On second viewing, it seems you are not saying you have free-will, but are trying to get at the language. Its confusing because I tend to think of "free-will" in the bastardized colloquial sense you mentioned. What you are describing is not strictly free though. In the end you suggest being ignorant of what will is, I would tend to agree, but then I can't possibly have any way of being in control of it.
Do you have any vids on confusion? Abstraction? Simplifcation?
HTM is "Heirarchical Temporal Memory". HTM is developed by the principle function of the human neocortex. Jeff Hawkins (inventory of Palm Pilot and Handspring Treo) founded the Redwood Institute for Neuroscience in order to hash out the heirchical organization of the neocortex. Once satisfied he founded Numenta and began development. Currently HTMs are capable of object recognition, beliefs and actions. Numenta is currently developing the "planning" mechanism.
The "heirarchical temporal" ogranization of the neocortex provides a computational model for long-term planning. This results from a layered network consisting of "input" cells, layer 2 recognition nodes, upper-layer recognition nodes and finally the output layer. The "long-term" or temporal aspect arises from feedback and feedforward re-entrant mapping.
I quoted "heirarchical temporal" because Numenta has developed a neocortical platform for software development known as HTM.
"what chemical reaction do you have in long-term planning"
Forgive my harsh criticisms here, but this particular inquiry is well within the focus of neuroscience. The DLPFC for example; is involved in long-term planning.
A classic case in neurobiology, that of Phineas Gage, speaks volumes to this inquiry of planning and choice.
My criticism is that if you pursue "free-will vs determinism" whilst ignoring modern neuoscience then you will likely run around in logical circles.
Oh, don't worry. It's not exactly a harsh criticism, mainly because I don't know why that quote was taken to mean that there isn't a chemical reaction that happens in long-term planning. The question is of determinism, not physicalism. But I suppose the two get muddled in day-to-day philosophical musings.
Yea, I guess I'm just looking for how exactly you figure you have free-will. I know for Randy its as simple as defining "free-will" as something that is wholely determined. That would make "free"... a meaningless part of the phrase. Using the same method I was able to prove God exists by redefining God as "a can of coffee grounds". FYI Tim Horton's makes good God, if you're ever in the area, we should grab a cup of God and talk philosophy.
I know you don't care about these old videos, but your concluding question "Do we have free will or are we deterministic creatures?" was not a yes or no question.
I agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how he would explain the difference between our ability to control our actions and an ice undergoing familiar causal changes in a basic philosophy class. The way that you limited free will to language was misleading--we can, in fact, reason out plans without speaking, through visualization.
I beleive his yes to the chimera question was to a way os saying, we are both determined, and we are also free. In makes sense, in that every action is unique, though also conditioned by the context. The more important point is that everything is equally free/unfree - Humans and rocks have the same caacity for freewill.
Or, in his terms, "grammatical settings" make some people think that they are free, because they are not told what to do. I don't think we know enough about neurology to completely trace the connection between accepted causal models and a persons behavior, but I think it can be assumed that, because we are made of matter, that we should follow the same predictable laws.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the turgid response.
If we can have some sort of understanding of will, why is it difficult for people to understand the complexities of faith for those who use it to explain beliefs?
*just a dialogue not a license to cut my throat for anyone!*
I have no idea. To me, faith is where humans take that leap from irrationality to rationality (see Freud), where the world and what our bodies sense of it turn into cognitive structures, systems of reasoning.
I have never heard it put that way and it makes sense. Freud. He is everywhere for me recently! We should always attempt to turn things around us into cognitive structures. Cognition is a terrible thing to waste. (in all seriousness even though I sound cheeky).
It can only be considered to be "distorting" language if you consider change a distortion. Basically, yes, it will change, but it isn't a bad thing. The word distortion has somewhat of a negative connotation.
But these abbreviations are like mass communication gone mad. They are like langauge products that dont enhance our freedom to communicate but reduce it!
When is the book coming out? I'm very sorry if you've answered this already and I'm sure you'll make a video when it does come out so no worries about answering again.
The seed bursts the flower blooms the flower fades. "Do what though wilt" Lol. Three will is the on going death and reincarnation of the self in all forms. Humans only differ in the freedom of expression within the process. i.e creating a self parody that is expressive of the self but in ways that improve the outcome for others. "Maybe"
Also, you've identified a concept ("free will") with a grammatical setting now. If one can discuss these settings of yours in language, but they precede our speech, then one must introduce a new setting for each statement of the previous setting, ad infinitum. Unless I'm missing something; it's a bit cryptic.
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
hello Az. i was reading Spinoza tonight (can't sleep) and came across a passage where he claimed that if a stone falling through space could think (let's instead say speak)it could Imagine that it had chosen its path. Omniscience (let's instead say an adequate description of causes) would destroy this illusion, but it would engender a Feeling of freedom, without the deception. I'm guessing that you intended something similar here, that to feel as if you are free is the important thing.
