Fyi I view pantheism and deism as respectable philosophies, however I look down upon ignorant, illogical, and contradictory religions such as christianity
Well I like the term free thinker because I think about things which are contrary to mainstream society, therefore I am "free" from any religious, prejudice, etc chains to wonder, think, and analyze. I used to be christian, but after reanalyzing my religion as well as studying many other religions and physics, I became a pantheist, and then became an atheist (though I like to experiment with spiritual/pantheistic things)
I'm not gonna attack you arguments even though I think they are false, because I think you've made a more basic mistake. Free thinkers don't base their beliefs on authority, tradition, or any dogma.
You yourself are a free thinker (from what I can see in this video).
Not all free thinkers have the same system of beliefs, and not all of them are athests, materialists, or determinists. This video is only for people who are all three of those things, and even they might not be free thinkers.
Not all free thinkers are atheists you know.Most of them are people who think freely on their opinions or what they do in life beside religion.I'm christian,a young one too,yet I think Christians,and any religion,need to stop being so damn religious all the time.
@MisterBusta you seem to be entirely ignoring the point that compatibilists make concerning choice. I'd agree with you when you break it all down there is no choice, but it's useful to talk about it in terms of the unpredictability and conscious awareness of the material action that you want to make vs. an involuntary movement of your body.
Nonetheless, how is free will even possible? How can something self determine itself? Either something is uncaused, ie random, or caused by another.
I am a STRICT deterministic. I acknowledge that all notions of apparent "free choice\will" are illusions. However, I must act on the illusion as if it were my own... So definitely not free...
I have always considered the label "free thinker" as simply being free of religion (to the degree that such a thing is possible for any given individual), but we are never really free in a cause and effect world...
You also say we don't have the choice to "accept" logic, reason, or science when in fact Theists do this all the time. Christians always tell me that "God always was and will be." This implys that everything we know and see around us in all of reality was made by God.. If this were true, it would have been impossible for us to reach this point in time now if there was an enternity (infinte amount of time) before reality's creation.
We as humans are self-aware. We think, we are not computers that believe or act anything we are told. That's why I do prefer to be a free thinker. I can freely choose which thoughts to enact, which means I don't enact upon the first thought presented to my mind. Took for example Christianity, I was raised a Christian, but my mind has the ability to freely choice what it believes; rejecting it's original ideaology.
Freedom as a concept will always be relative. I would be ok if the self labelled 'free thinkers', were to call themselves 'relatively free thinkers'.
I don't really like the deterministic argument because it runs into problems of chicken vs egg. Only thought and consciousness 'reveals' such determinism or can subscribe to it, the truth is, as pure phenomena, our thoughts do not occur to us in such a harsh deterministic way, they are only so via our thought about our thoughts.
A more imminent critique would be the humanist/rationalist/scientific self description of a free thinker, who chain themselves to certain absolutist moralities, epistemologies and ideologies.
For them the are certain unbreakable kernels like morals, logic, and truth; when in fact there are no objective morals, truths, or logics, simply our certainty in them.
The idea that "choice is meaningless" seems logical in a way but good Decision making is vital both in a Darwinian sense and in day to day life. Computers do not make unprogrammed decisions and therefore would not last long in the wild, no mater how logical it may seem. However it is true that in the grand scheme the decisions we make are meaning less. The universe dose not know or care about me, but I'm fine with that. Perhaps that's why I feel so liberated.
possibly a little off topic but do u believe that time and space are truly infinite? perhaps a scientist would say "yes, obviously"... or maybe its only a theoretical value 2 help make our maths work. how convenient would it be for some1 claiming that the universe supports the non existance of god 2 find that infinity was just an idea thats not 2 b taken literally? but surely that would mean that the law of large numbers was hogwash, right?
However, I don't believe that the phenomena of consciousness necessitates a supernatural source or drive, nor that the idea of free thought has any relevance to whether we are all made of "billiard balls" or not. It seems that you imply that a supernatural intelligence or drive behind consciousness is necessary to "truly" be conscious, but I would be curious to know what you think the supernatural brings to the idea of consciousness, specifically, that isn't available otherwise.
This is a very interesting argument against causal materialism, but I would caution that the argument you cited from Cheeekamoomoo didn't address that idea. Freethinker, by definition, is not mutually exclusive to belief in supernatural ideas, just as atheism is not mutually exclusive to them either. I concede that I did not watch her video, so I am only drawing on the context of your quote.
My beliefs are perhaps more appropriate to your argument, being inherently "materialistic".
It also implies that non-atheists are somehow not "free" in their thought (I am assuming here - correctly from what I have seen - that the free-thinker club is "atheists/agnostics only"). As if they live some blind, enslaved existence, intellectually. Which is far from the general case. Anyway, MisterBusta is bang on when he says that everyone is bound by *some* ideology. Maybe it includes religious aspects, maybe not. But everyone is bound by something, intrinsically and perahps extrinsically.
I've always found the self-ascribed "free thinker" label incredibly arrogant and, well, ignorant. Ignorant to the intelligence and reasoning capabilities of people who happen to believe in something higher than ourselves. It mentally elevates them above religious people which they look down upon, regardless of whether they are actually more intelligent and/or reasoned.
Amazing apes: self-awareness (1/2) is the name of the video that shows that there most likely is a continuum of self-awareness or consciousness in nature rather than humans miraculously being granted the gift of consciousness.
Look man, I think you're brilliant, but I must contest the "consciousness pops into existence" remark around 5:30. Consciousness did not just spring into existence in Homo sapiens. Rather, it's much more likely that there is a continuum from simple to complex forms of consciousness within the natural world. There is some empirical evidence for this. There's a dot test that has demonstrated that other primates are self aware. I'll try to post the link for those videos.
i dont believe in anything supernatural but i do believe there is a difference between intelligent, choice making "billiard balls" (for example, pple) and ones that are lifeless matter and have no control over their trajectory, such as rocks. Like I said, I dont believe in anything supernatural. so does that make me a materialist?
Even though I don´t know if I belong to that atheist-deterministic group of atheist that calls itself "free thinkers", I think I have a quite good answer.
I like to compare the concept of "choice" with the concept of "chance".
If I toss a dice, I don´t know what the outcome will be. However, if I knew all the physical data (speed, angle, surface of the table etc.) I could predict the outcome.
@dumbzebra Same stands for choice, you (and often also I) don´t know what I´m going to do. But if you could read my thoughts and meassure the electrons, you could predict it.
So the concept of choice and freedom is ultimately an illusion, but to you I´m free.
(I´m not taking quantum mechanics into account, but that wouldn´t change the basics of the concept., only that you wouldn´t be able to precicely predict the outcome)
Perhaps you would like to talk to a true logical Free Thinker? Trust that it would be an interesting conversation (902 800 0369). After all I am the fella who sued Cardinal Benard Francis Law in MA in 2002 (Norfold Superior Court Docket # 02 01070) about money and the freedom not to have any religion at all.
As a free thinker I can choose how to think and what to do with those thoughts without fear of going to hell or whatever I believe fear holds mankind back from progressing as a spieces
We are calling ourselves freethinkers, because we think free, without influence of society, parents, mass media , religion, etc. we use our own brain, logic, rationalism. We decide if smt is true based on facts, not pure beliefs.
Regarding your statement at 5:30- if you're a pantheist, you also think a consciousnes just springs into being. You just don't have any evidence that your prefered consciousnes actually exists.
Freethinking is not the same as Atheism. Freethinkers are people who take advantage of their mind and how they can believe things that are actually real and not made-up. Unless they decide to be sheepish and believe what they are told to believe.
Philosophically, .......eh, whatever floats your boat. Presuming that the scientific method leads to philosophical materialism means you have commited the deductive fallacy. Your free to believe what you want. I have nothing against you though. Lets be friends!
"Truly, it is cowardly to so quickly dismiss the possibility of the deterministic model simply because you have a human level of self-awareness." duodream, the same goes to any alternative views. "fallacious"?
What is this relative too? Give a statisic for this rather than your subjective opinion based on personal observation. Its a little pretentious to be such an absolutist with your assumptions of what reality is. Scientifically, an agnostic approach to this is far less arrogant.
The term "free thought" goes back to (at least) the Enlightenment. I assume it was intended to suggest someone whose thinking was free from the demands of religious dogma. I don't like the term; I think it's pretentious. ("brights" is just awful!)
Now, let's see... you'd like to hear a resolution to the problems arising from determinism and freewill, consciousness, intelligence, mental causation, the mind-body problem, zombies, and epiphenomenalism. That's asking a lot of a vid/comments reply
Re: "Given that that's the case (determinism), the concept of choice is meaningless"
No. Here's a meaningless concept: round-square. Here's another: tifgiqahlzdkj. Choice is conceptually meaningful, EVEN IF it doesn't hold in reality. Is the concept of "unicorn" meaningless?
More seriously, I'm sure you're aware of the position called compatibilism, and that determinists usually argue it. It's much too long a story to defend here, but an outline of it looks something like:
Compatibilism argues that freewill and determinism are compatible on the right conceptual view. It might go "Free means without restriction/constraint. So as long as the will is free, one has freewill. For there to even be a will, it must have some inner causal mechanisms, but whatever they might be, and regardless if they operate deterministically or not, the freewill question hinges on if the will is constrained in the world, not its inner mechanisms. It's not, thus we have freewill."
