you cant know anything.
No, if things are random we can't have any knowledge of how the world works. We can't *say* if we have free will or not. You can't say there is or isn't free will if things are random.
Since I never made a positive claim about free will I have not refuted myself. I simply said it cannot be known. It cannot even be conjectured.
"I simply said it cannot be known. It cannot even be conjectured." You had no problems conjecturing that there is no determinism in your previous post. Your tying yourself in knots. The effective of randomness has implications for both free will and determinism. They both require cause and effect to exist. For example, "free will" entails a thought, which triggers a desire to act and the subsequent biological process of acting. Cause and effect. Just like determinism.
"You had no problems conjecturing that there is no determinism in your previous post."
*Sigh*
That's because determinism depends on causation as "free will" depends on a different notion of causation. You've missed the mark if you were here to tell me there is a contradiction here, since I acknowledged there was in the first post.
If there is "randomness", and we wish to retain some epistemically justified notion of knowledge, then we must change our modern notion of "cause".
I do not argue for "free will" because nobody seems to be able to define what that is. I will however, argue that our modern notion of "cause" is insufficient for understanding the world. I think there has to be more than one kinds of "cause" for us to meaningfully talk about human behavior, weather patterns, and pi-mesons at the same time. Clearly "cause" means different things to these different phenomena.
Surely he's mistaking determinism as the scientific theory which it is, with a belief, like a religion.
No - nothing may change in your lifestyle, its possible to think determinism is the way things work whilst realising its application (giving up the idea of responsibility) would never work in society
When you move your hand, the brain signals responsible for moving it starts to fire off before you become consciously aware of it. The mechanisms in your hand prepares to undertake the task milliseconds before you even decide to (decide in the sense that your consciousness leads you to believe it's a free decision). Brain scans have shown this to be true.
So where does free will play a part here? Some milliseconds after the endeavor of moving the hand is already underway?
The Free Will versus Determinism debate is now old if one is to keep their rational confidence in empiricism. The debate now is like arguing whether there is a Cartesian demon controlling us or not. It gets no where and tells us nothing. It has no significance whatsoever on the way we behave or the world we live in. What matters then? I suggest as another did to watch the lecture done here: watch?v=la31lOcbDHc
Granted that if everything is determined, the person arguing their determinist position was a slave to what caused their change in beliefs. Grant that premise. Even then, how am I free to disagree with them? I percieve their soundwaves in my ear, wouldn't I be determined to agree to them if I am an agregate of physical interactions of matter?
Determinism says everything is casual not that everything is identical. Humans are different to the weather because the weather does not have the intellectual capacity to understand you. Of course if things are determined the person you are debating does not have a choice over whether you sway their beliefs but you also do not have the choice not to debate with them. Our actions can still affect others, we just don't have choice over our actions.
Uh... how does determinism mean there is no truth or beliefs or any of these things you mention? Determinism only accounts for choice or lack thereof. Things can be true whether they were determined or not. I am a human. A statement saying that I am not human would be false. Beliefs can be true you just don't have the choice of your beliefs. Saying that nothing changes when you believe determinism is irrelevant to whether it is a true belief. This is similar to an appeal to consequences.
"... because there are no alternatives to truth..."
Uh, the metaphysical has meta in it for a reason. Truths aren't subject to physical causal laws. Us not knowing the truths because are determined otherwise is inconsequential.
...I further do understand how determinism can be an unnecessary and unhelpful nuance when trying to discuss matter of morality and philosophy. It does not make determinism untrue, but it can be better to table the subject when discussing our perceived reality (where our perceived reality is our only reality anyway) and subjects of morality. I think we can all agree that a happy existence, real or perceived, is a preferred state.
...I have yet to hear a better explanation beyond determinism for why we make the choices we make, without making the leap to except the existence of a soul or similar entity that operates outside of physical law.
It does appear that every sentient being perceives a "me". Let's focus on if that "me" is real or perceived and where each of those paths individually take you. Stefan's circumstantial arguments don't progress the debate in any way.
I think that Stefan's need to absolutely disprove determinism has short circuited him. His rants, and very thinly veiled anger regarding this subject, are only one click away from crazy homeless person. Relax man, this is unhealthy behavior for you and your particles, according to my particles at least :)
The complexity of how we would make what we perceive as free choices in a deterministic universe is truly mind boggling. The evidence for determinism is rooted in accepted scientific law...
I've really never tried to argue philosophy but I'll have a go. I don't understand how the idea that "everything is determined" is independent of "human beings have a choice" even if my choice is pre determined it is still a product of my mind at that time. what I do is still a "choice" just a choice that was always going to happen.
I just don't understand how the human mind is suddenly a different form of matter. Decision it still is based upon chemical interaction.
It feels good to believe in free will, however every "decision " we make is not magically isolated and "free" from the environment, itis based on the information we had received during our life. If we have a time machine and go back in time 1000 of times (just to observe, without changing anything), we will always see the same results later, because the cause and effect will be the same.
I don't know why you insist that Determinism entails that there is no Truth--no fact of the matter at all!? I, for the life of me, cannot see your line of reasoning at all--and I ironically am not even a determinist! Would you care to explain?
He gave his reasoning, but it is just fallacious. He stated there are no truths because there are not alternatives. Which is completely nonsensical. Granted, he doesn't adequately explain how truths are somehow subject to the determined physical laws.... unless he's referring to our ability to *know* them which is completely irrelevant.
Yeah... and *that* was his strongest argument... and it was pathetic. This video is not worth any serious person's time.
If his reasoning is as you say, then I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to see if that was his reasoning. Perhaps he did not explain himself well. I've tried thinking about his view a million ways (an exaggeration of course) but still I don't get how he comes to his conclusion about Determinism and the determinist's position being inherently nonsensical (or else contradictory).
I find most of your videos to be fascinating and insightful. This one, however, came across as stuck-up and ignorant. You completely sail over a determinist's trail of thought, and seem to think of us as complete fools. Very disappointing.
Arguing with a human being has a different effect than arguing with a rock because a rock doesn't respond to reason. But if the determinations of your will want to use the rock as a projectile, as a nut breaker or anything else, you'll have to create the causes from which that event will derive. And it works the same way for humans, the difference is you have to think about how to properly interact with the object or organism in order for it to serve your intentions. Search Dennett's lecture.
Stefbot, I disagree. You continually make the point that determinists think that humans are exactly the same as rocks falling. Most of your argument is a straw man, misrepresenting the position of determinists. Humans do have perception and feelings, unlike rocks, but you failed to prove how humans are capable of choice.
the only free will exist is our ability to choose from a given set of choices. Even then being able to choose is caused by something else. So free will doesn't exist not even a little bit. It doesn't matter that you came to youtube and looked up determinism by yourself. Something caused you to come here. Its a deterministic realm of existence.
No, it just happens to be the view that we reason to be correct. Our behavior is, basically, the working out of deterministic processes within the brain, with influence by outside stimuli. It doesn't "give us kicks", it's just the position most consistent with observed science that increasingly shows behaviors to be caused by various types of brain activity. We don't have all the data on it, of course, but we don't have all the data on evolution either, but it's still valid science.
@sniped101@sniped Kicks of joy or disheartening disappointment. These are usually common reactions to an idea like this. In Hinduism, this is the belief. They call it "nondoership," but it's not a cause for joy, but rather peace of mind. Just search "Ramesh Balsekar" here on YouTube. Try the "Robots, Actors - Whichever Simile You Want" video. That'll put to rest stefbot's "tv talking to a tv" analogy. He's got a decent grasp on what determinism is, but that "talking tv" analogy isn't accurate.
There is plenty of empirical evidence that supports that everything is mechanical. Our egos find it very irritating when we contemplate the possibility that everything "we do" as an ego, is a dependent arising. I was for the free will argument for years, but realized that a lot of my arguments were biased, and simply an ego defending itself as identity.
Love you're uploads Stefbot, even if we disagree on this topic :)
By recognizing that all our desires and intentions are projections of ego patterns, you realize morality is simply a "desired" state by our minds, no differently to how a television "desires" a certain electrical signal to function. Hitlers "desires" are only considered "not moral" because we conventionally agree that there are more survival-friendly behavior strategies. Morality is heavily linked with survival, and is simply part of the illusion.
Stefbot, becoming a determinist allowed me to recognize the "desires" of my ego as patterns of my conditioning and my genetics. Spiritually has helped me be at peace with the chaos of the world. I don't fear death like I used to. How it affects life is still irrelevant. Its either true or it isnt.
When people identify with the unfolding patterns in their head as if there is a "creator of thoughts and intentions", it creates the believable illusion of free will. It is nothing more than a trick. Identity allows the chain of cause and effect to be more "controlled" by "the creator" that we imagine lives inside of us. This trick is a survival benefit. Intentions do exist, but that which represents the organisms' desires are not intrinsic and are still within the function of cause and effect.