Fantastic video. "An isolation of movement from the rest of the universe." You define the undefinable, you are a truly gifted speaker, philosopher and writer. Unless you view the term "philosopher" as being trite or offensive in some fashion--(I don't). Subbed.
i used to love existentialism but now i think it may lead people toward decadence, and push them towards indulging in their own alienation.
But i think heidegger was correct when he said that when mass marketing spreads around the world we cant be authentic individuals anymore only puppets controlled by corporate PR firms ,adverts and corporate controlled cybernetic networks.
Regarding free will, Do you think that people on youtube in social networks are fully in control of these networks, is it possible that a 3rd party could be channelling subscribers to you?
Do the people using these networks have the control or does some other power?
If this is true then this other power will be able to control the meaning of the whole group but not the particular meaning of each video.
you have become a central node! how can the users find out if they are controlled?
In order: No. Yes. Both. Sure, but it's the case even if the previous wasn't true. I'm no node, I'm too unpopular. They should assume they are and realize they can't do anything about it, thus relieving us of any anxiety.
thanx for responding i thought i was becoming paranoid.
I think that people shouldnt spend to much time in these sziod social networks and get involved in protests to prevent governments from taking away our liberties.
but if people dont wake up and reflect on these networks their in an escape they probably wont try to stop their governments taking away democracy.
And to think that I nearly entertained the idea that, due to the fact that you made your comment, and your video, so complete and succinct that it precluded the possibility of me adding anything of import to the discussion! So, here is my comment: Goddamnit, never mind...Every thing is relative, nothing is true or untrue, and I can't really say a damn thing without being justly accused of stating the obvious. Sorry to clutter your channel, carry on, and ignore the friendly lunatic Creepsomber.
Randy is totally glossing over the world "Will" here! Which is ironic, since he claims to be talking about a specific type of Will, namely the free kind.
Amusing, we reach about the same conclution! only id go even further and say that there is no such thing as "will" outside the tiny universe of human language. All choices are direct (and indirect) reactions to you minds database(experiance and/or reptilian complex)
along with any genetic psycological "presets".
Anyway! great vid! Truly one of few interesting discussions here
That was an enjoyable spin on the old debate I recall from my college days. I always sided with the determinist camp and still do. The ability to make plans far into the future doesn't sway me in the least. I know that was a feature of someone else's argument for free will and not your own. It seems to me that you side-step the argument entirely and assert that the debate is more of an artifact of our language than a real issue. If that's what you're saying, then I'd tend to agree.
bt: Very lucid comment on your part. Plans made for the future can be wrecked or actualized by circumstances (such as the weather or natural disasters) that are far from "free". Also my agreement regarding language artifacts (of which we will, perhaps paradoxically, become ourselves).
Are you implying that unless we can articulate our purposiveness, intentionality or reasonableness, etc., then it wouldn't be implicated with freedom? There are many experiences in which our actions, beliefs and emotions don't entirely make sense to us, that they are inherently non-rational or irrational in nature. But we might still attribute these unintelligible aspects of our experience, language and thought, with freedom, that we engage in them freely, and are conversely, held responsible.
Think I get it now. You're basically saying that we bootstrap ourselves into freedom through concepts and linguistic devices, that form an attitude or disposition from which our will may operate. No problems with that, I think Dennett has a similar idea, which focuses more on rationality mind you.
I'm intrigued by your concept of "no reason". Dadaist art has made me think away from determinism and led me to deistic free will (from which my faith grew into post-theism) but now I see the dichotomy of free will versus determinism isn't the full picture.
I was impressed when you pointed out to me that ascribing an "intentional" behavior such as a peacock attracting mates by use of its large tail as being fallacious since it was a genetic trait beyond the bird's control. Until I find a suitable grammatical setting that would make sense to me, I'll ascribe to free will. Why? Maybe to reject determinism.
But is my mode of reduction a cheap version of faith? Is it shallow? Do I need faith and faith alone? I believe and acknowledge it as a concession to my weakness. Concession by whom? Who cares.
You began well with the distorting play of hunman language on the interaction of forces, but foundered when you treated humans as a special case. What is special about humans is their (to uses Marx's term, there are others)duplicating quality. But just because humans "duplicate" nature, they are not thereby freed from it.
Of course humans aren't a special case. I'm not describing what humans are in comparison to animals, but how humans view themselves in comparison to animals as is evidenced by the grammatical trends of their language. This is not to say that it's right or wrong of us, but that we do it.
No, you've got it wrong here azrienoch. Free will in the philosophical setting is an attribution of action to a conative exercise of the 'mind'. Incompatibilist free will implies that every "willed" physical action is the result of a prior mental operation, a corresponding "volition".