Finally, freewill is problematic on ANY metaphysics, not just determinism. You seem to think a causally determined will can't be free. Consider: Is an a-causal will free? Is a randomly caused will free - or even still a will? Are your thoughts or will your doing? Do you ever know what you're going to think until you think it? Don't thought and decision just... arrive? Would you WANT your thoughts/choices removed from the causal web of reality and influence of your individual biography?
Free Thinker: Means being able to make decisions of right and wrong on my own, also being able to think freely beyond the bounds of religious dogma and creeds... "Someone who does not fear punishment or hope for reward after death."
I am an Atheist. I do not believe in eternal afterlife, so I am eternally grateful for this life. you only live once, and thats it... so make the most of it.
Neo Atheism is about expressing an intellectual vanity that one hasn't earned so that they make flex an underdeveloped mind and stunted ego over people with other vocabularies.
I'm hard atheist.I don't know if anyone is "free".Most people get their ideas from someone else.I'm definitely not materialist.I'm vegetarian and environmentalist so I'm like a religous person without the god bit.
I don't agree with your "spectator" description of the deterministic perspective. Using the word spectator is an attempt to pull your 'self' outside of the physical reality of your body, when your self is a part and result of your physical body and you aren't *watching* it you're *being* it. The idea of being a spectator is analogous to having a separate non-physical soul. A cute idea by some who are afraid of death, but not reality. The analogy of a computer to a brain is fallacious at best...
...in that a computer and a brain are machines that process different types of data in different ways for different goals and the architecture and execution and complexity are vastly different. Truly, it is cowardly to so quickly dismiss the possibility of the deterministic model simply because you have a human level of self-awareness. As Descartes said, "I think therefore I am". He did not say "I think, therefore I am special and not subject to the reality that spawned me."
As free thinkers we keep an open mind to all that we can find fact in and evidence But this means if we do find solid evidence of a god we would be able to believe.also you make some quite sweeping statments which in some instances you seem to misunderstand some of the points you are trying to get across
it can be programmed to learn and adapt alright but a computer does not consciously experience occurrences. so in that way the mind is nothing like a computer. this is a crucial difference.
no i mean the the mind is self-aware. computers are not aware of the tasks they perform. the laptop i'm using now has no concept of the task it is performing right now.
also i don't think it would be true to say the brain processes information faster than a computer not to mention far faster. computers process information many times faster than a human brain.
oh, gotcha. well, if the mind is self-aware, it'd be obvious to ask "why?". supposedly, the answer is electrochemical reactions between neurons. hence, the mind is aware of certain tasks it performs. well, can't a computer be programmed to do the same? of course, the processes would be very complex, but it could be very possible.
it would be obvious to ask why if you assume there is a why. personally i don't think there is a why. for me, the more interesting question is how. and no one really knows how we have become self-aware. it is something we just don't understand right now. you are asking can a computer be programmed to become self-aware. well in order for that to happen we would have to know by what mechanism it is that we are self-aware. (when i say mechanism i am not speaking of a physical origin).
just to extend my point; you could say there may be more paths to self-awareness than the human consciousness and therefore you could create a self-aware machine capable of experiencing events by other means. but as our consciousness is the only consciousness we know of i think that the 'how' of this subject will remain intangible for a while yet. perhaps a paradigm shift (scientific revolution vid) in this area will provide the key.
what are these more paths? self-awareness is generated by the brain. the brain is the "how" and "why" humans have self-awareness. without the brain self-awareness would not exist. self-awareness is present for physical reasons. knowing this, specific reactions take place in the brain to make this concept of self-awareness possible.
of course the 'how' is the brain. but how does the brain do it. you can talk about chemical reactions for sure, but we still don't have much of a clue of how we are self-aware. if we did we could re-create this phenomenon. you say specific reactions. but no one knows what these specific reactions are or even if these reactions are the sole contributers to consciousness. i would imagine there is a key unknown (for now) that will solve this mystery. it's not as black and white as you suggest.
they are the sole contributors of consciousness. that's why people who are alive, but not self-aware have damaged brain tissue and some or all of the reactions pertaining to self-awareness cannot take place.
what is this key you speak of? there is no special force that co-contributes to consciousness. consciousness is a product of the physical world.
as i said this key is unknown. there may be something (maybe more than one thing) that can explain to us how it is that we are conscious. or even more important, what is this thing we call consciousness and how do we quantify it.
people who are alive but are not self-aware might just be asleep either.
if consciousness is derived exclusively from the complexity of chemical and physical reactions, then in a materialist-determinist world view we have no freedom of thought.
This video is a bad attempt to apply an inappropriate frame to an argument...
As stated by Mr. Busta at the beginning of his video; his argument can only be applied to a "free thinker" that is bound to the philosophy of materialism. If the "free thinker" was bound by the philosophy of materialism then the individual would not be a "free thinker".
In the video Mr. Busta is attempting to group all free thinkers into a group that can not possibly be free thinkers.
what other free-thinkers are there? I was under the impression that free-thinkers were dedicated to a scientific-worldview, which generally implicates (in a broad sense) materialism.
If a person is bound to any given position, how could that person be a "free thinker"? A free thinker must be able to freely consider the unknown or unanswered, therefore can not be bound to one philosophy.
Here we're using different definitions of free-will. I can't argue definitions; they're all circular, but the point of the video (I think) is that the conception that free-thinkers are materialists is inconsistent with free-thinking. To that extent I agree, and I think as long as one holds to that definition, that is the case, and that is the definition used by most people who identify themselves as free-thinkers are.
As I said in my first post...it is inappropriate to frame "free thinkers" as materialists. I agree with you however; people that adhere to materialism (or any other philosophy) are not free thinkers due to their adhesion to one philosophy.
I have recently added an annotation clarifying that I am only addressing materialist-determinist. Since Free Thinker is too broad a term, I hope it helps make it clear who I'm aiming my points at. Thanks for pointing that out =)
I agree that "free thinking" and determinism are mutually exclusive. Assuming that free thinking means the ability to think freely of social pressures etc. It's incomprehensible to me that these same atheists believe that morality is subjective, and that morality is basically the greatest good for the greatest number.
Well, what if all the religious zealots got together and passed a law saying that atheists have no right to work in the U.S.? they certainly outnumber us non-believers
Sorry, Busta, but when you spend the first 23 seconds of your video constructing a Straw Man, there's little point in watching the remaining 8:08. Kthx.
I think your logic is fundamentally flawed. I think it's a great argument made against 'choice' and for 'destiny', but just because that is the foundation of 'some' belief, that doesn't speak for the rest of us. I think the Matrix movies brought up the issue of choice very well. If you are predestined, then why choose? Is there any such thing as choice really?
At quantum levels there is randomness; the billiard balls that you talk about. It's not really billiard balls, it's more like possibilities of billiard balls. Quantum wave functions determine whether any one thing is actually 'real' or not. There is so much randomness that predictability and determinism becomes impossible even in theory.
So while in a sense you are sort of correct, if you are going to use our own philosophies against us, please consider the science. I think you have a very well thought out argument, but I think you are wrong.
use of billard balls, is a gross over-generalization of the synaptic process of the neural networks.
more of a cascade of grains of sand, down a sea-saw, as they slide to one side, theirs a field of balance scales (2 or more plates even per scale), with them landing on these balances, that fill up till one side tips over, letting the grains continue down to the next scale, on their trip down the slide. Which drop down to reverse flow through almost the same configuration they went through
Sorry for the last chopped up comment (hate 500 char space!).
Let me just say that maybe "Free Thinker" does not apply for determinists, but may still fly for other "free thinkers."
My atoms don't have free will, they don't have purposeful locomotion, or affect, or need for food... but we do! So matter does gain functions when it conglomerates into sentient beings. Maybe atoms are inert, but not us. This is a very basic argument, but its a starter for free will.
Thanks for your comments.I am a Pantheist in the same sene Spinoza was. The universe, and it's Nature, is all that exists. I do think it's important to point out that I don't think our current paradigm of Nature is 100% correct. Considering the fact that paradigm-shifts are a normal, progressive part of Science, it's pretty arrogant for us to think that somehow we finally "got it right", and that now all we have left to do is just more precise measurements. [continued]
Lord Kelvin said: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." ... and he said that in 1900!! This is what many people think regarding our Sciences today--that we finally understand "the way stuff works", and only have more measuring left. This is arrogant and short-sighted. Our paradigm today is closer to the truth, but it WILL change. And in my humble opinion, the nature of conscious awareness is evidence for this.
I just wanted to point out one thing though. Are you aware that many would consider Pantheists as "free thinkers"? OK, lets forget the many and focus on whats important: "I" would consider a Pantheists as a free thinker (lol).
Its interesting to see that you didn't describe 'Your' point of view above. Do you think all is causal? (Determistic) Or that there is such a thing as free will?
Well MistaBusta, I just gained some respect for you. Being a Pantheist, in the definitions I know, is pretty much a Deist that does not believe in personal Gods that totes the bible.
Are you a Pantheist in the way Spinoza was? Spinoza said that the material world was the only issue to pursue.
Let me say: not all atheists are Determinists. Some believe that cause and effect stop at "choice".
This also is not resolved for Pantheists. Why would spirit/supernatural = no determinism?