I find it very interesting that the likes are higher then the dislikes. I would have thought there are more determinist out there. I find this guys thought experiments very unrealistic and are not taking into account the great complexity of cognitive development, behavioral physiology and practically every scientific breakthrough hahaha Because thats what science is, is it not? Science is the pursuit to find the cause. For everything in reality has a cause IE we are evolved.
@Interactivesystems I never once took up the deterministic side before, but being a math guy, I can tell you that mathematics is also based on reaching a deterministically correct answer. You can say mathematics is basically applied logic. Statistics, also, is the discipline of analyzing data to approximate a deterministic answer in a probabilistic manner. Two different approaches.
Stef, you're not representing the determinist position fairly. Determinists don't say that human beings are exactly the same as every other object in the universe (at least thinking ones don't). Humans are clearly different than the weather in ways that matter, we just don't think that being exempt from the laws of physics is one of those differences.
constants and physical laws. What these thing's don't have is the choice to tweak the constants like the speed of a photon in a vaccuum or to avoid the pull of a black hole. There is a vast network of these tiny particles, which is your body, and the larger the network and/or compound, the more difficult predicting its nature becomes. But these thing do exist, and their existence garners there is a certain way things happen, being the 'truth'.
I am a hard determinist and I do agree that there are no preferred states or morality. These are symptoms of the human condition percieving the deterministic universe with sensing mechanisms. I think you dig yourself into a small hole when you say that there can be no truth in a deterministic universe. Truth is what is. To say there is no truth is to say that nothing exists. In a deterministic universe, things like matter, forces and light exist, and their function and motion is determined ...
I'd tend to believe in "limited free will" not because I'm certain one or another is correct, but simply because it is the most beneficial state for the mind to be in if the goal is grow, produce and better one self and the situation for those around them.
The worst folly of those who believe in absolute determinism is simply the hubris to think they could ever know "fate". And therefore to slip into the usual negative response state of "I don't think this is possible so I'll stop trying."
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
@zxzxzx09 On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
@zxzxzx09 On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
For a concise and dispositive refutation of Stef's position, go to noelplum99's channel and look for the video, "Determinism, Punishment and the Law."
Yes, determinism means there is no such thing as right and wrong. This does not mean there is no such thing as preferences or conditional goodness.
Water and sunlight still sustain living things; this is still called being "good" for them. A man making an argument to another man can still result in the second man's mind changing. A man can still prefer this.
There is just no supernatural uncaused cause in the brain. You'd think an atheist like stef could work this out in fewer than 20 years.
...continued... With M-Theory proposing that our universe is physically being affected by force(s) beyond the confines of our universe, the plausability of infinity is certainly the most likely case, thus trumping determinism. I'm more inclined to think that every possible course of action exists at all given times. You could say that's deterministic, but infinity just kills it for me.
Determinism, in my view, has a chance of being applicable only if the possibilities within a confined environment are finite. If anything at all can be predicted within a specific environment, then one is to deduce that the size of the environment is inconsequential, provided it is finite. Once you introduce the principal of infinity, determinism no longer works. It is in infinity that the "magic" lies.
Stef, if I programmed a computer to say "Free will exists and I am proud to make my own choices in life!", would you believe that the computer had free will? My point is this: I debate you because I want to, but I want to debate you because my past has made me want to debate you. You respond to determinists because your past has made you willing to do so. It couldn't have happened any other way, but we can not see into the future, so we were unaware of this being our future.
Stef, I am disappointed in you. To say that you should argue with the weather is just stupid. I argue with people because I am a human being, and arguing with others is a part of a humans programming. I don't argue with rocks because that is not what I, based on my values which are created by my experiences which all have deterministic causes, see any value in doing. Me evaluating a conversation with a rock to be worthless is based on everything that has happened to me in the past.
...[cont'd] Cause and effect appears to be how things get along. Free will requires the person - the self - to be an indivisible, simple, unitary thing that is capable of initiating a causal chain by no antecedent other than it's own will. The mind-body problem rears its ugly head. The mind of the free-will camp would have to be an uncaused cause.
Also, determinism isn't a position that's made up or resorted to when we don't understand how the mind makes choices. Determinism would have to be true in order to figure out how the mind makes choices since it will refer to regularly occurring and predictable processes. Rather, the position is taken up because of what we understand about how the world works by way of natural science...
A determinist doesn't say that people don't or can't make choices, however ... only that people's choices are brought about by antecedent factors that are out of one's control or conscious awareness. Stef, you've got to be at least partly determinist. You cannot choose to disobey gravity and levitate at will.
You're wrong and you completely misinterpret what determinism is. You're lucky that I'm too lazy to type my mind-blowing arguments that would of rocked your world. But I assure you that I had some pretty rock solid counter-arguments. Good day.
Yet another think I did not know I did. I must have a split personality. Thanks again for letting me know. I should see a psychiatrist about these lapses in memory.
That being said, I am willing to admit I am wrong here, however, if loving you is wrong I don't want to be right.
@PostITnoteGUY you made the EXACT same, pathetically ignorant, illconceived point about 4 months ago, if you wish me to entertain you as you go round in ever increasing circles of innately and predetermined fits of ignorance and unintelligence, you are mistaken. Just as a fly will be in perpetual search for a way to pass through a window, my time would be abundantly wasted explaining something that you haven't got the intellectual properties to understand.
@PostITnoteGUY shit... what is logic? determinism. what is science based on? cause and effect..determinism. how does determinism mean you cannot alter someones ideas through arguing? thats determinism. unless you have a way of arguing that quantum level effects are integral to free will, i have no interest in arguing on such a baseless level.
@PostITnoteGUY i meant shut him up in regards this topic. Comparing determinism as akin to arguing with weather is not a valid point against determinism, how does this negate determinism? how exactly?
@PostITnoteGUY i dont want to shut him up, thought thats a good idea youve got. altering people beliefs is deterministic also buddy. That this guy completely misses what determinism is, thinks arguing with the weather or rocks is a valid point and makes thats smug voice “theyre crazy“ as a defense is comically stupid.
That settles it, I do love you. Thank you so much for the enlightening conversation but it's past my bedtime. I look forward to your next brilliant comment in the morning. You really should write a book, I would be your #1 fan.
fuck this guy is stupid, cant someone show this twit a libet experiment or 2, perhaps the retrospective choice vs neural activity one. shut this fool up. his arguments dont even help his cause, they contradict his point.. what a total twit
Easy there, killer. Though I'm with nearly everyone else who thinks this particular video is way off base, Stef's done a hell of a lot of excellent work to more than make up for it.
I'd imagine that it's extremely difficult and discouraging when hundreds of people point our your mistakes while those same people are totally silent when you've brought valid revelations to light.
Keep up the good fight, Stef; we appreciate all you do for the progress of freedom.
@conquesimo when you say "revelations" I'm guessing you're referring to other videos. This is the only one of his I've seen and its absolutely pathetic, my annoyance only really comes in when you consider the overt confidence/arrogance he uses to express his ridiculous, incoherent arguments. Worryingly, he seems completely unaware of this. If thats the basis for other videos, it doesn't bode well.
@PostITnoteGUY 4) "I" still exist(s) under determinism. Explain why you think it doesn't? Cogito ergo sum. "I" am determined. Am "I" allowed to say that? Ridiculous point 5) Yes, he WAS clearly ignoring environmental influences. ie "I" could not influence him. Ridiculous.
PostITnoteGUY now please stop embarrassing yourself, instead of rejecting determinism because it isn't intuitive, or because the bible doesn't agree with it, or because you want freewill, please understand it first.
@PostITnoteGUY 1) you've no idea what many things mean as proved over all your comments 2) when did I say you did? (another error on your part) 3) Everything affects everything else. Thats determinism.
Stef, it looks like you fell in quite a lot of traps and failed to investigate for emotional reasons. I don't even know how you can objectively define free will which if you can't that would make it a false dichotomy.
I think the answer here cannot be found as it cannot be tested as we can't rollback time and check for different results. If you think determinists are carbon copies of non-determinists why do you even debate this, what's in it for ya? It's a huge waste of time.
Free Will and Determinism are absolute concepts that have precious little to do with the real world. Newton understood this and stated it as the three body problem. Today we have some understanding of non-linear dynamical systems aka chaos. Non-deterministic, chaotic systems tend towards an attractor. Had Newton known this, we wouldn't be having this silly debate.
Individual choices are based on variable immediate information. Marketing experts understand that populations respond predictably.
Stef is mostly right but falters when he argues that barking orders @ a rock is equal to barking orders @ a human (in a deterministic world).
Rocks influence one another through physical contact just as human beings influence one another through communicative contact.
The rest of his argument is solid: Determinists cannot claim both morality and the nonexistence of choice. There can be no truly moral choice unless that choice is made in freedom. A rock would not be immoral for crushing you.
Actually, there is a difference between morality, ethics, and ethical responsibility. It is the latter, ethical responsibility, that you cannot have due to the lack of free will. Morality pertains to what is good, bad, positive, negative, etc; Ethics is the conscience acting alignment with those morals. Those can and do happen without free will. It is the responsibility if one does not act ethically, etc .. that is incompatible. In other words they are not to blame for the action.