I mean, we already knew that people implicate intent when speaking about free will. And surely we could distinguish between free will and the "grammatical setting" of familiar concepts of will, which is that of some particular tenacity or drive to see a task to its completion.
Grammatical settings don't have us talking about the implication, but about something else with the implication. Only philosophers dissect the implication and treat it as its own thing, necessarily bastardizing the implication.
But what else could you be talking about than implications? It's not clear. You haven't really shed any light on either "grammatical settings" or the doctrine of freedom of the will or volitions, originally a theistic concept. THAT doctrine and philosophical grammar has its own mystifying thrust separate of expressions of intent, as the depth and breadth of terms available in the English language to describe intents and purposes precedes and surpasses it. Wittgenstein would have none of it.
I was clear that grammatical settings have our grammar forming in certain ways, suggesting or implying an attitude. I was clear that the grammatical setting of free will gives rise to a certain grammar suggesting free will, and I was clear that the free will debate spawns from recognizing this suggestion. I don't know what to apologize for. But Witters is on my side.
And I'm telling you, that's not where the debate over "free will" came from. It spawned largely from Christian theology in order to reconcile the freedom of the human spirit with God's divine command. Medieval theologians afaik generally agreed that humans possess the capacity to choose, to act independently. but whether and to what degree both "will" was chosen and choices were free was up for debate (ie, "free will" was not strictly identified with purposeful action,
and some argued that only good actions were willed actions). As I suggested in my first comment, "will" concerns whatever mental or spiritual force generates some action. It was not associated with the intellect or what is meant by "will" in English language usage (a tenacity or "drive" to get something done, not some separate part of you).
So the history of this idea is more suspect than you let off, and even more innocent-sounding contemporary versions of free will--that mystical immaterial entity--rely on a priori principles of the type that Wittgenstein took apart. It makes no sense either to say that we "have" free will, or that it's what we suggest or have in mind when we conjugate sentences (lol, seriously)
The freedom of the human spirit? So you're self-defining free will? It comes from itself? If that's not what you're saying, then I'd suggest you look at this one more time as the source of the whole thing, what initially spawns the curiosity for the notion.
This isn't an a priori explanation. The notion is learned from our grammar. It was already there, but not intentionally. We make it significant. I'm a little tired of repeating this to you.
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I mean to put across, identify a word ("will") with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
I personally think, free will doesn't exist as we think of it. If a system that actually is deterministic but has tiny random events in it has free will, we do also. But that's not quite the definition people think of at first. The physics just doesn't really give us any other option - the only thing that makes us unpredictable is randomness of quantum mechanics in our brains and in our environment.
However: allthough i'm quite certain with the above, I live my life as if i had a free will.
yup, since sleeping means being unconscious. It's easy to verify that it's impossible to plan anything while being unconscious. Can be tested. Breath fast 50 times, then hold the breath. During the next 20 seconds, plan what to do when becoming conscious again. Post a video and let's see view the result.
No, and taken for granted the axiom that consciousness is a particle system. Person A walks on red light. Person B walks on red light and get's killed by a car. Person A get's the death penalty for murdering person B. Willdeterminism, an easy way to blame it on someone who is innocent.
This is an idea I just didn't have the time to elaborate on, and while it may be coincidental, I think it's interesting nonetheless. Consider that there's not necessarily a cause in the grammar of our descriptions of either humans or particles. The randomness of particles is often brought up in discussions of free will, but the randomness is rather irrelevant; however, do we do this in order to draw a simile that non-causal action is possible?
I'd say that cause is not necessary. That is to say, in describing the rock's movements, the burden of providing reasons is on you, not the rock. On the other hand, in describing my movements, the burden of providing reasons is on me. I can speak, the rock cannot, and these are part of the assumptions we use in the grammatical settings of free will and will, respectively.
Hi Az, you write: "in describing the rock...the burden of providing reasons is on you...[but]....in describing my movements, the burden of providing reasons is on me." Isn't the burden always on me? I mean, you can give me some clues which the rock can't, but if I'm interpreting you, I still have to do the heavy lifting, no?
If you take on responsibility for describing me, which is your perrogative, you will describe me as you describe the rock in a causal manner (or speculation). That I can give you a different sort of reason for my actions than the rock (or deer, to add something animate to the list) is an attitude recognized in the grammatical setting, with grammatical consequences. Make sense?
the use of will metaphorically to all objects is well explained by the philosophy of cognition.
I cannot fathom how you will say animals do not have will power... ("free will" being nonsense only insofar as it invoked unrestrained, absolute freedom, an incoherent concept whatever it's attributed to).
Freedom and will are not absolutes. They vary in development and degree. A will is free to the extent that it can internally map its environment and extend itself. Thus, a human is more free than a dog which is more free than a rat which is more free than a paramecium etc..