I am a sort-of Matierilistic(even though I believe that everything is possible; even something like a planet that has no gravitational pull is possible as you cannot prove them nor can you disprove them, that proves religion is useless) because all our 'choices' are made because we have a personality trait , eg. competitive and intelligent so when caught up in an argument I will find clever come backs and be desperate to win so technically I have no choice in actions and there IS a destiny!
Freethinker term came up during the time when the Church gave us no choice on what to think. Anyone who went against the dogma was a heretic. There are dogmatic "freethinkers" as well. Until abiogenesis is fully proven(in the next 10 years), I feel that all freethinkers should be agnostic deists but even then they should remain agnostic because in the end they really don't know, they are just going with the best info so far. Faith doesn't let you have any freedom to find truth in nature.
3:30 making it sound negative.People keep looking for ways to expand in this area, its what brought ya the PC your using in a skewed analogy.
4:00 few key things the pc lacks from us, an theres plenty of discussion if we should ever create those keys for the PC to execute.
its difficult to bring up a pc, that will do all and more things your mentioning. when its beyond alarmist, reaching hysteric paranoia, those hindering bio sciences. Whats further unlike us, seems to make it easier to kill
yah, I need alot more study over these philosophical quests. For the reasoning on these subjects, seems easy to me, till i realize I'm not even on the same page, let alone the same book as the class.
was taking the point of view, that the subject in question was the current evolutionary state of the human mind&body.
With no reactionary perception to events, via nervous system, your looking at slime mold. e.g. moves with the tail being unaware of the head.
"smoke free, meat free, drug free... Funny how free always means you can't do something" -Frank Miller
The day I read those words I decided to avoid using the word free without qualifiers... After all free serves as a synonym for without. It just works as a good buzz word in rhetoric. As a trivialist I consider my thinking less restricted than most (no I don't (shut up me) ok) but an abscense of restictions leads to an abscence of meaning. IM(far from humble)O
However to defend the materialist, mathematician Kurt Gödel provided in his incompleteness theorms proof that enough complextiy can destroy the possibility of making certain types of meaningful statement about a system.
1. Enough complexity can make the possibility for us to predict outcomes impossible... but that in no way implies freedom or choice. If so, then the universe must have inherently made a "choice" in the evolution of humans--the system is infinitely complex, and the chances for us to evolve was almost 0. Materialist argue "Since we are here (and SOMETHING had to evolve) the chances are actually 100%)."
"Enough complexity can make the possibility for us to predict outcomes impossible" I didn't actually mean predictability I meant that you can make a (mathematicaly) meaningful statement for which the terms true and false cannot acurately describe it. To most materialists mathematics best describes reality hence you can question the relevance of the claim that the rules to which dictate thought have only deterministic properties.
2. As for qualia, it's referring to an ineffable, wholly intrinsic phenomena, and as such it's extremely difficult to define. People have been arguing over a specific definition for a long time.
I am not an absolute materialist, nor do I use the term "free-thinker", but I do call myself a secular humanist, so that is the perspective I am replying to.
As others have said, it is specifically used to differentiate people from dogmatic thinkers. From a purely materialist point of view I suppose it could be justified from the point of view of "My programming has exceeded your programming in this fashion." Free here would be a relative term, not an absolute one.
For anyone who is not an absolute materialist-determinist, using the term "Free Thinker" is fully appropriate (they may not actually be thinking for themselves, but at least such a world-view carries the capacity for free-thinking/choice! hehe).
I think the mistake goes back to *your* definition of a freethinker - one who describes themselves as such always being (or nearly always) a *Strong Atheist*.
Most freethinkers I've met here on YT and elsewhere don't describe themselves that way. Most call themselves atheists but are really Huxleyan agnostics (as opposed to the common misunderstanding of what an agnostic really is).
2nd - I consider anyone who is of non-dogmatic religion a freethinker. Including deists and pantheists. You!
Admittedly, the term is very misleading. And I am quite surprised and pleased to find that someone comprehends the same idea that freedom doesn't essentially exist, in its purest form anyway...
I once said we are a product of our character and environment. Henceforth, nothing can be a choice because it's predetermined by how situations will impact us.
"I once said we are a product of our character and environment. Henceforth, nothing can be a choice because it's predetermined by how situations will impact us."
we are a composite of our genetics and experiences, therefore the decisions that are dictated by our genetics and experiences, isn't that us dictating them?
also that view's a fairly common one among atheists I've found ^w^
You seem to be defining "freedom in its purest form" as being some sort of Superman, who doesn't even need to breath!
What are you thoughts regarding the ability to think freely, in any capacity? Genes and external influence will always play a role, but if it is 100%, then you are nothing but an automaton. This also makes phenomena of experience superfluous and meaningless.
I suppose that may be a fault of mine, that any cognitive aspect in it's purest form is entirely unattainable.
I don't think it would necessarily make experience meaningless if that, coupled with character, alone defined our actions and reactions. I instead regard it as a grand representation of cognitive evolution.
Consciousness and phenomenal experience (or just summed up as: the "awareness of being aware") are immaterial things. If it had any influence on our actions (even in the slightest bit) than this defies materialism. In fact, the very existence physical phenomena giving rise to immaterial entity is defying materialism in the first place.
And regarding your 'weird' comment... let's just say you're in good company =P
You know, I was contemplating similar notions while writing the video. No one is entirely free. There are certain things that we cannot be independent of, such as, oxygen. Even if one was willing, it would be impossible to be without it.
Along the same lines, there is no pure freedom of consciousness.
I use the term "free thinker" as a reference to the philosophy in the developed in the 1600s which was a counter to religious impositions.
There are degrees of freedom. Would you claim a prisoner is as free as you, simply because you both require oxygen?
But something like "Free Thinker", or someone "thinking for themselves" implies an individual who makes judgments and choices relatively independent of external influence (basing it more on one's own capacity to think freely, being -less- dependent on external influence). In the materialist-determinist view, thinking freely is a fallacy altogether.
i think it might be necessary to define "individual" here. an individual is defined by their experiences and genetics, correct?
if so, then why aren't the decisions we make our own, when the argument against that is, "they're not our own, since the way we'll behave in that situation is determined by our experiences and genetics up to that point"
also, the use of the word "free-thinker" is justified purely in the context it's used
it was originally created in direct opposition to the theistic perspective, it was never meant to apply outside of that. we're free of religious shackles
after all, the term 'atheist' is not descriptive of a person in anyway, except to describe their position on religion. a - not or without. theist - belief in a god.
I did not imply such a thing, and of course, all freedom cannot be based on one singularity such as oxygen. I was using it as a metaphor for something humankind needs as opposed to something someone may think they can live without, but simply cannot.
I moreso think the term "free thinker" is demonstration a freedom -from- a certain mentality. I should have conveyed it more appropriately in my video.
What happened to the "absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"? What you've been saying in comments is the complete polar opposite of that.
MisterBusta is probably being a little overly pedantic. Determinism just means everything is caused. This includes unconscious stuff, as in the formation of a galaxy, as well as conscious stuff, such as the formation of decisions. So it is not true that determinism makes choice impossible. Causation makes choice possible.
Like Amy says, no one is free of causation. What she means by free-thinking is not this. Rather, individuality, originality and imagination.
in other words! when you talk about us not being sentient from a evolutionary perspective you aren't really looking at it from a evolutionary perspective, you're basically saying, "i understand sentience to be something given by god, so sentience given by evolution can't be the same sentience" you're looking at a evolutionary perspective through a religious perspective, if that makes any sense xD
"why is it impossible for a natural process to create self aware creatures?"
Consciousness is 100% natural. We grew out of the universe (evolution), and as such, we are all part of the universe. As such, we are the universe perceiving itself. So our Awareness is a symptom of the natural state of the universe (which would mean the natural state is NOT materialism).
"(which would mean the natural state is NOT materialism)."
really? how so? and what's the "natural state"? who's qualifying it? i really like the idea that "we are the potential the universe has evolved to perceive itself" i use that all the time :3
are you saying that "awareness" is not materialistic? as in it's somehow beyond traceable origins or something?
that isn't true, neurology and all that. we can see emotions and personalities, even alter them. all we are is dependent on our neurology and experiences and genetics. awareness is simply the product of chemical reactions n.n
the problem is you really are looking at this from your perspective of a belief in a god x:
the people who qualify the aspects needed for sentience are us... the word sentience was created specifically to describe our state of being :o
it's like saying, the color red isn't really the color red, because it only looks like that way because of how our eyes are! it doesn't really mean anything
the word 'red" was created in order to describe our perception of that spectrum of reflected light
The color red is a real phenomena, and such a concept validates my point.