@trick0171 No, sorry. Morality necessarily incorporates the concept of ethical responsibility. To distinguish between the 2 is to render morallity wholly pointless.
Like I said, morality without responsibility is not morality at all. It would be simply "good" or "bad" in the abstract—a determination based on a subjective consideration (ie equality, common good, non-aggression, etc).
You can say in the abstract that it is "bad" that a rock fell on me, but you cannot say that it is "immoral".
@trick0171 (contd.) For example, one might consider a rock falling on and killing someone to be a good thing b/c that person was a moronic, incestuous redneck who was, through his excessive breeding, contributing to the demise of human kind.
Another person might consider this redneck's death a bad thing because they hold the sanctity of human life as their highest good.
In neither case would either individual be able to assert that this event was either moral or immoral. Good/bad ≠ morality.
Morality/ethics only applies to conscience action (which rocks do not have). For example, throwing a rock at a person is a conscious action, regardless if the person has free will or not. There is a huge difference between this, and being responsible for the conscious action. The person either acts ethically or does not, depending if we can determine the moral.
As for your second part of whether 2 different people can view the same act differently, that is more of a subjective ethic and depends on the ethical system posed...such as degrees of objectivism vs. subjectivism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, etc. Again, these systems are derived regardles if a person is responsible for the actions. We can determine if an action is good/bad based on a system, and determine if their conscious actions align with the good/bad derived from the system.
In other words, people can act ethical, or unethical, but not be blameworthy of such actions, or more deserving than others due to those actions. It is incorrect to conflate responsibility with morality and ethics.
@trick0171 Well clearly it's semantics at this point, but why not just call actions either good or bad rather than calling them either moral or immoral—words that carry connotations of blame/responsibility. I think you are the one doing the conflating. Why, I don't know.
Because good or bad, when applied to human behavior IS what we use the term "moral" for. The term moral does not imply responsibility, hence the reason we would say 'moral responsibility" if someone was responsible.
If you say that human action is no more subject to free choice than anything else in the universe, then differentiating between the actions of any separate things in the universe (eg a rock and a human) is purely semantics and is of no consequence whatsoever.
First you claimed a contradiction but did not show it.
Second, it is not a semantical argument to differentiate a thing with conscious thought from something without it. It is also of consequence because conscious thought is a cause (which created effects) and is connected to other conscious thought.
An awareness of the action and what such action will cause. For example, in negative utilitarian ethics it would be an awareness of suffering and what may or may not cause suffering. If one carries such ethic, and can determine what might (objectively) be the cause of unnecessary suffering, such utilitarian can determine that actions they do that cause such suffering are unethical. Again, this is regardless of whether or not they are responsible if they do cause such suffering.
@trick0171 Excuse me.. the contradiction is clear: You distinguish between human action and the actions of a rock because humans have "consciousness", but if humans are no more able to control their fate than a rock, then of what consequence is that awareness (in the context of action)?
The awareness to which you refer is simply the product of an entity whose biological complexity has afforded it the ability to receive a greater range of sensory inputs.
Even if there was no "consequence", it is not a contradiction. That being said, I already explained the consequence (the difference between the two actions and the events they lead to). I also want to talk about this word "consequence" you use and what you mean by it, because it appears to me that all consequences require cause and effect (ie. the effect is the consequence of the cause). The notion of free will is not needed for consequence - so maybe you mean some other word?
@trick0171 (contd.) Hurricane Katrina could not help itself. Hitler could not help himself. You would not blame Katrina for it's actions and you would not blame Hitler for his actions. You cannot call Katrina immoral and you cannot call Hitler immoral.
You cannot call Katrina immoral because Katrina cannot think about it's action and relate to it in a moral sense prior to it. Hitler, on the other one, could. Neither, however, are to "blame" for their actions.
Both can be called "bad", but only one can be called immoral (in the context of a moral system). Neither responsible.
@trick0171 That's what I'm saying... What does it matter if something can "think" about it's actions or not if said thing can't control them?
Imagine being controlled by remote control but still having all of your sensory capacities intact. Imagine now that you are controlled to murder someone. Is that immoral?
Sorry, I can't go on with this argument. If you think moral action does not require freedom then I can't go anywhere with you.
Thoughts control actions. In other words, actions come about via thoughts. Whether the person could control the thoughts or not has to do with responsibility. That does not mean that a person's thoughts do not lead to unethical actions. I am just clarifying the difference here, because it is important.
There is a difference between being controlled and thoughts being controlled. If thoughts are controlled, then a person can be controlled to act unethically. Again, this would not mean they are responsible for such actions.
It is only the (important) differentiation I am explaining here. But you are right, we are going in circles. Have a good day.
@trick0171 The only disagreement we have is a definitional one.
I think it's clear that morality requires the act of free will by definition because, like I said, no action can be considered truly moral or immoral unless that action was made in freedom.
You seem to be conflating morality with either personal virtues or subjective concepts of good and evil, both of which do not necessarily require choice.
"no action can be considered truly moral or immoral unless that action was made in freedom."
This is the premise I am disagreeing with you on, as I (and many other philosophers and a few scientists) do not think it so clear that morality requires the act of free will by definition. Most definitions of morality apply to human behavior via thought/action, regardless if the behavior is "free". Hence the distinction between morality/ ethics and ethical responsibility.
Moral/ethical thought can (and does) happen without any freedom. Freedom is not a requirement for these. It is ONLY a requirement of responsibility, which is an afterthought of the happening.
@trick0171 Your definition of morality is what needs work.
I don't consider a dog immoral for biting me, or a baby immoral for pissing on me, for the very reason I don't consider a rock immoral for falling on me—i.e. I don't believe they had any choice in the matter.
Whether you like it or not, calling someone "immoral" carries a negative connotation of guilt/blame. That's the reality of the word.
Are you a nominalist? Encountering a anti-nominalist determinist would be one for the ages.
I don't consider a dog or baby immoral because they cannot think about morals or there actions as adult humans do. It is this process of thought and action that is either moral or immoral. And yes, the word immoral carries a negative connotation, but it should not carry the connotation of blame/guilt. The only reason it does is DUE to the free will belief that is rampant. Once that belief is (causally) corrected this should change.
Wow, what a rant. Determinism is pretty simple to understand. There is true and false. In a determinist universe, it's true to say the universe is determinist. That's a simple example of a "preferred state". The advantage you gain when the universe decides to let you see it is determinist is that you have no stress about "decisions". Whatever "decision" you make is the "right" one because you have no other option. Everything you do is right, and "preferred". The universe is pushing you around.
The deterministic argument is based on the simple idea that all of your choices are just illusions of free will. That given the chance to make a choice, you will always chose the same given the same exact circumstances (impossible to repeat, however)
Nothing about determinism implies that there is no difference between a human being and a rock, obviously there is a tremendous difference, all determinism implies is that the difference is a matter of degree and not one of kind.
Determinism, or climbing up a tree in order to chop it down at the roots.
If a human beings actions are completely determined by causality and they're still capable of error and truth, than simpler, non-conscious arrangements of matter should be even more capable right? Let's get a rock on Jeopardy and end this...
Determinism does NOT say free will is an illusion, you're misrepresenting the position. Free will is ONLY an illusion IF Determinism AND Incompatibilism are BOTH true! You merely assume Incompatibilism but you give no argument. Thus Determinism would only be "self-refuting" IF Incompatibilism were true but you haven't established that...
Also, if you want to be a philosopher you have to clarify the terms. It's intellectually sloppy to use terms without clarifying what you mean by them...
Yes...I'm not with you on this one, Stef...I fear you're setting up the same crazy artificial dichotomy that religionists set up to defend their position. Your comparing the complexity of the human mind with a rock bouncing down a hill seems done more out of emotion than anything objective.
We can observe determinism on a small scale. What cause is there to presume some other system of reality? Are you now going to argue for a soul?
Yes, in a determinist world you CAN go and build a wall to stop the rocks bouncing downhill. They'll just say it was predetermined that they would stand up and go build that wall. Sounds a bit circular of a logic to me
A friend of mine said that accepting determinism made him more forgiving and patient. He is extraordinarily forgiving and patient, so I believe him. I think it's had a similar effect on me.
... Humans, plants, robots, dogs, and monkeys take different paths given their nature and environment, but they are not "free willing" this any more than a rock bouncing down a hill. Complexity is the only difference between these things. The word choice is used for higher lifeforms ONLY because of the higher complexity and uncertainty involved. This does not preclude truth, preferred states, responsibility, or anything like this if you agree oughts are derived from reality.
@PostITnoteGUY hey its postit again, i thought I dispensed with you. Do you really want to get into this again?
1) Are you suggesting that you "I" doesn't exist in a determined universe? Please explain why? To help here's a definition "I" is used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.