For you we are free from the perspective of our grammatical rules but not from outside them. The reverse of what Kant claimed.
So it seemed to me that by permitting of this outside of language you were submitting to a kind of linguistic idealism.
Something I think Wittgenstein anyway would have no sympathy with, as he would not out thought there was any sense to the extralingual or the outside of language.
Well you say 'if we try to speak 'extralingualy', do we have free-will?' and your answer is 'no'. You say these are descriptions and we shouldn't think of the world as submitting to our descriptions. It just seems to me that you have drawn upon a Wittgensteinian idea of grammar to come up with an inverted form of Kant's idealism. For Kant we are free considered from the noumenal realm, determined from the phenomenal.
I think that human beings and their behaviour is partly deterministic and also partly to do with free will, and this is because i do not think that we can avoid the laws of reality which make us behave in certain ways due to certain causes as stimuli, for instance, we always do the things that are pleasurable to us that we enjoy, and we also do the things that have meaning to us, but we do not choose all of these things that we like because it is nature that chooses some of them for us.
I am sorry, but I must disagree. Your line of reasoning is egocentric. Humans are animals, planning long term or otherwise is not unique to us. Bears hibernate, squirrels gather and store nuts etc. Subjective and internal reasoning is by nature focused on ego. We are slaves to evolution.
The explanation is egocentric because we are egocentric... I think you've missed the point if you think I'm trying to say something beyond our descriptive language. I even said in the video that if I try to speak beyond language the answer to both "Do we have free will?" and "Are we deterministic?" is no.
And I'm not sure that gathering nuts is so much an example of long-term planning as it is instinctive preparation, which falls under non-choice, according to Randy.
Answering "Yes" in the end is just about what I've been trying to say except for I used "Both". Of course we could always just say "It really just depends" but that's almost as bad as saying "then a miracle happened" in between a mathematical proof.
"Will is intrinsically a grammatical setting," says Azrienoch. The premise of materialist epistemology suggests that the Will is capable of freedom. Thus, many discourses concerning grammatical settings exist.
Comment removed
fauyd 2 years ago
On second viewing, it seems you are not saying you have free-will, but are trying to get at the language. Its confusing because I tend to think of "free-will" in the bastardized colloquial sense you mentioned. What you are describing is not strictly free though. In the end you suggest being ignorant of what will is, I would tend to agree, but then I can't possibly have any way of being in control of it.
Do you have any vids on confusion? Abstraction? Simplifcation?
Rybot9000 3 years ago
If you have two entities interacting with each other, given a certain characteristic observed, one will be greater in value than the other.
The value that represents the force of gravity is greater than the force resisting the rock if it is to be pulled down a hill.
And the hardness of the ground is greater than the hardness of the rock, so the rock shatters.
Not a single property of an entity can be separated from the rest when comparing with another entity.
spleenblender 3 years ago
This "versus" analogy seems to apply to everything you describe. Even if you want to say biological necessity vs psychological drive.
spleenblender 3 years ago
HTM is "Heirarchical Temporal Memory". HTM is developed by the principle function of the human neocortex. Jeff Hawkins (inventory of Palm Pilot and Handspring Treo) founded the Redwood Institute for Neuroscience in order to hash out the heirchical organization of the neocortex. Once satisfied he founded Numenta and began development. Currently HTMs are capable of object recognition, beliefs and actions. Numenta is currently developing the "planning" mechanism.
Theoretically it works.
Rybot9000 3 years ago
The "heirarchical temporal" ogranization of the neocortex provides a computational model for long-term planning. This results from a layered network consisting of "input" cells, layer 2 recognition nodes, upper-layer recognition nodes and finally the output layer. The "long-term" or temporal aspect arises from feedback and feedforward re-entrant mapping.
I quoted "heirarchical temporal" because Numenta has developed a neocortical platform for software development known as HTM.
Rybot9000 3 years ago
"what chemical reaction do you have in long-term planning"
Forgive my harsh criticisms here, but this particular inquiry is well within the focus of neuroscience. The DLPFC for example; is involved in long-term planning.
A classic case in neurobiology, that of Phineas Gage, speaks volumes to this inquiry of planning and choice.
My criticism is that if you pursue "free-will vs determinism" whilst ignoring modern neuoscience then you will likely run around in logical circles.
Rybot9000 3 years ago
Oh, don't worry. It's not exactly a harsh criticism, mainly because I don't know why that quote was taken to mean that there isn't a chemical reaction that happens in long-term planning. The question is of determinism, not physicalism. But I suppose the two get muddled in day-to-day philosophical musings.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Yea, I guess I'm just looking for how exactly you figure you have free-will. I know for Randy its as simple as defining "free-will" as something that is wholely determined. That would make "free"... a meaningless part of the phrase. Using the same method I was able to prove God exists by redefining God as "a can of coffee grounds". FYI Tim Horton's makes good God, if you're ever in the area, we should grab a cup of God and talk philosophy.