There's no reason to postulate that a computer with a camera is the subject to experience of the phenomena we call "red". It just records different wave-lengths of light, and responds based on programming. But the actually internal conscious experience of 'redness' is something only self-aware beings have. In a materialist-determinist world, we would respond to red, but not experience the phenomena of 'redness'.
also, you wanna be careful about applying your own personal definition to sentience and freewill X:
the perspective you're approaching it from it pretty bias, i'm not saying mine isn't, but these aren't things that seem to objectively exist in the universe as an absolute truth, they're pretty ambiguous really
for example, who's to say a computer given the ability to think and feel isn't also sentient? who placed the qualifying aspect for sentience anyway? you? o.o
Your point regarding sentience is a good one. How do I know my computer isn't self-aware? Well, the ONLY thing I know to be self-aware is myself. For all I know, everyone else are "philosophical zombies". So I have to base my guesses based on behavior--people (and lots of animals) behave as though they are conscious, so I make a guess that they are. My computer doesn't, so I guess that it isn't. Ultimately, though, I don't know for sure.
i think there is such a thing. i'm an atheist. who's to say, even if it's an illusion, and all our decisions are decided by genetics and our experiences and instincts, that a sufficiently good illusion of freewill can qualify as freewill
after the word 'freewill' was created to apply to our particular brand of it :3
it's weird how people think that for it to be truely freewill it has to be somehow completely indipendant of experience and genetics.. experience and genetics are who we are
basically we're not shackled by things like doctorine, fear or "faith". after faith is deliberately pushing those things that cast 'doubt' over your beliefs away, in order to maintain them
with atheist/agnostics we don't have this problem, we're free to explore any avenue of thought without fear of enternal punishment, or being swayed by 'satan' away from 'the true word of god" or something of the sort :o
LOL.... its not correct to couple atheists with agnostics as if they were similar. The philosophies are two different things and agnostics don't claim absolutism as does atheists. Mista Busta was addressing atheist so-called "free thinkers" who run into to problem of being "free" if their very thought and action is uncomfortably accidental and subject to random electrical patterns in the cellular tissue between their ears. It is a quagmire.
they are similar... atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you'll hear many people say that line x:
there's unicorns living inside jupiter! what's the probability that statements true? is it 50/50? of course not, the probability is incredibly low, therefore it does not warrant belief, in this aspect i don't believe there are unicorns in the center of jupiter, i'm a a-unicornist. HOWEVER! i am not saying i know for certain there are none, this makes me a agnostic-unicornist
so basically, i've only ever met one atheist who claimed to "know" god didn't exist. that's called strong atheism. the vast majority don't believe there's a god, but don't claim absolute knowledge
even richard dawkings described himself as a 6.9/7 on his "scale of atheism" 7 being claiming absolute knowledge
anything's possibly, but most things aren't even remotely likely :P
well... that is very new age of you. Now there are degrees of atheism? I disagree. There are degrees of being agnostic for sure. Even the youtube atheist messiah.. thunderfoot.. has abandoned atheism because he has finally acknowledged that he simply can not know for sure, so he created is own silly term.. which essentially means he is agnostic.
there's always been degrees of atheism... wikipedia it or something, they've been around for a long time now x:
atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, the definition has been altered over time
and that's not why thunderfoot abandoned it, he abandoned it because people who think its absolute disbelief. the word has been changed and altered too much, there's waaaay too much baggage, ask him if you want to :o
and he's not an atheist messiah, i don't even like him all that much tbh x.x
been there done that ... atheists do not believe in God. Some one who is not sure or skeptical is agnostic. A person who believes in God is a Theist.
You cant really randomly redefine the terms if you don't have free will, even if you want agnostics to rally under the banner of atheism. But then again, we must have accidently and randomly created the terms in the first place.
I am glad TF is not your messiah... its refreshing to know youre not his minion. (btw... wiki sucks).
oh wait! i remember why he abandoned it, sorry i was wrong. he abandoned it because he dind't like being described by what he wasnt
his new term, which i think was bright or somethign weird meant the things that he accepted, rather than those he doesn't. "reasoned logic and - something something" PEARL that's it
LOL..., that is right... he is a "pearlist". It was his way of re-categorizing himself like Prince did when he changed his identity to some weird and meaningless symbol... forcing all to call him the "artist" or whatever.
but you agree that the meaning of words are often altered when taken into the public square right?
and with religious people, it was a deliberate atempt to try and label atheists as the opisite extreme and "just as bad" as them, trying to make atheism a faith position when it isnt x:
i mean, i bet you're a atheist in regard to faeries or pink unicorns and all that. although at the same time, i'm sure you wouldn't claim you knew 100% they didn't ever exist at any point anywhere in the universe
I believe people try to change the meaning of words... yes. Case in Point... Bill Clinton, "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is". That is why we have dictionaries. I gave you two definitions of two very well recognize sources of definitions. Wiki is an accumullation of those in the "public square" redefining terms.
i've read a number of different dictionaries when i was debating against creationists, i found several different definitions of the word "theory" and atheist, agnostic, etc
there isn't any kind of international standard that all dictionaries must abide by, if there was we'd only have on brand of dictionary really x:
but an atheist doesn't require at all that you KNOW a god doesn't exist, it just requires that you lack a belief in a god... budhists are technically atheists :o
freethinker- allowing others to believe what they choose and not be caught up in their drama whether its religious,political,societal,etc
4my2pitbullsluv 2 months ago
you can not put free thinks into a box! unless the word thinker is indeed a box!
purelove700 3 months ago
This sounds so dull, so boring, that it is better ignored,let us leave Mr boring to himself!
MegaGayjesus 4 months ago
@MegaGayjesus
Spoken like a massive imbecile.
It's a fair question.
ChristophDollis 4 months ago in playlist More videos from MisterBusta
I'm free from the religious mind set of religion. Brainwashing religion controls your thoughts. Not teaching people how to think for themselves.
octoron85 6 months ago
Fyi I view pantheism and deism as respectable philosophies, however I look down upon ignorant, illogical, and contradictory religions such as christianity
BlackMetalerWolf 6 months ago
Well I like the term free thinker because I think about things which are contrary to mainstream society, therefore I am "free" from any religious, prejudice, etc chains to wonder, think, and analyze. I used to be christian, but after reanalyzing my religion as well as studying many other religions and physics, I became a pantheist, and then became an atheist (though I like to experiment with spiritual/pantheistic things)
BlackMetalerWolf 6 months ago
I'm not gonna attack you arguments even though I think they are false, because I think you've made a more basic mistake. Free thinkers don't base their beliefs on authority, tradition, or any dogma.
You yourself are a free thinker (from what I can see in this video).
Not all free thinkers have the same system of beliefs, and not all of them are athests, materialists, or determinists. This video is only for people who are all three of those things, and even they might not be free thinkers.
frizbigmaz 6 months ago
I'm a Christian, but I respect you very much MisterBusta.
zelda0521 6 months ago
Not all free thinkers are atheists you know.Most of them are people who think freely on their opinions or what they do in life beside religion.I'm christian,a young one too,yet I think Christians,and any religion,need to stop being so damn religious all the time.
CandySib 7 months ago
@MisterBusta you seem to be entirely ignoring the point that compatibilists make concerning choice. I'd agree with you when you break it all down there is no choice, but it's useful to talk about it in terms of the unpredictability and conscious awareness of the material action that you want to make vs. an involuntary movement of your body.
Nonetheless, how is free will even possible? How can something self determine itself? Either something is uncaused, ie random, or caused by another.
RuinSonic 7 months ago
Just asking, are free thinkers and atheist different?
driftsilvia16 8 months ago
Free of BS.
geehuckwow 9 months ago
"free thinkers accept logic reason and science"
free thinkers think they accept logic and reason and they accept science that suits them
its retarded to call yourself anything since what you are is not what you say you are but what you do
just as any fundamentalist is blind to reason he thinks he is reasonable so can any "free thinker" be very irrational and ilogical
niinja2 9 months ago
How is consciousness against materialism?
I am a STRICT deterministic. I acknowledge that all notions of apparent "free choice\will" are illusions. However, I must act on the illusion as if it were my own... So definitely not free...
I have always considered the label "free thinker" as simply being free of religion (to the degree that such a thing is possible for any given individual), but we are never really free in a cause and effect world...
MyContext 9 months ago
Comment removed
MyContext 9 months ago
I hate people who call themselves free thinkers.
leecfb000 9 months ago
If you're a pantheist, you actually fit my working definition of a free thinker.
havvyweponsman 10 months ago
To FREE THINKER - "Show me a THOUGHT that didn't come from a Mind"
Try not to FREE THINK to FREELY, your brains might fall out.
TheAmazingCreative 11 months ago
You also say we don't have the choice to "accept" logic, reason, or science when in fact Theists do this all the time. Christians always tell me that "God always was and will be." This implys that everything we know and see around us in all of reality was made by God.. If this were true, it would have been impossible for us to reach this point in time now if there was an enternity (infinte amount of time) before reality's creation.
RedSoxKiller247 1 year ago
However, Humans aren't the only animals the are self-aware. Bottlenose dolphins are known to be as well.
RedSoxKiller247 1 year ago
We as humans are self-aware. We think, we are not computers that believe or act anything we are told. That's why I do prefer to be a free thinker. I can freely choose which thoughts to enact, which means I don't enact upon the first thought presented to my mind. Took for example Christianity, I was raised a Christian, but my mind has the ability to freely choice what it believes; rejecting it's original ideaology.
RedSoxKiller247 1 year ago
Freedom as a concept will always be relative. I would be ok if the self labelled 'free thinkers', were to call themselves 'relatively free thinkers'.
I don't really like the deterministic argument because it runs into problems of chicken vs egg. Only thought and consciousness 'reveals' such determinism or can subscribe to it, the truth is, as pure phenomena, our thoughts do not occur to us in such a harsh deterministic way, they are only so via our thought about our thoughts.