2) stefbot stated that if determinism was true and he still believed in freewill he would be determined to stay fixed in that position due to his "atoms+cells". He's ignoring environmental influences. ok?
watching this video made my brain hurt. so much idiocy in 15 minutes. you can shout at a rock, yet you can blow at it. debating as mean of changing reality (there are others, more interesting, you know?) only makes sense when you have intelligent and open minded opponent, sadly both categories exclude you, stefbot.
(cont3) re to 10:53 you are now suggesting that nobody would be able to "rationally correct you". Your belief in freewill was determined by the combination of your genetics AND environment. ie hearing a statement that determinism is definitely true, WOULD influence you, not necessairly towards a deterministic viewpoint, but it WOULD affect you. You seem to believe that if we're determined, we're completely isolated and set. NOTHING could be less representative of determinism. I CAN correct you.
(cont2) Are you suggesting that "changing your life" is a reason to think deterministically ergo if your life doesn't change, determinism is in error? I'm bewildered that you've considered this as a point. If determinism is true, it would have been true since the beginning of time. Why do you believe change is necessary?
The suggestion that determinists shouldn't follow the EXCEPTIONALLY inherent human qualities of debating, following moral prefrences (or perhaps sneezing) is ridiculous!
(cont) things have what are generally referred to as "characteristics" and these "characteristics" play a big part in how we percieve and interact with things ie I dont argue with weather however, its chill detemines me to shiver (well its interaction with my specific genteics etc), a persons "chill" does not make me shiver however I'm determined to argue with people as prescribed by the unique interaction between my "argumental" gene and the social setting that I see fit to argue in.
You really really dont understand the subject matter. I genuinely can't believe you've cited the fact that people dont argue with weather, but they argue with people as somehow proving that we have freewill or that a human being does not obey the same deterministic principles as weather. Ridiculous logic.
I'm determined to eat and orange (so to follow your logic and for determinism to be true) I must also be determined to eat a person? or again determined to eat weather?
@Guncriminal I was using the term "argumental gene" euphemistically, rather the cite the myriads of genetic and environmental antecedents on which one may be induced into argument (I really could if you want). Most people will realise this.
Regarding "eating weather" you're absolutely right, I was simply following the logical progression of stefbot's, really quite RIDICULOUS "rationale". Please watch the video again and also re-read my comments. You'll realise your errors. Thank you.
@stefbot If you don't address SisyphusRedeemed's response, point by point, you'll have fallen off a fence in my mind, onto the side marked "not worth listening to."
I'll preface this by saying that I am not a determinist. I want to agree with u, Stefan.
However, when u say that determinists view human beings just like every other piece of matter in the universe, I think you're simplifying the argument.
Devil's advocate: I will pick up a rock to move it because that's how you interact with inanimate objects. That's not inconsistent with determinism, is it? A person is just like a rock, except it requires a different, more sophisticated kind of interaction.
VTAcraft 2 days ago
if you had a free will you would say "asfsdfgdgrgfdvdfdfdfdfgdfg"
5m1nutes 1 month ago
So nothing was 'true' until Human Beings arrived on the scene with their 'free will'.
henryporter101 2 months ago
The consequences of an idea do not effect the validity of the argument.
And no, nothing matters. Its either determined or random (or both) and both ideas undermine the idea of free will. You are made up of the same things as rocks, you are in the same system as those rocks. You are no different and your argument is as determined as anything else.
etha777 2 months ago
@etha777 I'm curious to know, by what train of thought did you come to the conclusion that determinism could be a correct worldview?
Is there some scientific data that you studied, perhaps, or did you just state the opinion bluntly, without making any attempt at study? Please don't take this as intended to insult you -- it's just that I have never personally seen any scientific data that could lead to that conclusion, and I'd like to check it out myself:
Can you point any out to me?
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
I'm a determinist. Morality is as illusory as free will. Other determinists try to change your mind out of ignorance. It really doesn't matter. Athiests and determinists go hand in hand. When a person decides to agree with determinism, some give up morality. The moral judgements are ridiculous, most just don't realize it.
etha777 2 months ago
A dog is already determined to dog thoughts and same with a human. And like a dog a human is still clockwork and a creature of habit so can be reconditioned. Heaven and hell would only be states of being through a daisy chain of events. It wouldn't matter concerning the brain state of a retard or genius since they are determined by the body which still fires human thoughts. All that matters is input/output by observation so the retard carrying out a task correctly determines it is intelligent
pneumatictrousers 3 months ago
This no belief system within a deterministic universe besides a shell of coping mechanisms. All objects are labels of invented convention to determine a consensual reality like calling that a soap dish. All mental constructs are illusionary and ones 'reality' is a merely a claim or stake. That evens ones notions of right or wrong are basically self preferential, dogmatic, and an evolutionary niche. There is only opportunity lost or gained at any and every given moment in time hence cause-effect.
pneumatictrousers 3 months ago
In continuation of the hard deterministic argument... there are all these flesh machine firings going off that your mind attempts in apprehending Then with every interpretation attempts to intuit a conclusion because the brain naturally schemes since wants to seek closure. Every decision negotiated has a casual effect. It doesn't matter if it is as instantaneous as 1/23rd of a second or 123 days later. Somewhere along the line, every decision effects every action and reaction deterministically
pneumatictrousers 3 months ago
There are a few deterministic arguments, many of which influenced computer computation even. An example would be that you are basically hard wired and conditioned and influenced by your environment, limited senses, and experience. That one is not in fully control of oneself as they think they are. Determined also by ones entire personality which is a evolutionary residual effect. If I push this human robot button here it has deterministic reflexes or if prod a brain nerve that will trigger tears
pneumatictrousers 3 months ago 2
i have a magical center in my brain that makes free will!!! lol stef where does free will come from?
snarfeater 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snarfeater "i have a magical center in my brain that makes free will!!! lol stef where does free will come from?"
Your brain. He didn't say it was magical.
shlockofgod 3 months ago
Stef it's been more than a year now. Have you decided to give up your belief in free will yet since you have been scientifically falsified?
Einhander100 3 months ago
Stef, I though you were a good guy. Then you are contradicting yourself in this because you are mocking us. If we believe in determinism, then it's our choice to believe in what we want. You are just a product of evolution Stef, face the fucking facts! You make fun of us for not being able to freely choose, but neither can you. Shame on you for rambling about nonsense. You have said nothing!! If i was like a robot, how could i have emotions? Robots have no emotions, nor do Tv or Ipods. Idiot.
Einhander100 3 months ago
Oh my god im laughing so hard... Because everything that Steph described determinist as, they responded him in the exact same way that he was already talking about!! It's as if they didn't watch his video! Hilarious!!!!
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago 3
@JLeeMagnetic Your an asshole. I can believe in whatever I want to. Steph comes across as completely arrogant. Determinism has been scientifically proven to be true, so Steph is really making a huge mistake for making fun of determinists.
Einhander100 3 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic
yeah u right... its crazy
infokriegerBerlin 3 weeks ago
Wow all the people who made comments against Steph... He was talking about you and you guys responded as if you didn't even watch his video.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic Yes that is how all you people who believe in ''free will'' always treat people. Arrogant, ignorant, and unwilling to accept the truth. Stef is no different. THe reason why we get mad at him is because he won't listen. He says he is preprogrammed and that is just an excuse. Steph does have the intelligence to understand determinism. The notion of free will is the cause of a lot of suffering in human history. Like Buddha said illusions cause suffering. So give it up Stef!
Einhander100 3 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic Isn't that good evidence for determinism?
henryporter101 7 hours ago
idiot... complexity does matter... its why you think you have free will *shakes head in disappionted way*
shunysham 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shunysham "diot... complexity does matter... its why you think you have free will *shakes head in disappionted way*"
He argued that complexity doesn't matter in terms of there being free will or not. It wasn't in reference to the illusion of free will.
shlockofgod 3 months ago
The guy in this video seems to be rambling. I don't think he understands what determinism really is.
huckball1959 5 months ago
Events and conditions are either governed by rules or they are random. Even if they are random, there is still no free will.
webster619 5 months ago
@webster619
"Even if they are random, there is still no free will."
Not true. If they are random then there is no determinism because determinism fundamentally requires causation to be coherent. If things are random, then there could still be free will because there would be no rational basis to say there is no free will; however, there could be determinism too because not having determinism would have some consistency of rationality.
If things are random, then you cant know anything.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101
"If things are random, then you cant know anything."
You've refuted yourself. If you can't know anything, you can't have free will.
webster619 3 months ago
@webster619
No, if things are random we can't have any knowledge of how the world works. We can't *say* if we have free will or not. You can't say there is or isn't free will if things are random.
Since I never made a positive claim about free will I have not refuted myself. I simply said it cannot be known. It cannot even be conjectured.
insidetrip101 3 months ago
@insidetrip101
"I simply said it cannot be known. It cannot even be conjectured." You had no problems conjecturing that there is no determinism in your previous post. Your tying yourself in knots. The effective of randomness has implications for both free will and determinism. They both require cause and effect to exist. For example, "free will" entails a thought, which triggers a desire to act and the subsequent biological process of acting. Cause and effect. Just like determinism.
webster619 3 months ago
@webster619
"You had no problems conjecturing that there is no determinism in your previous post."