Rybot9000 3 years ago 2
I know you don't care about these old videos, but your concluding question "Do we have free will or are we deterministic creatures?" was not a yes or no question.
I agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how he would explain the difference between our ability to control our actions and an ice undergoing familiar causal changes in a basic philosophy class. The way that you limited free will to language was misleading--we can, in fact, reason out plans without speaking, through visualization.
lordawesum 3 years ago
I beleive his yes to the chimera question was to a way os saying, we are both determined, and we are also free. In makes sense, in that every action is unique, though also conditioned by the context. The more important point is that everything is equally free/unfree - Humans and rocks have the same caacity for freewill.
Mattprole 3 years ago
Or, in his terms, "grammatical settings" make some people think that they are free, because they are not told what to do. I don't think we know enough about neurology to completely trace the connection between accepted causal models and a persons behavior, but I think it can be assumed that, because we are made of matter, that we should follow the same predictable laws.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the turgid response.
lordawesum 3 years ago
I am free to a degree. It rhythms, so it must be true.
n0fa1th 3 years ago
This makes so much more sense now that I'm in a philosophy of language class.
JSResponds 3 years ago
I will ask the loaded question:
If we can have some sort of understanding of will, why is it difficult for people to understand the complexities of faith for those who use it to explain beliefs?
*just a dialogue not a license to cut my throat for anyone!*
LilCav68 3 years ago
I have no idea. To me, faith is where humans take that leap from irrationality to rationality (see Freud), where the world and what our bodies sense of it turn into cognitive structures, systems of reasoning.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I have never heard it put that way and it makes sense. Freud. He is everywhere for me recently! We should always attempt to turn things around us into cognitive structures. Cognition is a terrible thing to waste. (in all seriousness even though I sound cheeky).
I sent you a PM also.
LilCav68 3 years ago
Thank you, I'll be emailing it shortly.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Oh, awesome. Much thanks.
LilCav68 3 years ago
Do you think that the internet is destroying langauge?
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
No not at all. It's changing language, and that's to be expected; it's a new landscape for interaction.
azrienoch 4 years ago
But i see all these new abbreviations and i think they distort langauge.
Its important not to let langauge disintegrate because its not us who speak langauge but langauge which speaks us.
So i guess its distorting us as well.
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
It can only be considered to be "distorting" language if you consider change a distortion. Basically, yes, it will change, but it isn't a bad thing. The word distortion has somewhat of a negative connotation.
mimib1230 4 years ago
But these abbreviations are like mass communication gone mad. They are like langauge products that dont enhance our freedom to communicate but reduce it!
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
A question related to smoking. Would you say to go cold turkey is related(->) to will power and deciding to stop equals(=) free will is true.
Bley121 4 years ago
When is the book coming out? I'm very sorry if you've answered this already and I'm sure you'll make a video when it does come out so no worries about answering again.
riverran67 4 years ago
Should be in a few weeks. I did make a video just yesterday saying a bit more about it. No harm in asking questions. :)
azrienoch 4 years ago
The seed bursts the flower blooms the flower fades. "Do what though wilt" Lol. Three will is the on going death and reincarnation of the self in all forms. Humans only differ in the freedom of expression within the process. i.e creating a self parody that is expressive of the self but in ways that improve the outcome for others. "Maybe"
falconelly 4 years ago
Also, you've identified a concept ("free will") with a grammatical setting now. If one can discuss these settings of yours in language, but they precede our speech, then one must introduce a new setting for each statement of the previous setting, ad infinitum. Unless I'm missing something; it's a bit cryptic.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
hello Az. i was reading Spinoza tonight (can't sleep) and came across a passage where he claimed that if a stone falling through space could think (let's instead say speak)it could Imagine that it had chosen its path. Omniscience (let's instead say an adequate description of causes) would destroy this illusion, but it would engender a Feeling of freedom, without the deception. I'm guessing that you intended something similar here, that to feel as if you are free is the important thing.
threeofwands 4 years ago
Fantastic video. "An isolation of movement from the rest of the universe." You define the undefinable, you are a truly gifted speaker, philosopher and writer. Unless you view the term "philosopher" as being trite or offensive in some fashion--(I don't). Subbed.
creepsomber 4 years ago
azrienoch,
i used to love existentialism but now i think it may lead people toward decadence, and push them towards indulging in their own alienation.
But i think heidegger was correct when he said that when mass marketing spreads around the world we cant be authentic individuals anymore only puppets controlled by corporate PR firms ,adverts and corporate controlled cybernetic networks.
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
My dick craves to invade your ass. Apease it! lol
HarmlessPerv2 4 years ago
azrienoch,
Regarding free will, Do you think that people on youtube in social networks are fully in control of these networks, is it possible that a 3rd party could be channelling subscribers to you?