Grayto 1 year ago
@Grayto
A more imminent critique would be the humanist/rationalist/scientific self description of a free thinker, who chain themselves to certain absolutist moralities, epistemologies and ideologies.
For them the are certain unbreakable kernels like morals, logic, and truth; when in fact there are no objective morals, truths, or logics, simply our certainty in them.
Grayto 1 year ago
The idea that "choice is meaningless" seems logical in a way but good Decision making is vital both in a Darwinian sense and in day to day life. Computers do not make unprogrammed decisions and therefore would not last long in the wild, no mater how logical it may seem. However it is true that in the grand scheme the decisions we make are meaning less. The universe dose not know or care about me, but I'm fine with that. Perhaps that's why I feel so liberated.
600theescoreand6 1 year ago
space and time are limited ..... that being said dimensions may be unlimited possibly? look up simplex so like 1 to the power of n .... maybe
feriousity 1 year ago
possibly a little off topic but do u believe that time and space are truly infinite? perhaps a scientist would say "yes, obviously"... or maybe its only a theoretical value 2 help make our maths work. how convenient would it be for some1 claiming that the universe supports the non existance of god 2 find that infinity was just an idea thats not 2 b taken literally? but surely that would mean that the law of large numbers was hogwash, right?
teague67 1 year ago
(2/2)
However, I don't believe that the phenomena of consciousness necessitates a supernatural source or drive, nor that the idea of free thought has any relevance to whether we are all made of "billiard balls" or not. It seems that you imply that a supernatural intelligence or drive behind consciousness is necessary to "truly" be conscious, but I would be curious to know what you think the supernatural brings to the idea of consciousness, specifically, that isn't available otherwise.
~Alex
GuitarNoob101 1 year ago
(1/2)
This is a very interesting argument against causal materialism, but I would caution that the argument you cited from Cheeekamoomoo didn't address that idea. Freethinker, by definition, is not mutually exclusive to belief in supernatural ideas, just as atheism is not mutually exclusive to them either. I concede that I did not watch her video, so I am only drawing on the context of your quote.
My beliefs are perhaps more appropriate to your argument, being inherently "materialistic".
GuitarNoob101 1 year ago
It also implies that non-atheists are somehow not "free" in their thought (I am assuming here - correctly from what I have seen - that the free-thinker club is "atheists/agnostics only"). As if they live some blind, enslaved existence, intellectually. Which is far from the general case. Anyway, MisterBusta is bang on when he says that everyone is bound by *some* ideology. Maybe it includes religious aspects, maybe not. But everyone is bound by something, intrinsically and perahps extrinsically.
goodtrygg 1 year ago
I've always found the self-ascribed "free thinker" label incredibly arrogant and, well, ignorant. Ignorant to the intelligence and reasoning capabilities of people who happen to believe in something higher than ourselves. It mentally elevates them above religious people which they look down upon, regardless of whether they are actually more intelligent and/or reasoned.
goodtrygg 1 year ago
Amazing apes: self-awareness (1/2) is the name of the video that shows that there most likely is a continuum of self-awareness or consciousness in nature rather than humans miraculously being granted the gift of consciousness.
aplee2006 1 year ago
Look man, I think you're brilliant, but I must contest the "consciousness pops into existence" remark around 5:30. Consciousness did not just spring into existence in Homo sapiens. Rather, it's much more likely that there is a continuum from simple to complex forms of consciousness within the natural world. There is some empirical evidence for this. There's a dot test that has demonstrated that other primates are self aware. I'll try to post the link for those videos.
aplee2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i dont believe in anything supernatural but i do believe there is a difference between intelligent, choice making "billiard balls" (for example, pple) and ones that are lifeless matter and have no control over their trajectory, such as rocks. Like I said, I dont believe in anything supernatural. so does that make me a materialist?
handom85 1 year ago
Comment removed
handom85 1 year ago
Even though I don´t know if I belong to that atheist-deterministic group of atheist that calls itself "free thinkers", I think I have a quite good answer.
I like to compare the concept of "choice" with the concept of "chance".
If I toss a dice, I don´t know what the outcome will be. However, if I knew all the physical data (speed, angle, surface of the table etc.) I could predict the outcome.
dumbzebra 1 year ago
@dumbzebra Same stands for choice, you (and often also I) don´t know what I´m going to do. But if you could read my thoughts and meassure the electrons, you could predict it.
So the concept of choice and freedom is ultimately an illusion, but to you I´m free.
(I´m not taking quantum mechanics into account, but that wouldn´t change the basics of the concept., only that you wouldn´t be able to precicely predict the outcome)
dumbzebra 1 year ago
Perhaps you would like to talk to a true logical Free Thinker? Trust that it would be an interesting conversation (902 800 0369). After all I am the fella who sued Cardinal Benard Francis Law in MA in 2002 (Norfold Superior Court Docket # 02 01070) about money and the freedom not to have any religion at all.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
Atheism is not a system of believes!
Andermander 1 year ago
As a free thinker I can choose how to think and what to do with those thoughts without fear of going to hell or whatever I believe fear holds mankind back from progressing as a spieces
hellsxrebellion 1 year ago
Pantheism, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that a belief stating "God" is nature and that nature is "God"?
HybridD91 1 year ago
Yeah, my favorite is FIGHT CLUB too! :)
Kicsur 1 year ago
We are calling ourselves freethinkers, because we think free, without influence of society, parents, mass media , religion, etc. we use our own brain, logic, rationalism. We decide if smt is true based on facts, not pure beliefs.
artiomartas 2 years ago
as a freethinker, i appreciate your vid.
bdbthinker 2 years ago
Regarding your statement at 5:30- if you're a pantheist, you also think a consciousnes just springs into being. You just don't have any evidence that your prefered consciousnes actually exists.
blurglide 2 years ago
Freethinking is not the same as Atheism. Freethinkers are people who take advantage of their mind and how they can believe things that are actually real and not made-up. Unless they decide to be sheepish and believe what they are told to believe.
DewbieHaut 2 years ago
Philosophically, .......eh, whatever floats your boat. Presuming that the scientific method leads to philosophical materialism means you have commited the deductive fallacy. Your free to believe what you want. I have nothing against you though. Lets be friends!
hippo11222 2 years ago
"Truly, it is cowardly to so quickly dismiss the possibility of the deterministic model simply because you have a human level of self-awareness." duodream, the same goes to any alternative views. "fallacious"?
What is this relative too? Give a statisic for this rather than your subjective opinion based on personal observation. Its a little pretentious to be such an absolutist with your assumptions of what reality is. Scientifically, an agnostic approach to this is far less arrogant.
hippo11222 2 years ago
Computers don't "behave" fool. They're also not "intelligent". They are programmed.
You're comparing apples to horseshoe crabs.
As soon as you brought that point up, you failed.
And you've missed the boat. Too bad, because you seem educated by the BIG words you try to use. But you use said education corruptly.
So sad...
WitchOvAgnesi 2 years ago
The term "free thought" goes back to (at least) the Enlightenment. I assume it was intended to suggest someone whose thinking was free from the demands of religious dogma. I don't like the term; I think it's pretentious. ("brights" is just awful!)
Now, let's see... you'd like to hear a resolution to the problems arising from determinism and freewill, consciousness, intelligence, mental causation, the mind-body problem, zombies, and epiphenomenalism. That's asking a lot of a vid/comments reply
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Re: "Given that that's the case (determinism), the concept of choice is meaningless"
No. Here's a meaningless concept: round-square. Here's another: tifgiqahlzdkj. Choice is conceptually meaningful, EVEN IF it doesn't hold in reality. Is the concept of "unicorn" meaningless?
More seriously, I'm sure you're aware of the position called compatibilism, and that determinists usually argue it. It's much too long a story to defend here, but an outline of it looks something like:
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Compatibilism argues that freewill and determinism are compatible on the right conceptual view. It might go "Free means without restriction/constraint. So as long as the will is free, one has freewill. For there to even be a will, it must have some inner causal mechanisms, but whatever they might be, and regardless if they operate deterministically or not, the freewill question hinges on if the will is constrained in the world, not its inner mechanisms. It's not, thus we have freewill."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Finally, freewill is problematic on ANY metaphysics, not just determinism. You seem to think a causally determined will can't be free. Consider: Is an a-causal will free? Is a randomly caused will free - or even still a will? Are your thoughts or will your doing? Do you ever know what you're going to think until you think it? Don't thought and decision just... arrive? Would you WANT your thoughts/choices removed from the causal web of reality and influence of your individual biography?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Free Thinker: Means being able to make decisions of right and wrong on my own, also being able to think freely beyond the bounds of religious dogma and creeds... "Someone who does not fear punishment or hope for reward after death."
I am an Atheist. I do not believe in eternal afterlife, so I am eternally grateful for this life. you only live once, and thats it... so make the most of it.
SPNKRocket 2 years ago
Free thinking applies to me setting my own norms of how to go along with others
Morgena1 2 years ago
Neo Atheism is about expressing an intellectual vanity that one hasn't earned so that they make flex an underdeveloped mind and stunted ego over people with other vocabularies.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
I'm hard atheist.I don't know if anyone is "free".Most people get their ideas from someone else.I'm definitely not materialist.I'm vegetarian and environmentalist so I'm like a religous person without the god bit.