*Sigh*
That's because determinism depends on causation as "free will" depends on a different notion of causation. You've missed the mark if you were here to tell me there is a contradiction here, since I acknowledged there was in the first post.
If there is "randomness", and we wish to retain some epistemically justified notion of knowledge, then we must change our modern notion of "cause".
insidetrip101 3 months ago
@insidetrip101 are you willing to acknowledge that free will depends on causation?
webster619 3 months ago
@webster619
I actually wasn't arguing for free will.
I do not argue for "free will" because nobody seems to be able to define what that is. I will however, argue that our modern notion of "cause" is insufficient for understanding the world. I think there has to be more than one kinds of "cause" for us to meaningfully talk about human behavior, weather patterns, and pi-mesons at the same time. Clearly "cause" means different things to these different phenomena.
insidetrip101 3 months ago
damn you fucked up so badly
313high 5 months ago
Surely he's mistaking determinism as the scientific theory which it is, with a belief, like a religion.
No - nothing may change in your lifestyle, its possible to think determinism is the way things work whilst realising its application (giving up the idea of responsibility) would never work in society
VeniVidiViciCC 6 months ago
When you move your hand, the brain signals responsible for moving it starts to fire off before you become consciously aware of it. The mechanisms in your hand prepares to undertake the task milliseconds before you even decide to (decide in the sense that your consciousness leads you to believe it's a free decision). Brain scans have shown this to be true.
So where does free will play a part here? Some milliseconds after the endeavor of moving the hand is already underway?
alique087 7 months ago
The Free Will versus Determinism debate is now old if one is to keep their rational confidence in empiricism. The debate now is like arguing whether there is a Cartesian demon controlling us or not. It gets no where and tells us nothing. It has no significance whatsoever on the way we behave or the world we live in. What matters then? I suggest as another did to watch the lecture done here: watch?v=la31lOcbDHc
slaughtz 7 months ago
Granted that if everything is determined, the person arguing their determinist position was a slave to what caused their change in beliefs. Grant that premise. Even then, how am I free to disagree with them? I percieve their soundwaves in my ear, wouldn't I be determined to agree to them if I am an agregate of physical interactions of matter?
charged220 7 months ago
Determinism says everything is casual not that everything is identical. Humans are different to the weather because the weather does not have the intellectual capacity to understand you. Of course if things are determined the person you are debating does not have a choice over whether you sway their beliefs but you also do not have the choice not to debate with them. Our actions can still affect others, we just don't have choice over our actions.
SleepingxWithxGhosts 8 months ago
Uh... how does determinism mean there is no truth or beliefs or any of these things you mention? Determinism only accounts for choice or lack thereof. Things can be true whether they were determined or not. I am a human. A statement saying that I am not human would be false. Beliefs can be true you just don't have the choice of your beliefs. Saying that nothing changes when you believe determinism is irrelevant to whether it is a true belief. This is similar to an appeal to consequences.
SleepingxWithxGhosts 8 months ago
"nothing can be true in a deterministic universe"
Uh, determinism is true in a determined universe.
"... because there are no alternatives to truth..."
Uh, the metaphysical has meta in it for a reason. Truths aren't subject to physical causal laws. Us not knowing the truths because are determined otherwise is inconsequential.
You're a retard.
uninvolved 8 months ago
...I further do understand how determinism can be an unnecessary and unhelpful nuance when trying to discuss matter of morality and philosophy. It does not make determinism untrue, but it can be better to table the subject when discussing our perceived reality (where our perceived reality is our only reality anyway) and subjects of morality. I think we can all agree that a happy existence, real or perceived, is a preferred state.
soycap35 9 months ago
...I have yet to hear a better explanation beyond determinism for why we make the choices we make, without making the leap to except the existence of a soul or similar entity that operates outside of physical law.
It does appear that every sentient being perceives a "me". Let's focus on if that "me" is real or perceived and where each of those paths individually take you. Stefan's circumstantial arguments don't progress the debate in any way.
soycap35 9 months ago
I think that Stefan's need to absolutely disprove determinism has short circuited him. His rants, and very thinly veiled anger regarding this subject, are only one click away from crazy homeless person. Relax man, this is unhealthy behavior for you and your particles, according to my particles at least :)
The complexity of how we would make what we perceive as free choices in a deterministic universe is truly mind boggling. The evidence for determinism is rooted in accepted scientific law...
soycap35 9 months ago
I've really never tried to argue philosophy but I'll have a go. I don't understand how the idea that "everything is determined" is independent of "human beings have a choice" even if my choice is pre determined it is still a product of my mind at that time. what I do is still a "choice" just a choice that was always going to happen.
I just don't understand how the human mind is suddenly a different form of matter. Decision it still is based upon chemical interaction.
TubeTest42 11 months ago
"We have to live under the illusion of free will" - Stephen Hawking
QuantumGh0st 11 months ago
It feels good to believe in free will, however every "decision " we make is not magically isolated and "free" from the environment, itis based on the information we had received during our life. If we have a time machine and go back in time 1000 of times (just to observe, without changing anything), we will always see the same results later, because the cause and effect will be the same.
5m1nutes 11 months ago
I don't know why you insist that Determinism entails that there is no Truth--no fact of the matter at all!? I, for the life of me, cannot see your line of reasoning at all--and I ironically am not even a determinist! Would you care to explain?
musejason 11 months ago
@musejason
He gave his reasoning, but it is just fallacious. He stated there are no truths because there are not alternatives. Which is completely nonsensical. Granted, he doesn't adequately explain how truths are somehow subject to the determined physical laws.... unless he's referring to our ability to *know* them which is completely irrelevant.
Yeah... and *that* was his strongest argument... and it was pathetic. This video is not worth any serious person's time.
uninvolved 8 months ago
@uninvolved
If his reasoning is as you say, then I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to see if that was his reasoning. Perhaps he did not explain himself well. I've tried thinking about his view a million ways (an exaggeration of course) but still I don't get how he comes to his conclusion about Determinism and the determinist's position being inherently nonsensical (or else contradictory).
musejason 8 months ago
I find most of your videos to be fascinating and insightful. This one, however, came across as stuck-up and ignorant. You completely sail over a determinist's trail of thought, and seem to think of us as complete fools. Very disappointing.
BarryScot 1 year ago
Arguing with a human being has a different effect than arguing with a rock because a rock doesn't respond to reason. But if the determinations of your will want to use the rock as a projectile, as a nut breaker or anything else, you'll have to create the causes from which that event will derive. And it works the same way for humans, the difference is you have to think about how to properly interact with the object or organism in order for it to serve your intentions. Search Dennett's lecture.
GoreTuzkPT 1 year ago
Stefbot, I disagree. You continually make the point that determinists think that humans are exactly the same as rocks falling. Most of your argument is a straw man, misrepresenting the position of determinists. Humans do have perception and feelings, unlike rocks, but you failed to prove how humans are capable of choice.
minervx 1 year ago
the only free will exist is our ability to choose from a given set of choices. Even then being able to choose is caused by something else. So free will doesn't exist not even a little bit. It doesn't matter that you came to youtube and looked up determinism by yourself. Something caused you to come here. Its a deterministic realm of existence.
iliveon 1 year ago
He makes sense.
sniped101 1 year ago
Why would anyone want to think that their actions have been already determined? Does it give you kicks of joy inside or something?
sniped101 1 year ago
@sniped101
No, it just happens to be the view that we reason to be correct. Our behavior is, basically, the working out of deterministic processes within the brain, with influence by outside stimuli. It doesn't "give us kicks", it's just the position most consistent with observed science that increasingly shows behaviors to be caused by various types of brain activity. We don't have all the data on it, of course, but we don't have all the data on evolution either, but it's still valid science.
WAMill3R 1 year ago
@sniped101 @sniped Kicks of joy or disheartening disappointment. These are usually common reactions to an idea like this. In Hinduism, this is the belief. They call it "nondoership," but it's not a cause for joy, but rather peace of mind. Just search "Ramesh Balsekar" here on YouTube. Try the "Robots, Actors - Whichever Simile You Want" video. That'll put to rest stefbot's "tv talking to a tv" analogy. He's got a decent grasp on what determinism is, but that "talking tv" analogy isn't accurate.
Hanahleia 11 months ago
Lastly in my predetermined rant..
There is plenty of empirical evidence that supports that everything is mechanical. Our egos find it very irritating when we contemplate the possibility that everything "we do" as an ego, is a dependent arising. I was for the free will argument for years, but realized that a lot of my arguments were biased, and simply an ego defending itself as identity.