Do the people using these networks have the control or does some other power?
If this is true then this other power will be able to control the meaning of the whole group but not the particular meaning of each video.
you have become a central node! how can the users find out if they are controlled?
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
In order: No. Yes. Both. Sure, but it's the case even if the previous wasn't true. I'm no node, I'm too unpopular. They should assume they are and realize they can't do anything about it, thus relieving us of any anxiety.
azrienoch 4 years ago
relieving us of any anxiety lol
thanx for responding i thought i was becoming paranoid.
I think that people shouldnt spend to much time in these sziod social networks and get involved in protests to prevent governments from taking away our liberties.
but if people dont wake up and reflect on these networks their in an escape they probably wont try to stop their governments taking away democracy.
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
And to think that I nearly entertained the idea that, due to the fact that you made your comment, and your video, so complete and succinct that it precluded the possibility of me adding anything of import to the discussion! So, here is my comment: Goddamnit, never mind...Every thing is relative, nothing is true or untrue, and I can't really say a damn thing without being justly accused of stating the obvious. Sorry to clutter your channel, carry on, and ignore the friendly lunatic Creepsomber.
creepsomber 4 years ago
LOL, I like you!
azrienoch 4 years ago
Brilliant response!
Randy is totally glossing over the world "Will" here! Which is ironic, since he claims to be talking about a specific type of Will, namely the free kind.
otonanoC 4 years ago
i r best
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
Amusing, we reach about the same conclution! only id go even further and say that there is no such thing as "will" outside the tiny universe of human language. All choices are direct (and indirect) reactions to you minds database(experiance and/or reptilian complex)
along with any genetic psycological "presets".
Anyway! great vid! Truly one of few interesting discussions here
haerverk 4 years ago
That was an enjoyable spin on the old debate I recall from my college days. I always sided with the determinist camp and still do. The ability to make plans far into the future doesn't sway me in the least. I know that was a feature of someone else's argument for free will and not your own. It seems to me that you side-step the argument entirely and assert that the debate is more of an artifact of our language than a real issue. If that's what you're saying, then I'd tend to agree.
blackturtleus 4 years ago
bt: Very lucid comment on your part. Plans made for the future can be wrecked or actualized by circumstances (such as the weather or natural disasters) that are far from "free". Also my agreement regarding language artifacts (of which we will, perhaps paradoxically, become ourselves).
threeofwands 4 years ago
Thanks!
azrienoch 4 years ago
Are you implying that unless we can articulate our purposiveness, intentionality or reasonableness, etc., then it wouldn't be implicated with freedom? There are many experiences in which our actions, beliefs and emotions don't entirely make sense to us, that they are inherently non-rational or irrational in nature. But we might still attribute these unintelligible aspects of our experience, language and thought, with freedom, that we engage in them freely, and are conversely, held responsible.
TRAGlCHERO 4 years ago
No, that's not what I'm implying. Not what I'm saying either.
azrienoch 4 years ago
Think I get it now. You're basically saying that we bootstrap ourselves into freedom through concepts and linguistic devices, that form an attitude or disposition from which our will may operate. No problems with that, I think Dennett has a similar idea, which focuses more on rationality mind you.
TRAGlCHERO 4 years ago
I'm intrigued by your concept of "no reason". Dadaist art has made me think away from determinism and led me to deistic free will (from which my faith grew into post-theism) but now I see the dichotomy of free will versus determinism isn't the full picture.
mistawulf 4 years ago
I was impressed when you pointed out to me that ascribing an "intentional" behavior such as a peacock attracting mates by use of its large tail as being fallacious since it was a genetic trait beyond the bird's control. Until I find a suitable grammatical setting that would make sense to me, I'll ascribe to free will. Why? Maybe to reject determinism.
mistawulf 4 years ago
But is my mode of reduction a cheap version of faith? Is it shallow? Do I need faith and faith alone? I believe and acknowledge it as a concession to my weakness. Concession by whom? Who cares.
mistawulf 4 years ago
You began well with the distorting play of hunman language on the interaction of forces, but foundered when you treated humans as a special case. What is special about humans is their (to uses Marx's term, there are others)duplicating quality. But just because humans "duplicate" nature, they are not thereby freed from it.
threeofwands 4 years ago
Of course humans aren't a special case. I'm not describing what humans are in comparison to animals, but how humans view themselves in comparison to animals as is evidenced by the grammatical trends of their language. This is not to say that it's right or wrong of us, but that we do it.
azrienoch 4 years ago
No, you've got it wrong here azrienoch. Free will in the philosophical setting is an attribution of action to a conative exercise of the 'mind'. Incompatibilist free will implies that every "willed" physical action is the result of a prior mental operation, a corresponding "volition".