DustinDosh 2 years ago
I don't agree with your "spectator" description of the deterministic perspective. Using the word spectator is an attempt to pull your 'self' outside of the physical reality of your body, when your self is a part and result of your physical body and you aren't *watching* it you're *being* it. The idea of being a spectator is analogous to having a separate non-physical soul. A cute idea by some who are afraid of death, but not reality. The analogy of a computer to a brain is fallacious at best...
duodream 2 years ago
...in that a computer and a brain are machines that process different types of data in different ways for different goals and the architecture and execution and complexity are vastly different. Truly, it is cowardly to so quickly dismiss the possibility of the deterministic model simply because you have a human level of self-awareness. As Descartes said, "I think therefore I am". He did not say "I think, therefore I am special and not subject to the reality that spawned me."
duodream 2 years ago
As free thinkers we keep an open mind to all that we can find fact in and evidence But this means if we do find solid evidence of a god we would be able to believe.also you make some quite sweeping statments which in some instances you seem to misunderstand some of the points you are trying to get across
sk8bamsk8 2 years ago
what are these sweeping statements sk8bamsk8?
kingdave84 2 years ago
can't a programmed entity be programmed to learn and adapt?
the mind is similar to a computer. a computer can be programmed to learn and adapt to different occurrences (of course in an electronic manner).
redjello720 2 years ago
it can be programmed to learn and adapt alright but a computer does not consciously experience occurrences. so in that way the mind is nothing like a computer. this is a crucial difference.
kingdave84 2 years ago
consciously experience? what do you mean by that?
does that mean that the mind just takes in and processes information far faster?
redjello720 2 years ago
no i mean the the mind is self-aware. computers are not aware of the tasks they perform. the laptop i'm using now has no concept of the task it is performing right now.
also i don't think it would be true to say the brain processes information faster than a computer not to mention far faster. computers process information many times faster than a human brain.
kingdave84 2 years ago
oh, gotcha. well, if the mind is self-aware, it'd be obvious to ask "why?". supposedly, the answer is electrochemical reactions between neurons. hence, the mind is aware of certain tasks it performs. well, can't a computer be programmed to do the same? of course, the processes would be very complex, but it could be very possible.
redjello720 2 years ago
it would be obvious to ask why if you assume there is a why. personally i don't think there is a why. for me, the more interesting question is how. and no one really knows how we have become self-aware. it is something we just don't understand right now. you are asking can a computer be programmed to become self-aware. well in order for that to happen we would have to know by what mechanism it is that we are self-aware. (when i say mechanism i am not speaking of a physical origin).
kingdave84 2 years ago
just to extend my point; you could say there may be more paths to self-awareness than the human consciousness and therefore you could create a self-aware machine capable of experiencing events by other means. but as our consciousness is the only consciousness we know of i think that the 'how' of this subject will remain intangible for a while yet. perhaps a paradigm shift (scientific revolution vid) in this area will provide the key.
kingdave84 2 years ago
what are these more paths? self-awareness is generated by the brain. the brain is the "how" and "why" humans have self-awareness. without the brain self-awareness would not exist. self-awareness is present for physical reasons. knowing this, specific reactions take place in the brain to make this concept of self-awareness possible.
redjello720 2 years ago
i was speaking hypothetically. there may be more ways to achieve self-awareness than by the way our brains achieve it, that's all
kingdave84 2 years ago
of course the 'how' is the brain. but how does the brain do it. you can talk about chemical reactions for sure, but we still don't have much of a clue of how we are self-aware. if we did we could re-create this phenomenon. you say specific reactions. but no one knows what these specific reactions are or even if these reactions are the sole contributers to consciousness. i would imagine there is a key unknown (for now) that will solve this mystery. it's not as black and white as you suggest.
kingdave84 2 years ago
they are the sole contributors of consciousness. that's why people who are alive, but not self-aware have damaged brain tissue and some or all of the reactions pertaining to self-awareness cannot take place.
what is this key you speak of? there is no special force that co-contributes to consciousness. consciousness is a product of the physical world.
redjello720 2 years ago
as i said this key is unknown. there may be something (maybe more than one thing) that can explain to us how it is that we are conscious. or even more important, what is this thing we call consciousness and how do we quantify it.
people who are alive but are not self-aware might just be asleep either.
if consciousness is derived exclusively from the complexity of chemical and physical reactions, then in a materialist-determinist world view we have no freedom of thought.
kingdave84 2 years ago
my opinion is superior. discuss
KidnapDeath 2 years ago
This video is a bad attempt to apply an inappropriate frame to an argument...
As stated by Mr. Busta at the beginning of his video; his argument can only be applied to a "free thinker" that is bound to the philosophy of materialism. If the "free thinker" was bound by the philosophy of materialism then the individual would not be a "free thinker".
In the video Mr. Busta is attempting to group all free thinkers into a group that can not possibly be free thinkers.
greenlabel60 2 years ago
what other free-thinkers are there? I was under the impression that free-thinkers were dedicated to a scientific-worldview, which generally implicates (in a broad sense) materialism.
legodesi 2 years ago
If a person is bound to any given position, how could that person be a "free thinker"? A free thinker must be able to freely consider the unknown or unanswered, therefore can not be bound to one philosophy.
greenlabel60 2 years ago
Here we're using different definitions of free-will. I can't argue definitions; they're all circular, but the point of the video (I think) is that the conception that free-thinkers are materialists is inconsistent with free-thinking. To that extent I agree, and I think as long as one holds to that definition, that is the case, and that is the definition used by most people who identify themselves as free-thinkers are.
legodesi 2 years ago
In that respect..I would also agree.
As I said in my first post...it is inappropriate to frame "free thinkers" as materialists. I agree with you however; people that adhere to materialism (or any other philosophy) are not free thinkers due to their adhesion to one philosophy.
greenlabel60 2 years ago
I have recently added an annotation clarifying that I am only addressing materialist-determinist. Since Free Thinker is too broad a term, I hope it helps make it clear who I'm aiming my points at. Thanks for pointing that out =)
MisterBusta 2 years ago
materialist-determinist? is that not anti imperialist?That makes you a socialist..how dare you think freely... You are unamerican!
herpessores 2 years ago
I agree that "free thinking" and determinism are mutually exclusive. Assuming that free thinking means the ability to think freely of social pressures etc. It's incomprehensible to me that these same atheists believe that morality is subjective, and that morality is basically the greatest good for the greatest number.
Well, what if all the religious zealots got together and passed a law saying that atheists have no right to work in the U.S.? they certainly outnumber us non-believers
Sam26100 2 years ago
Sorry, Busta, but when you spend the first 23 seconds of your video constructing a Straw Man, there's little point in watching the remaining 8:08. Kthx.
TripMasterMonkey 2 years ago
I think your logic is fundamentally flawed. I think it's a great argument made against 'choice' and for 'destiny', but just because that is the foundation of 'some' belief, that doesn't speak for the rest of us. I think the Matrix movies brought up the issue of choice very well. If you are predestined, then why choose? Is there any such thing as choice really?
brianhonaker 2 years ago
At quantum levels there is randomness; the billiard balls that you talk about. It's not really billiard balls, it's more like possibilities of billiard balls. Quantum wave functions determine whether any one thing is actually 'real' or not. There is so much randomness that predictability and determinism becomes impossible even in theory.
brianhonaker 2 years ago
So while in a sense you are sort of correct, if you are going to use our own philosophies against us, please consider the science. I think you have a very well thought out argument, but I think you are wrong.
brianhonaker 2 years ago
Why is that the ending you picked for this video....why.....
Eskimolz 2 years ago
How are ya, Mister Busta? Why'd you grow that beard? It makes you look old my man. LOL j/k pretty good vid man.
gworksnell 2 years ago
use of billard balls, is a gross over-generalization of the synaptic process of the neural networks.
more of a cascade of grains of sand, down a sea-saw, as they slide to one side, theirs a field of balance scales (2 or more plates even per scale), with them landing on these balances, that fill up till one side tips over, letting the grains continue down to the next scale, on their trip down the slide. Which drop down to reverse flow through almost the same configuration they went through
horny4bears 2 years ago
MisterBusta, you are my favorite YouTube source for intellectual arguments! Outstanding
NoBSTV 2 years ago
Thanks!!! =)
MisterBusta 2 years ago
Sorry for the last chopped up comment (hate 500 char space!).
Let me just say that maybe "Free Thinker" does not apply for determinists, but may still fly for other "free thinkers."
My atoms don't have free will, they don't have purposeful locomotion, or affect, or need for food... but we do! So matter does gain functions when it conglomerates into sentient beings. Maybe atoms are inert, but not us. This is a very basic argument, but its a starter for free will.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
[Pt 1]
Thanks for your comments.I am a Pantheist in the same sene Spinoza was. The universe, and it's Nature, is all that exists. I do think it's important to point out that I don't think our current paradigm of Nature is 100% correct. Considering the fact that paradigm-shifts are a normal, progressive part of Science, it's pretty arrogant for us to think that somehow we finally "got it right", and that now all we have left to do is just more precise measurements. [continued]
MisterBusta 2 years ago
[Pt 2]
Lord Kelvin said: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." ... and he said that in 1900!! This is what many people think regarding our Sciences today--that we finally understand "the way stuff works", and only have more measuring left. This is arrogant and short-sighted. Our paradigm today is closer to the truth, but it WILL change. And in my humble opinion, the nature of conscious awareness is evidence for this.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
Nice.