Love you're uploads Stefbot, even if we disagree on this topic :)
bendzor 1 year ago
By recognizing that all our desires and intentions are projections of ego patterns, you realize morality is simply a "desired" state by our minds, no differently to how a television "desires" a certain electrical signal to function. Hitlers "desires" are only considered "not moral" because we conventionally agree that there are more survival-friendly behavior strategies. Morality is heavily linked with survival, and is simply part of the illusion.
bendzor 1 year ago
Stefbot, becoming a determinist allowed me to recognize the "desires" of my ego as patterns of my conditioning and my genetics. Spiritually has helped me be at peace with the chaos of the world. I don't fear death like I used to. How it affects life is still irrelevant. Its either true or it isnt.
bendzor 1 year ago
When people identify with the unfolding patterns in their head as if there is a "creator of thoughts and intentions", it creates the believable illusion of free will. It is nothing more than a trick. Identity allows the chain of cause and effect to be more "controlled" by "the creator" that we imagine lives inside of us. This trick is a survival benefit. Intentions do exist, but that which represents the organisms' desires are not intrinsic and are still within the function of cause and effect.
bendzor 1 year ago
I find it very interesting that the likes are higher then the dislikes. I would have thought there are more determinist out there. I find this guys thought experiments very unrealistic and are not taking into account the great complexity of cognitive development, behavioral physiology and practically every scientific breakthrough hahaha Because thats what science is, is it not? Science is the pursuit to find the cause. For everything in reality has a cause IE we are evolved.
TheLungpipes 1 year ago
@Interactivesystems I never once took up the deterministic side before, but being a math guy, I can tell you that mathematics is also based on reaching a deterministically correct answer. You can say mathematics is basically applied logic. Statistics, also, is the discipline of analyzing data to approximate a deterministic answer in a probabilistic manner. Two different approaches.
alique087 1 year ago
Stef, you're not representing the determinist position fairly. Determinists don't say that human beings are exactly the same as every other object in the universe (at least thinking ones don't). Humans are clearly different than the weather in ways that matter, we just don't think that being exempt from the laws of physics is one of those differences.
Hammerfly86 1 year ago
9/10 troll
Rock645 1 year ago
constants and physical laws. What these thing's don't have is the choice to tweak the constants like the speed of a photon in a vaccuum or to avoid the pull of a black hole. There is a vast network of these tiny particles, which is your body, and the larger the network and/or compound, the more difficult predicting its nature becomes. But these thing do exist, and their existence garners there is a certain way things happen, being the 'truth'.
futureslugger 1 year ago
I am a hard determinist and I do agree that there are no preferred states or morality. These are symptoms of the human condition percieving the deterministic universe with sensing mechanisms. I think you dig yourself into a small hole when you say that there can be no truth in a deterministic universe. Truth is what is. To say there is no truth is to say that nothing exists. In a deterministic universe, things like matter, forces and light exist, and their function and motion is determined ...
futureslugger 1 year ago
I'd tend to believe in "limited free will" not because I'm certain one or another is correct, but simply because it is the most beneficial state for the mind to be in if the goal is grow, produce and better one self and the situation for those around them.
The worst folly of those who believe in absolute determinism is simply the hubris to think they could ever know "fate". And therefore to slip into the usual negative response state of "I don't think this is possible so I'll stop trying."
sirellyn 1 year ago
I wish there was a "Philosophy Failblog" I could send this to.
kyledavidbyron 1 year ago
@kyledavidbyron
You should start one.
SaveTheWheat 6 months ago
@kyledavidbyron
You should start one.
SaveTheWheat 6 months ago
Is he aware of the fact that rocks don't have brains?
sajfen 1 year ago
Surprising stef doesn't get this, usually a pretty smart guy. His position on determinism is all wrong.
tubehax 1 year ago
stop spamming stumble with this bs scumbag
roeKY 1 year ago
You are generalizing a great deal.
Ravenna731 1 year ago
@Ravenna731 Hi agree with you I also agree with the guy who pointed him at Libet.
Starfish don't have brains, yet they exhbit learned behaviour.
Preferred belief is a illusion because it is all a illusion. Duh LOL
whitenightf3 1 year ago
Ridiculous vid ... intellectual dishonesty much?
TheNameIsUnimportant 1 year ago
@zxzxzx09
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
lek844 1 year ago
@zxzxzx09
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
lek844 1 year ago
@zxzxzx09
On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
lek844 1 year ago
@zxzxzx09 On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
lek844 1 year ago
@zxzxzx09 On the contrary, a determinstic world still requires us to conform our beliefs to reality. Our brains are the products of evolution and are the primary tools of our survival and success. For our actions to be successful, they must be founded upon causal relationships that exist in objective reality. We become efficacious to the degree that our brains have developed a model of the world which corresponds to the real world. The model itself is also caused, thank goodness.
lek844 1 year ago
For a concise and dispositive refutation of Stef's position, go to noelplum99's channel and look for the video, "Determinism, Punishment and the Law."
lek844 1 year ago
Yes, determinism means there is no such thing as right and wrong. This does not mean there is no such thing as preferences or conditional goodness.
Water and sunlight still sustain living things; this is still called being "good" for them. A man making an argument to another man can still result in the second man's mind changing. A man can still prefer this.
There is just no supernatural uncaused cause in the brain. You'd think an atheist like stef could work this out in fewer than 20 years.
BroBroDude 1 year ago
wtf is stef just trolling now or what
BroBroDude 1 year ago
...continued... With M-Theory proposing that our universe is physically being affected by force(s) beyond the confines of our universe, the plausability of infinity is certainly the most likely case, thus trumping determinism. I'm more inclined to think that every possible course of action exists at all given times. You could say that's deterministic, but infinity just kills it for me.
Darkmatter2 1 year ago
Determinism, in my view, has a chance of being applicable only if the possibilities within a confined environment are finite. If anything at all can be predicted within a specific environment, then one is to deduce that the size of the environment is inconsequential, provided it is finite. Once you introduce the principal of infinity, determinism no longer works. It is in infinity that the "magic" lies.
Darkmatter2 1 year ago
@Darkmatter2
That's a great theory man.
drew335533 1 year ago
i dont know what determinists youve been talking to you, but i certainly wouldnt deny the bouncing rock analogy atall.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
Determinsm makes as much sense as life itself.
TheFiniteInfinity 1 year ago
Mises was a determinist.
darklord220 1 year ago
Stef, if I programmed a computer to say "Free will exists and I am proud to make my own choices in life!", would you believe that the computer had free will? My point is this: I debate you because I want to, but I want to debate you because my past has made me want to debate you. You respond to determinists because your past has made you willing to do so. It couldn't have happened any other way, but we can not see into the future, so we were unaware of this being our future.
Eikus89 1 year ago
Stef, I am disappointed in you. To say that you should argue with the weather is just stupid. I argue with people because I am a human being, and arguing with others is a part of a humans programming. I don't argue with rocks because that is not what I, based on my values which are created by my experiences which all have deterministic causes, see any value in doing. Me evaluating a conversation with a rock to be worthless is based on everything that has happened to me in the past.
Eikus89 1 year ago
...[cont'd] Cause and effect appears to be how things get along. Free will requires the person - the self - to be an indivisible, simple, unitary thing that is capable of initiating a causal chain by no antecedent other than it's own will. The mind-body problem rears its ugly head. The mind of the free-will camp would have to be an uncaused cause.
eulercircles 1 year ago
Also, determinism isn't a position that's made up or resorted to when we don't understand how the mind makes choices. Determinism would have to be true in order to figure out how the mind makes choices since it will refer to regularly occurring and predictable processes. Rather, the position is taken up because of what we understand about how the world works by way of natural science...
eulercircles 1 year ago
A determinist doesn't say that people don't or can't make choices, however ... only that people's choices are brought about by antecedent factors that are out of one's control or conscious awareness. Stef, you've got to be at least partly determinist. You cannot choose to disobey gravity and levitate at will.
eulercircles 1 year ago
You're wrong and you completely misinterpret what determinism is. You're lucky that I'm too lazy to type my mind-blowing arguments that would of rocked your world. But I assure you that I had some pretty rock solid counter-arguments. Good day.
GrayBlood1331 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Yet another think I did not know I did. I must have a split personality. Thanks again for letting me know. I should see a psychiatrist about these lapses in memory.
That being said, I am willing to admit I am wrong here, however, if loving you is wrong I don't want to be right.
trick0171 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY you made the EXACT same, pathetically ignorant, illconceived point about 4 months ago, if you wish me to entertain you as you go round in ever increasing circles of innately and predetermined fits of ignorance and unintelligence, you are mistaken. Just as a fly will be in perpetual search for a way to pass through a window, my time would be abundantly wasted explaining something that you haven't got the intellectual properties to understand.
I blame neither you, nor the fly.
Dom0ne 1 year ago 10
@Dom0ne stef sounds like a christian where does free will come from
snarfeater 3 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY shit... what is logic? determinism. what is science based on? cause and effect..determinism. how does determinism mean you cannot alter someones ideas through arguing? thats determinism. unless you have a way of arguing that quantum level effects are integral to free will, i have no interest in arguing on such a baseless level.