qqqooppp 4 years ago
I mean, we already knew that people implicate intent when speaking about free will. And surely we could distinguish between free will and the "grammatical setting" of familiar concepts of will, which is that of some particular tenacity or drive to see a task to its completion.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
Grammatical settings don't have us talking about the implication, but about something else with the implication. Only philosophers dissect the implication and treat it as its own thing, necessarily bastardizing the implication.
azrienoch 4 years ago
But what else could you be talking about than implications? It's not clear. You haven't really shed any light on either "grammatical settings" or the doctrine of freedom of the will or volitions, originally a theistic concept. THAT doctrine and philosophical grammar has its own mystifying thrust separate of expressions of intent, as the depth and breadth of terms available in the English language to describe intents and purposes precedes and surpasses it. Wittgenstein would have none of it.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
I was clear that grammatical settings have our grammar forming in certain ways, suggesting or implying an attitude. I was clear that the grammatical setting of free will gives rise to a certain grammar suggesting free will, and I was clear that the free will debate spawns from recognizing this suggestion. I don't know what to apologize for. But Witters is on my side.
azrienoch 4 years ago
And I'm telling you, that's not where the debate over "free will" came from. It spawned largely from Christian theology in order to reconcile the freedom of the human spirit with God's divine command. Medieval theologians afaik generally agreed that humans possess the capacity to choose, to act independently. but whether and to what degree both "will" was chosen and choices were free was up for debate (ie, "free will" was not strictly identified with purposeful action,
qqqooppp 4 years ago
and some argued that only good actions were willed actions). As I suggested in my first comment, "will" concerns whatever mental or spiritual force generates some action. It was not associated with the intellect or what is meant by "will" in English language usage (a tenacity or "drive" to get something done, not some separate part of you).
qqqooppp 4 years ago
So the history of this idea is more suspect than you let off, and even more innocent-sounding contemporary versions of free will--that mystical immaterial entity--rely on a priori principles of the type that Wittgenstein took apart. It makes no sense either to say that we "have" free will, or that it's what we suggest or have in mind when we conjugate sentences (lol, seriously)
qqqooppp 4 years ago
The freedom of the human spirit? So you're self-defining free will? It comes from itself? If that's not what you're saying, then I'd suggest you look at this one more time as the source of the whole thing, what initially spawns the curiosity for the notion.
azrienoch 4 years ago
This isn't an a priori explanation. The notion is learned from our grammar. It was already there, but not intentionally. We make it significant. I'm a little tired of repeating this to you.
azrienoch 4 years ago
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I mean to put across, identify a word ("will") with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time
qqqooppp 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would point to grace or goodness as the original source of curiosity over "free will". But it's possible that people find different notions and aspects of grammar or the human experience curious, and form different notions of will. You can't, and this is what I meant to put across, identify a word with a set setting. Attitudes shift with trends and times, and words change meaning over time, and even hold conflicting meaning at the same time.
qqqooppp 4 years ago
I personally think, free will doesn't exist as we think of it. If a system that actually is deterministic but has tiny random events in it has free will, we do also. But that's not quite the definition people think of at first. The physics just doesn't really give us any other option - the only thing that makes us unpredictable is randomness of quantum mechanics in our brains and in our environment.
However: allthough i'm quite certain with the above, I live my life as if i had a free will.
DerCrossi 4 years ago
Whens your book coming out ?
kingbarneyoflondon 4 years ago
Aiming for mid-February. Slightly behind at the moment.
azrienoch 4 years ago
are you denying that one can make subconscious plans, for ex. while sleeping???
EverettsVLOG 4 years ago
yup, since sleeping means being unconscious. It's easy to verify that it's impossible to plan anything while being unconscious. Can be tested. Breath fast 50 times, then hold the breath. During the next 20 seconds, plan what to do when becoming conscious again. Post a video and let's see view the result.
Turpsup 4 years ago
Free will -> absence of cause?
Turpsup 4 years ago
If we found out that a particle lacked a cause, would we say that it had free will, that it acted?
camthalionnolatari 4 years ago
No, and taken for granted the axiom that consciousness is a particle system. Person A walks on red light. Person B walks on red light and get's killed by a car. Person A get's the death penalty for murdering person B. Willdeterminism, an easy way to blame it on someone who is innocent.