I just wanted to point out one thing though. Are you aware that many would consider Pantheists as "free thinkers"? OK, lets forget the many and focus on whats important: "I" would consider a Pantheists as a free thinker (lol).
Its interesting to see that you didn't describe 'Your' point of view above. Do you think all is causal? (Determistic) Or that there is such a thing as free will?
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
MisterBusta, what do you think the truth is?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Well MistaBusta, I just gained some respect for you. Being a Pantheist, in the definitions I know, is pretty much a Deist that does not believe in personal Gods that totes the bible.
Are you a Pantheist in the way Spinoza was? Spinoza said that the material world was the only issue to pursue.
Let me say: not all atheists are Determinists. Some believe that cause and effect stop at "choice".
This also is not resolved for Pantheists. Why would spirit/supernatural = no determinism?
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
I am a sort-of Matierilistic(even though I believe that everything is possible; even something like a planet that has no gravitational pull is possible as you cannot prove them nor can you disprove them, that proves religion is useless) because all our 'choices' are made because we have a personality trait , eg. competitive and intelligent so when caught up in an argument I will find clever come backs and be desperate to win so technically I have no choice in actions and there IS a destiny!
chickenruler 2 years ago
Yes we are living CPUs, so what?
PapaDeltaRomeo 2 years ago
Freethinker term came up during the time when the Church gave us no choice on what to think. Anyone who went against the dogma was a heretic. There are dogmatic "freethinkers" as well. Until abiogenesis is fully proven(in the next 10 years), I feel that all freethinkers should be agnostic deists but even then they should remain agnostic because in the end they really don't know, they are just going with the best info so far. Faith doesn't let you have any freedom to find truth in nature.
anubis2814 2 years ago
3:30 making it sound negative.People keep looking for ways to expand in this area, its what brought ya the PC your using in a skewed analogy.
4:00 few key things the pc lacks from us, an theres plenty of discussion if we should ever create those keys for the PC to execute.
its difficult to bring up a pc, that will do all and more things your mentioning. when its beyond alarmist, reaching hysteric paranoia, those hindering bio sciences. Whats further unlike us, seems to make it easier to kill
horny4bears 2 years ago
"In fact, the very existence physical phenomena giving rise to immaterial entity is defying materialism in the first place."
Not when needing a solution to tie with events.
" 'awareness of being aware' are immaterial things."
How so, when reaction to pain is to minimize damage?
wait am i doing your homework, for you?
horny4bears 2 years ago
Do you really think phenomenal consciousness (qualia such as "pain", for example) is a requirement to react to a stimuli?
I suggest *you* do your homework before answering that.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
hmm was the goal post moved on me? 8P
yah, I need alot more study over these philosophical quests. For the reasoning on these subjects, seems easy to me, till i realize I'm not even on the same page, let alone the same book as the class.
was taking the point of view, that the subject in question was the current evolutionary state of the human mind&body.
With no reactionary perception to events, via nervous system, your looking at slime mold. e.g. moves with the tail being unaware of the head.
horny4bears 2 years ago
"smoke free, meat free, drug free... Funny how free always means you can't do something" -Frank Miller
The day I read those words I decided to avoid using the word free without qualifiers... After all free serves as a synonym for without. It just works as a good buzz word in rhetoric. As a trivialist I consider my thinking less restricted than most (no I don't (shut up me) ok) but an abscense of restictions leads to an abscence of meaning. IM(far from humble)O
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
However to defend the materialist, mathematician Kurt Gödel provided in his incompleteness theorms proof that enough complextiy can destroy the possibility of making certain types of meaningful statement about a system.
Do you consider qualia a noun?
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Thanks again, always love your comments =)
1. Enough complexity can make the possibility for us to predict outcomes impossible... but that in no way implies freedom or choice. If so, then the universe must have inherently made a "choice" in the evolution of humans--the system is infinitely complex, and the chances for us to evolve was almost 0. Materialist argue "Since we are here (and SOMETHING had to evolve) the chances are actually 100%)."
Some principle for choice/action/thinking/etc.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
"Enough complexity can make the possibility for us to predict outcomes impossible" I didn't actually mean predictability I meant that you can make a (mathematicaly) meaningful statement for which the terms true and false cannot acurately describe it. To most materialists mathematics best describes reality hence you can question the relevance of the claim that the rules to which dictate thought have only deterministic properties.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
2. As for qualia, it's referring to an ineffable, wholly intrinsic phenomena, and as such it's extremely difficult to define. People have been arguing over a specific definition for a long time.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
I am not an absolute materialist, nor do I use the term "free-thinker", but I do call myself a secular humanist, so that is the perspective I am replying to.
As others have said, it is specifically used to differentiate people from dogmatic thinkers. From a purely materialist point of view I suppose it could be justified from the point of view of "My programming has exceeded your programming in this fashion." Free here would be a relative term, not an absolute one.
conradleviston 2 years ago
For anyone who is not an absolute materialist-determinist, using the term "Free Thinker" is fully appropriate (they may not actually be thinking for themselves, but at least such a world-view carries the capacity for free-thinking/choice! hehe).
MisterBusta 2 years ago
I think the mistake goes back to *your* definition of a freethinker - one who describes themselves as such always being (or nearly always) a *Strong Atheist*.
Most freethinkers I've met here on YT and elsewhere don't describe themselves that way. Most call themselves atheists but are really Huxleyan agnostics (as opposed to the common misunderstanding of what an agnostic really is).
2nd - I consider anyone who is of non-dogmatic religion a freethinker. Including deists and pantheists. You!
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks for your comments. =)
MisterBusta 2 years ago
stfu. 1 star. and look at the camera more when you talk.
makilgore06 2 years ago
You sure sound open minded
lmagolda6001 2 years ago
Admittedly, the term is very misleading. And I am quite surprised and pleased to find that someone comprehends the same idea that freedom doesn't essentially exist, in its purest form anyway...
I once said we are a product of our character and environment. Henceforth, nothing can be a choice because it's predetermined by how situations will impact us.
Am I up your alley at all??
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
"I once said we are a product of our character and environment. Henceforth, nothing can be a choice because it's predetermined by how situations will impact us."
we are a composite of our genetics and experiences, therefore the decisions that are dictated by our genetics and experiences, isn't that us dictating them?
also that view's a fairly common one among atheists I've found ^w^
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
Surprisingly, I haven't countered that among atheists prevalently.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
You seem to be defining "freedom in its purest form" as being some sort of Superman, who doesn't even need to breath!
What are you thoughts regarding the ability to think freely, in any capacity? Genes and external influence will always play a role, but if it is 100%, then you are nothing but an automaton. This also makes phenomena of experience superfluous and meaningless.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
I suppose that may be a fault of mine, that any cognitive aspect in it's purest form is entirely unattainable.
I don't think it would necessarily make experience meaningless if that, coupled with character, alone defined our actions and reactions. I instead regard it as a grand representation of cognitive evolution.
I'm a tad weird. I know.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
Consciousness and phenomenal experience (or just summed up as: the "awareness of being aware") are immaterial things. If it had any influence on our actions (even in the slightest bit) than this defies materialism. In fact, the very existence physical phenomena giving rise to immaterial entity is defying materialism in the first place.
And regarding your 'weird' comment... let's just say you're in good company =P
MisterBusta 2 years ago
Consciousness is material. How is it any different to anything else in the universe?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
You know, I was contemplating similar notions while writing the video. No one is entirely free. There are certain things that we cannot be independent of, such as, oxygen. Even if one was willing, it would be impossible to be without it.
Along the same lines, there is no pure freedom of consciousness.
I use the term "free thinker" as a reference to the philosophy in the developed in the 1600s which was a counter to religious impositions.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
yep! that's what i told him earlier too D:
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
There are degrees of freedom. Would you claim a prisoner is as free as you, simply because you both require oxygen?
But something like "Free Thinker", or someone "thinking for themselves" implies an individual who makes judgments and choices relatively independent of external influence (basing it more on one's own capacity to think freely, being -less- dependent on external influence). In the materialist-determinist view, thinking freely is a fallacy altogether.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
i think it might be necessary to define "individual" here. an individual is defined by their experiences and genetics, correct?
if so, then why aren't the decisions we make our own, when the argument against that is, "they're not our own, since the way we'll behave in that situation is determined by our experiences and genetics up to that point"
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
also, the use of the word "free-thinker" is justified purely in the context it's used
it was originally created in direct opposition to the theistic perspective, it was never meant to apply outside of that. we're free of religious shackles
after all, the term 'atheist' is not descriptive of a person in anyway, except to describe their position on religion. a - not or without. theist - belief in a god.
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
I did not imply such a thing, and of course, all freedom cannot be based on one singularity such as oxygen. I was using it as a metaphor for something humankind needs as opposed to something someone may think they can live without, but simply cannot.
I moreso think the term "free thinker" is demonstration a freedom -from- a certain mentality. I should have conveyed it more appropriately in my video.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
What happened to the "absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"? What you've been saying in comments is the complete polar opposite of that.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
I accept that is the meaning of freedom, and certain people can be more free than others, though no one can be truly free.