Interactivesystems 1 year ago 8
Comment removed
alique087 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY i meant shut him up in regards this topic. Comparing determinism as akin to arguing with weather is not a valid point against determinism, how does this negate determinism? how exactly?
Interactivesystems 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY i dont want to shut him up, thought thats a good idea youve got. altering people beliefs is deterministic also buddy. That this guy completely misses what determinism is, thinks arguing with the weather or rocks is a valid point and makes thats smug voice “theyre crazy“ as a defense is comically stupid.
Interactivesystems 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
That settles it, I do love you. Thank you so much for the enlightening conversation but it's past my bedtime. I look forward to your next brilliant comment in the morning. You really should write a book, I would be your #1 fan.
Pleasant dreams,
Trick
trick0171 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Wow really? I didn't know that either. Thank you so much for this. You are amazingly knowledgeable...and so very logical. I think I love you.
trick0171 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea.
BIG HUG
trick0171 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
You need a hug.
trick0171 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Thanks for the logical argument.
trick0171 1 year ago 2
fuck this guy is stupid, cant someone show this twit a libet experiment or 2, perhaps the retrospective choice vs neural activity one. shut this fool up. his arguments dont even help his cause, they contradict his point.. what a total twit
Interactivesystems 1 year ago 12
@Interactivesystems
Easy there, killer. Though I'm with nearly everyone else who thinks this particular video is way off base, Stef's done a hell of a lot of excellent work to more than make up for it.
I'd imagine that it's extremely difficult and discouraging when hundreds of people point our your mistakes while those same people are totally silent when you've brought valid revelations to light.
Keep up the good fight, Stef; we appreciate all you do for the progress of freedom.
conquesimo 1 year ago
@conquesimo well its the first vid Ive seen and I dont know if I could stand to watch another.
Interactivesystems 1 year ago
@conquesimo when you say "revelations" I'm guessing you're referring to other videos. This is the only one of his I've seen and its absolutely pathetic, my annoyance only really comes in when you consider the overt confidence/arrogance he uses to express his ridiculous, incoherent arguments. Worryingly, he seems completely unaware of this. If thats the basis for other videos, it doesn't bode well.
Dom0ne 1 year ago
@Interactivesystems why don't you do it?...or are you chickenshit?
emperorkang 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY 4) "I" still exist(s) under determinism. Explain why you think it doesn't? Cogito ergo sum. "I" am determined. Am "I" allowed to say that? Ridiculous point 5) Yes, he WAS clearly ignoring environmental influences. ie "I" could not influence him. Ridiculous.
PostITnoteGUY now please stop embarrassing yourself, instead of rejecting determinism because it isn't intuitive, or because the bible doesn't agree with it, or because you want freewill, please understand it first.
Dom0ne 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY 1) you've no idea what many things mean as proved over all your comments 2) when did I say you did? (another error on your part) 3) Everything affects everything else. Thats determinism.
Dom0ne 1 year ago
Stef, it looks like you fell in quite a lot of traps and failed to investigate for emotional reasons. I don't even know how you can objectively define free will which if you can't that would make it a false dichotomy.
I think the answer here cannot be found as it cannot be tested as we can't rollback time and check for different results. If you think determinists are carbon copies of non-determinists why do you even debate this, what's in it for ya? It's a huge waste of time.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I love this video, it gave me some peace of mind. Now take on Solipsism for me :)
ivevanlee 1 year ago
There is NO (variable) DEFINITION of determinism WITHOUT what we currently call CONSCIOUSNESS.
There are likely as many layers of reality as subjective realities genereated qirhin responsive objects, like cells, flowers or humans.
But the DIVISION of that all only exists in brains etc. - nowhere else.
That´s why Krihnamurti said "observe without division".
peach1981 1 year ago
Free Will and Determinism are absolute concepts that have precious little to do with the real world. Newton understood this and stated it as the three body problem. Today we have some understanding of non-linear dynamical systems aka chaos. Non-deterministic, chaotic systems tend towards an attractor. Had Newton known this, we wouldn't be having this silly debate.
Individual choices are based on variable immediate information. Marketing experts understand that populations respond predictably.
kokopelli314 1 year ago
There's an irony to his psychobabble at the end of the video.
nqwi11 1 year ago
Stef is mostly right but falters when he argues that barking orders @ a rock is equal to barking orders @ a human (in a deterministic world).
Rocks influence one another through physical contact just as human beings influence one another through communicative contact.
The rest of his argument is solid: Determinists cannot claim both morality and the nonexistence of choice. There can be no truly moral choice unless that choice is made in freedom. A rock would not be immoral for crushing you.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
Actually, there is a difference between morality, ethics, and ethical responsibility. It is the latter, ethical responsibility, that you cannot have due to the lack of free will. Morality pertains to what is good, bad, positive, negative, etc; Ethics is the conscience acting alignment with those morals. Those can and do happen without free will. It is the responsibility if one does not act ethically, etc .. that is incompatible. In other words they are not to blame for the action.
trick0171 1 year ago 9
@trick0171 No, sorry. Morality necessarily incorporates the concept of ethical responsibility. To distinguish between the 2 is to render morallity wholly pointless.
Like I said, morality without responsibility is not morality at all. It would be simply "good" or "bad" in the abstract—a determination based on a subjective consideration (ie equality, common good, non-aggression, etc).
You can say in the abstract that it is "bad" that a rock fell on me, but you cannot say that it is "immoral".
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@trick0171 (contd.) For example, one might consider a rock falling on and killing someone to be a good thing b/c that person was a moronic, incestuous redneck who was, through his excessive breeding, contributing to the demise of human kind.
Another person might consider this redneck's death a bad thing because they hold the sanctity of human life as their highest good.
In neither case would either individual be able to assert that this event was either moral or immoral. Good/bad ≠ morality.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
Morality/ethics only applies to conscience action (which rocks do not have). For example, throwing a rock at a person is a conscious action, regardless if the person has free will or not. There is a huge difference between this, and being responsible for the conscious action. The person either acts ethically or does not, depending if we can determine the moral.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 year ago 2
As for your second part of whether 2 different people can view the same act differently, that is more of a subjective ethic and depends on the ethical system posed...such as degrees of objectivism vs. subjectivism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, etc. Again, these systems are derived regardles if a person is responsible for the actions. We can determine if an action is good/bad based on a system, and determine if their conscious actions align with the good/bad derived from the system.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 1 year ago
In other words, people can act ethical, or unethical, but not be blameworthy of such actions, or more deserving than others due to those actions. It is incorrect to conflate responsibility with morality and ethics.
(END 3)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 Well clearly it's semantics at this point, but why not just call actions either good or bad rather than calling them either moral or immoral—words that carry connotations of blame/responsibility. I think you are the one doing the conflating. Why, I don't know.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
"why not just call actions either good or bad"
Because good or bad, when applied to human behavior IS what we use the term "moral" for. The term moral does not imply responsibility, hence the reason we would say 'moral responsibility" if someone was responsible.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 You contradict yourself:
If you say that human action is no more subject to free choice than anything else in the universe, then differentiating between the actions of any separate things in the universe (eg a rock and a human) is purely semantics and is of no consequence whatsoever.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
First you claimed a contradiction but did not show it.
Second, it is not a semantical argument to differentiate a thing with conscious thought from something without it. It is also of consequence because conscious thought is a cause (which created effects) and is connected to other conscious thought.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 Ah... What, then, separates a conscious action from a non-conscious action?
A rock does not consciously fall on a person.
Does a cat commit an immoral action when it scratches a person in the face?
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
An awareness of the action and what such action will cause. For example, in negative utilitarian ethics it would be an awareness of suffering and what may or may not cause suffering. If one carries such ethic, and can determine what might (objectively) be the cause of unnecessary suffering, such utilitarian can determine that actions they do that cause such suffering are unethical. Again, this is regardless of whether or not they are responsible if they do cause such suffering.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 Excuse me.. the contradiction is clear: You distinguish between human action and the actions of a rock because humans have "consciousness", but if humans are no more able to control their fate than a rock, then of what consequence is that awareness (in the context of action)?
The awareness to which you refer is simply the product of an entity whose biological complexity has afforded it the ability to receive a greater range of sensory inputs.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
Even if there was no "consequence", it is not a contradiction. That being said, I already explained the consequence (the difference between the two actions and the events they lead to). I also want to talk about this word "consequence" you use and what you mean by it, because it appears to me that all consequences require cause and effect (ie. the effect is the consequence of the cause). The notion of free will is not needed for consequence - so maybe you mean some other word?
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 (contd.) Hurricane Katrina could not help itself. Hitler could not help himself. You would not blame Katrina for it's actions and you would not blame Hitler for his actions. You cannot call Katrina immoral and you cannot call Hitler immoral.
You can call both of them bad, but not immoral.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
You cannot call Katrina immoral because Katrina cannot think about it's action and relate to it in a moral sense prior to it. Hitler, on the other one, could. Neither, however, are to "blame" for their actions.
Both can be called "bad", but only one can be called immoral (in the context of a moral system). Neither responsible.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 That's what I'm saying... What does it matter if something can "think" about it's actions or not if said thing can't control them?
Imagine being controlled by remote control but still having all of your sensory capacities intact. Imagine now that you are controlled to murder someone. Is that immoral?
Sorry, I can't go on with this argument. If you think moral action does not require freedom then I can't go anywhere with you.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
Thoughts control actions. In other words, actions come about via thoughts. Whether the person could control the thoughts or not has to do with responsibility. That does not mean that a person's thoughts do not lead to unethical actions. I am just clarifying the difference here, because it is important.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 year ago
There is a difference between being controlled and thoughts being controlled. If thoughts are controlled, then a person can be controlled to act unethically. Again, this would not mean they are responsible for such actions.
It is only the (important) differentiation I am explaining here. But you are right, we are going in circles. Have a good day.
(END 2)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 The only disagreement we have is a definitional one.
I think it's clear that morality requires the act of free will by definition because, like I said, no action can be considered truly moral or immoral unless that action was made in freedom.
You seem to be conflating morality with either personal virtues or subjective concepts of good and evil, both of which do not necessarily require choice.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
"no action can be considered truly moral or immoral unless that action was made in freedom."
This is the premise I am disagreeing with you on, as I (and many other philosophers and a few scientists) do not think it so clear that morality requires the act of free will by definition. Most definitions of morality apply to human behavior via thought/action, regardless if the behavior is "free". Hence the distinction between morality/ ethics and ethical responsibility.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 year ago
Moral/ethical thought can (and does) happen without any freedom. Freedom is not a requirement for these. It is ONLY a requirement of responsibility, which is an afterthought of the happening.
(END 2)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 Your definition of morality is what needs work.
I don't consider a dog immoral for biting me, or a baby immoral for pissing on me, for the very reason I don't consider a rock immoral for falling on me—i.e. I don't believe they had any choice in the matter.
Whether you like it or not, calling someone "immoral" carries a negative connotation of guilt/blame. That's the reality of the word.
Are you a nominalist? Encountering a anti-nominalist determinist would be one for the ages.
VTAcraft 1 year ago
@VTAcraft
I don't consider a dog or baby immoral because they cannot think about morals or there actions as adult humans do. It is this process of thought and action that is either moral or immoral. And yes, the word immoral carries a negative connotation, but it should not carry the connotation of blame/guilt. The only reason it does is DUE to the free will belief that is rampant. Once that belief is (causally) corrected this should change.
No, I wouldn't call myself a nominalist. :)
trick0171 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, what a rant. Determinism is pretty simple to understand. There is true and false. In a determinist universe, it's true to say the universe is determinist. That's a simple example of a "preferred state". The advantage you gain when the universe decides to let you see it is determinist is that you have no stress about "decisions". Whatever "decision" you make is the "right" one because you have no other option. Everything you do is right, and "preferred". The universe is pushing you around.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
If you believe that consience happens at a cellular level....you have way to go my friend.
Maldek
aoMaldek 1 year ago
Stef, take on the professional philosophers, not on the avarage youtubers... Don't act as if this is an easy matter that you've resolved...
gustavonarez 1 year ago
The deterministic argument is based on the simple idea that all of your choices are just illusions of free will. That given the chance to make a choice, you will always chose the same given the same exact circumstances (impossible to repeat, however)
RCYahtzee 1 year ago
Nothing about determinism implies that there is no difference between a human being and a rock, obviously there is a tremendous difference, all determinism implies is that the difference is a matter of degree and not one of kind.
nspeert 1 year ago
Rocky and Bullwinkle take on philosophy.
Determinism, or climbing up a tree in order to chop it down at the roots.
If a human beings actions are completely determined by causality and they're still capable of error and truth, than simpler, non-conscious arrangements of matter should be even more capable right? Let's get a rock on Jeopardy and end this...
IcarusMoonsight 1 year ago
Determinism does NOT say free will is an illusion, you're misrepresenting the position. Free will is ONLY an illusion IF Determinism AND Incompatibilism are BOTH true! You merely assume Incompatibilism but you give no argument. Thus Determinism would only be "self-refuting" IF Incompatibilism were true but you haven't established that...
Also, if you want to be a philosopher you have to clarify the terms. It's intellectually sloppy to use terms without clarifying what you mean by them...
soultorment27 1 year ago
Yes...I'm not with you on this one, Stef...I fear you're setting up the same crazy artificial dichotomy that religionists set up to defend their position. Your comparing the complexity of the human mind with a rock bouncing down a hill seems done more out of emotion than anything objective.
We can observe determinism on a small scale. What cause is there to presume some other system of reality? Are you now going to argue for a soul?
caltrop69 1 year ago 3
Yes, in a determinist world you CAN go and build a wall to stop the rocks bouncing downhill. They'll just say it was predetermined that they would stand up and go build that wall. Sounds a bit circular of a logic to me
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
A friend of mine said that accepting determinism made him more forgiving and patient. He is extraordinarily forgiving and patient, so I believe him. I think it's had a similar effect on me.
turkmusik 1 year ago 2
... Humans, plants, robots, dogs, and monkeys take different paths given their nature and environment, but they are not "free willing" this any more than a rock bouncing down a hill. Complexity is the only difference between these things. The word choice is used for higher lifeforms ONLY because of the higher complexity and uncertainty involved. This does not preclude truth, preferred states, responsibility, or anything like this if you agree oughts are derived from reality.
penguinpanini 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY hey its postit again, i thought I dispensed with you. Do you really want to get into this again?
1) Are you suggesting that you "I" doesn't exist in a determined universe? Please explain why? To help here's a definition "I" is used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.
2) stefbot stated that if determinism was true and he still believed in freewill he would be determined to stay fixed in that position due to his "atoms+cells". He's ignoring environmental influences. ok?
Dom0ne 1 year ago 2
watching this video made my brain hurt. so much idiocy in 15 minutes. you can shout at a rock, yet you can blow at it. debating as mean of changing reality (there are others, more interesting, you know?) only makes sense when you have intelligent and open minded opponent, sadly both categories exclude you, stefbot.
mrh3h 1 year ago
(cont3) re to 10:53 you are now suggesting that nobody would be able to "rationally correct you". Your belief in freewill was determined by the combination of your genetics AND environment. ie hearing a statement that determinism is definitely true, WOULD influence you, not necessairly towards a deterministic viewpoint, but it WOULD affect you. You seem to believe that if we're determined, we're completely isolated and set. NOTHING could be less representative of determinism. I CAN correct you.
Dom0ne 1 year ago 4
(cont2) Are you suggesting that "changing your life" is a reason to think deterministically ergo if your life doesn't change, determinism is in error? I'm bewildered that you've considered this as a point. If determinism is true, it would have been true since the beginning of time. Why do you believe change is necessary?
The suggestion that determinists shouldn't follow the EXCEPTIONALLY inherent human qualities of debating, following moral prefrences (or perhaps sneezing) is ridiculous!
Dom0ne 1 year ago 3
(cont) things have what are generally referred to as "characteristics" and these "characteristics" play a big part in how we percieve and interact with things ie I dont argue with weather however, its chill detemines me to shiver (well its interaction with my specific genteics etc), a persons "chill" does not make me shiver however I'm determined to argue with people as prescribed by the unique interaction between my "argumental" gene and the social setting that I see fit to argue in.
Dom0ne 1 year ago
You really really dont understand the subject matter. I genuinely can't believe you've cited the fact that people dont argue with weather, but they argue with people as somehow proving that we have freewill or that a human being does not obey the same deterministic principles as weather. Ridiculous logic.
I'm determined to eat and orange (so to follow your logic and for determinism to be true) I must also be determined to eat a person? or again determined to eat weather?
Dom0ne 1 year ago 2
@Dom0ne
"my "argumental" gene"
The comment on eating the weather killed your credibility. That statement buried it.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@Guncriminal I was using the term "argumental gene" euphemistically, rather the cite the myriads of genetic and environmental antecedents on which one may be induced into argument (I really could if you want). Most people will realise this.
Regarding "eating weather" you're absolutely right, I was simply following the logical progression of stefbot's, really quite RIDICULOUS "rationale". Please watch the video again and also re-read my comments. You'll realise your errors. Thank you.
Dom0ne 1 year ago
@stefbot If you don't address SisyphusRedeemed's response, point by point, you'll have fallen off a fence in my mind, onto the side marked "not worth listening to."
momerath42 1 year ago
@momerath42 he did own stef.
alagon 1 year ago
@buybuydandavis
I don't agree with what a lot of what Dennett says, but this sums up my position too.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
Ahhh soo many assumptions yet not one inch of considering literature from neuroscience, psychology, and neurophilosophy.
Fatalism: there's nothing people can do. Everything is determined
Determinism: chemical brain caused action.
Free-will: People can act and choose.
Compatibilism: People has choice and are determined by the brain.