Turpsup 4 years ago
This is an idea I just didn't have the time to elaborate on, and while it may be coincidental, I think it's interesting nonetheless. Consider that there's not necessarily a cause in the grammar of our descriptions of either humans or particles. The randomness of particles is often brought up in discussions of free will, but the randomness is rather irrelevant; however, do we do this in order to draw a simile that non-causal action is possible?
azrienoch 4 years ago
If we found out that a particle lacked a cause, would we say that it had free will, that it acted?
camthalionnolatari 4 years ago
I'd say that cause is not necessary. That is to say, in describing the rock's movements, the burden of providing reasons is on you, not the rock. On the other hand, in describing my movements, the burden of providing reasons is on me. I can speak, the rock cannot, and these are part of the assumptions we use in the grammatical settings of free will and will, respectively.
azrienoch 4 years ago
Hi Az, you write: "in describing the rock...the burden of providing reasons is on you...[but]....in describing my movements, the burden of providing reasons is on me." Isn't the burden always on me? I mean, you can give me some clues which the rock can't, but if I'm interpreting you, I still have to do the heavy lifting, no?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
If you take on responsibility for describing me, which is your perrogative, you will describe me as you describe the rock in a causal manner (or speculation). That I can give you a different sort of reason for my actions than the rock (or deer, to add something animate to the list) is an attitude recognized in the grammatical setting, with grammatical consequences. Make sense?
azrienoch 4 years ago
aaaack!!! animals don't have free will?!?!
the use of will metaphorically to all objects is well explained by the philosophy of cognition.
I cannot fathom how you will say animals do not have will power... ("free will" being nonsense only insofar as it invoked unrestrained, absolute freedom, an incoherent concept whatever it's attributed to).
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I think you've misread me in what free will as a grammatical setting would be.
azrienoch 4 years ago
Freedom and will are not absolutes. They vary in development and degree. A will is free to the extent that it can internally map its environment and extend itself. Thus, a human is more free than a dog which is more free than a rat which is more free than a paramecium etc..
atypicalguy 4 years ago
For you we are free from the perspective of our grammatical rules but not from outside them. The reverse of what Kant claimed.
So it seemed to me that by permitting of this outside of language you were submitting to a kind of linguistic idealism.
Something I think Wittgenstein anyway would have no sympathy with, as he would not out thought there was any sense to the extralingual or the outside of language.
camthalionnolatari 4 years ago
I permitted it only for a moment to show incoherence, and then criticized the attempt. Simple misunderstanding. ;)
azrienoch 4 years ago
Well you say 'if we try to speak 'extralingualy', do we have free-will?' and your answer is 'no'. You say these are descriptions and we shouldn't think of the world as submitting to our descriptions. It just seems to me that you have drawn upon a Wittgensteinian idea of grammar to come up with an inverted form of Kant's idealism. For Kant we are free considered from the noumenal realm, determined from the phenomenal.
camthalionnolatari 4 years ago
It was ok until the linguistic idealism at the end.
camthalionnolatari 4 years ago
I don't know what you mean.
azrienoch 4 years ago
I think that human beings and their behaviour is partly deterministic and also partly to do with free will, and this is because i do not think that we can avoid the laws of reality which make us behave in certain ways due to certain causes as stimuli, for instance, we always do the things that are pleasurable to us that we enjoy, and we also do the things that have meaning to us, but we do not choose all of these things that we like because it is nature that chooses some of them for us.
pythagoras9 4 years ago
I am sorry, but I must disagree. Your line of reasoning is egocentric. Humans are animals, planning long term or otherwise is not unique to us. Bears hibernate, squirrels gather and store nuts etc. Subjective and internal reasoning is by nature focused on ego. We are slaves to evolution.
n0fa1th 4 years ago
The explanation is egocentric because we are egocentric... I think you've missed the point if you think I'm trying to say something beyond our descriptive language. I even said in the video that if I try to speak beyond language the answer to both "Do we have free will?" and "Are we deterministic?" is no.
azrienoch 4 years ago
And I'm not sure that gathering nuts is so much an example of long-term planning as it is instinctive preparation, which falls under non-choice, according to Randy.
azrienoch 4 years ago
better.
jasonhoblin 4 years ago
Intriguing....
mconn2112 4 years ago
and I dig your concept of grammatical settings
mconn2112 4 years ago
It's good to feel dumb every now and then...
OneAndOnlySnob 4 years ago
"Do humans have FW or are they deterministic creatures? Yes"
Wait! you did not answer you own question! I'm sure that was intentionnal!
If I follow you we have FW, but only as a grammatical way to represent actions while "objectively" we do not. is that it?
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
When Wittgenstein was told he had about 3 days to live, he said, "Good!". Thats the place this stuff takes you.
pipslingerz 4 years ago 2
I applaud this!
Censeo 4 years ago
It is hard to do otherwise!
davius4321 4 years ago
Answering "Yes" in the end is just about what I've been trying to say except for I used "Both". Of course we could always just say "It really just depends" but that's almost as bad as saying "then a miracle happened" in between a mathematical proof.
thinkeatingmachine 4 years ago
"Will is intrinsically a grammatical setting," says Azrienoch. The premise of materialist epistemology suggests that the Will is capable of freedom. Thus, many discourses concerning grammatical settings exist.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago 3
Something like that.
azrienoch 4 years ago