Perhaps it's along the lines of the concept of perfection, that certain traits can lead you toward perfection, but it is unattainable.
cheeekamoomoo 2 years ago
MisterBusta is probably being a little overly pedantic. Determinism just means everything is caused. This includes unconscious stuff, as in the formation of a galaxy, as well as conscious stuff, such as the formation of decisions. So it is not true that determinism makes choice impossible. Causation makes choice possible.
Like Amy says, no one is free of causation. What she means by free-thinking is not this. Rather, individuality, originality and imagination.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
in other words! when you talk about us not being sentient from a evolutionary perspective you aren't really looking at it from a evolutionary perspective, you're basically saying, "i understand sentience to be something given by god, so sentience given by evolution can't be the same sentience" you're looking at a evolutionary perspective through a religious perspective, if that makes any sense xD
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
I am not looking at self-aware consciousness from any particular perspective. My premise is simply "self-aware consciousness exists". That's all.
The premises of materialism make self-aware consciousness impossible. AT BEST, it makes it superfluous and purposeless.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
"The premises of materialism make self-aware consciousness impossible. AT BEST, it makes it superfluous and purposeless. "
no it doesn't... again, who's defining "self-aware" here, we do as human beings, we created the word to apply to us, therefore it does :O
why is it impossible for a natural process to create self aware creatures? also, why is it any more likely a god could create self-aware creatures?
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
"why is it impossible for a natural process to create self aware creatures?"
Consciousness is 100% natural. We grew out of the universe (evolution), and as such, we are all part of the universe. As such, we are the universe perceiving itself. So our Awareness is a symptom of the natural state of the universe (which would mean the natural state is NOT materialism).
MisterBusta 2 years ago
"(which would mean the natural state is NOT materialism)."
really? how so? and what's the "natural state"? who's qualifying it? i really like the idea that "we are the potential the universe has evolved to perceive itself" i use that all the time :3
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
are you saying that "awareness" is not materialistic? as in it's somehow beyond traceable origins or something?
that isn't true, neurology and all that. we can see emotions and personalities, even alter them. all we are is dependent on our neurology and experiences and genetics. awareness is simply the product of chemical reactions n.n
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
the problem is you really are looking at this from your perspective of a belief in a god x:
the people who qualify the aspects needed for sentience are us... the word sentience was created specifically to describe our state of being :o
it's like saying, the color red isn't really the color red, because it only looks like that way because of how our eyes are! it doesn't really mean anything
the word 'red" was created in order to describe our perception of that spectrum of reflected light
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
The color red is a real phenomena, and such a concept validates my point.
There's no reason to postulate that a computer with a camera is the subject to experience of the phenomena we call "red". It just records different wave-lengths of light, and responds based on programming. But the actually internal conscious experience of 'redness' is something only self-aware beings have. In a materialist-determinist world, we would respond to red, but not experience the phenomena of 'redness'.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
the color red does not objective exist, cats and dogs don't see it, just because we see it doesn't mean it exists, it's just our perspective on it
although i'm not really sure what you mean by "the phenomena of redness" x:
experience it? isn't seeing it a form of experience?
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
also, you wanna be careful about applying your own personal definition to sentience and freewill X:
the perspective you're approaching it from it pretty bias, i'm not saying mine isn't, but these aren't things that seem to objectively exist in the universe as an absolute truth, they're pretty ambiguous really
for example, who's to say a computer given the ability to think and feel isn't also sentient? who placed the qualifying aspect for sentience anyway? you? o.o
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
Thanks for your comments.
Your point regarding sentience is a good one. How do I know my computer isn't self-aware? Well, the ONLY thing I know to be self-aware is myself. For all I know, everyone else are "philosophical zombies". So I have to base my guesses based on behavior--people (and lots of animals) behave as though they are conscious, so I make a guess that they are. My computer doesn't, so I guess that it isn't. Ultimately, though, I don't know for sure.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
cha, brian in a vet or i think therefore i am ^w^
i just posted another post that elaborates a lil' more on what i think about the whole sentience thing
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
well I'm an atheist materialist and determinist, but I would never call myself a free thinker. as there is no such thing as free will.
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
Appreciate the comment =)
MisterBusta 2 years ago
i think there is such a thing. i'm an atheist. who's to say, even if it's an illusion, and all our decisions are decided by genetics and our experiences and instincts, that a sufficiently good illusion of freewill can qualify as freewill
after the word 'freewill' was created to apply to our particular brand of it :3
it's weird how people think that for it to be truely freewill it has to be somehow completely indipendant of experience and genetics.. experience and genetics are who we are
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
honesty.... it is refreshing.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
the term "free thinker" was chosen in direct opposition to a theistic world view ( as far as i know ), that's what it applies to really
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
basically we're not shackled by things like doctorine, fear or "faith". after faith is deliberately pushing those things that cast 'doubt' over your beliefs away, in order to maintain them
with atheist/agnostics we don't have this problem, we're free to explore any avenue of thought without fear of enternal punishment, or being swayed by 'satan' away from 'the true word of god" or something of the sort :o
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
LOL.... its not correct to couple atheists with agnostics as if they were similar. The philosophies are two different things and agnostics don't claim absolutism as does atheists. Mista Busta was addressing atheist so-called "free thinkers" who run into to problem of being "free" if their very thought and action is uncomfortably accidental and subject to random electrical patterns in the cellular tissue between their ears. It is a quagmire.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
they are similar... atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you'll hear many people say that line x:
there's unicorns living inside jupiter! what's the probability that statements true? is it 50/50? of course not, the probability is incredibly low, therefore it does not warrant belief, in this aspect i don't believe there are unicorns in the center of jupiter, i'm a a-unicornist. HOWEVER! i am not saying i know for certain there are none, this makes me a agnostic-unicornist
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
so basically, i've only ever met one atheist who claimed to "know" god didn't exist. that's called strong atheism. the vast majority don't believe there's a god, but don't claim absolute knowledge
even richard dawkings described himself as a 6.9/7 on his "scale of atheism" 7 being claiming absolute knowledge
anything's possibly, but most things aren't even remotely likely :P
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
well... that is very new age of you. Now there are degrees of atheism? I disagree. There are degrees of being agnostic for sure. Even the youtube atheist messiah.. thunderfoot.. has abandoned atheism because he has finally acknowledged that he simply can not know for sure, so he created is own silly term.. which essentially means he is agnostic.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
there's always been degrees of atheism... wikipedia it or something, they've been around for a long time now x:
atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, the definition has been altered over time
and that's not why thunderfoot abandoned it, he abandoned it because people who think its absolute disbelief. the word has been changed and altered too much, there's waaaay too much baggage, ask him if you want to :o
and he's not an atheist messiah, i don't even like him all that much tbh x.x
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
been there done that ... atheists do not believe in God. Some one who is not sure or skeptical is agnostic. A person who believes in God is a Theist.
You cant really randomly redefine the terms if you don't have free will, even if you want agnostics to rally under the banner of atheism. But then again, we must have accidently and randomly created the terms in the first place.
I am glad TF is not your messiah... its refreshing to know youre not his minion. (btw... wiki sucks).
jxwhit8 2 years ago
agnostic: a person who thinks it's impossible to know whether a god exists or not
atheist: a person who does not hold a belief in a god and possibly even "disbelieves" in one, although rarely claim absolute certainty
theist: a person who believes in a god and is part fo a religious denomination, often following a holy book with a list of laws
deist: a person who beliefs in a god, but doesn't claim special knowledge of it
also no ones TF's minion... never met one ever
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
oh wait! i remember why he abandoned it, sorry i was wrong. he abandoned it because he dind't like being described by what he wasnt
his new term, which i think was bright or somethign weird meant the things that he accepted, rather than those he doesn't. "reasoned logic and - something something" PEARL that's it
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
LOL..., that is right... he is a "pearlist". It was his way of re-categorizing himself like Prince did when he changed his identity to some weird and meaningless symbol... forcing all to call him the "artist" or whatever.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
i think his position makes sense
you know why he did it right? i just said it. he did it because he was sick of people defining him by what he wasn't, rather than what he was
wouldn't you be annoyed if everyone called you a A-flying spagetti monsterist Dx
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
stop lying :(
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
i am not lying.... Wiki sucks. Its this random impulse thing in my gray matter. i cant help it.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
but you agree that the meaning of words are often altered when taken into the public square right?
and with religious people, it was a deliberate atempt to try and label atheists as the opisite extreme and "just as bad" as them, trying to make atheism a faith position when it isnt x:
i mean, i bet you're a atheist in regard to faeries or pink unicorns and all that. although at the same time, i'm sure you wouldn't claim you knew 100% they didn't ever exist at any point anywhere in the universe
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
I believe people try to change the meaning of words... yes. Case in Point... Bill Clinton, "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is". That is why we have dictionaries. I gave you two definitions of two very well recognize sources of definitions. Wiki is an accumullation of those in the "public square" redefining terms.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
i've read a number of different dictionaries when i was debating against creationists, i found several different definitions of the word "theory" and atheist, agnostic, etc
there isn't any kind of international standard that all dictionaries must abide by, if there was we'd only have on brand of dictionary really x:
but an atheist doesn't require at all that you KNOW a god doesn't exist, it just requires that you lack a belief in a god... budhists are technically atheists :o
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago