Debate Stefbot Stefan Molyneux Determinist/Free Will (Edit)

[BroBroDude]

@PostITnoteGUY So which is it? You disbelieve in causal principles, despite the fact that every action you've ever taken including this very conversation is consequent to a belief in causal principles? loooooool how enlightened and undogmatic. Good 4 u bro!

skepticism fail

[BroBroDude]

@PostITnoteGUY No no no, I'm mocking you in caps. Because your positions are funnier if they're written in large letters. Welcome to the internet.

You must either revise the principles of causation (physics) or accept determinism. I actually don't care at all if you choose the revision approach, though you'll struggle mightily. But to accept causal principles but not determinism is straight-up lols. The human mind is not a special case.

[BroBroDude]

@PostITnoteGUY lollin. PHYSICS IS DOGMA GUYS.

EPISTEMOLOGY IS DOGMA GUYS.

LISTEN GUYS CAUSATION IS JUST A THEORY OK. A THEORY I RELY ON IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY DAILY THOUGHTS AND ACTIVITIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION INCLUDING THIS ONE RIGHT NOW. BUT JUST A THEORY OK.

NOTHING IS CERTAIN THEREFORE IT MAKES SENSE TO ACT AS IF THE IMPROBABLE IS IMMINENT TRUST ME OK

skepticism fail =*(

[hob976]

Man, this really is a cowardly and petty video... I have no side in this debate... but this is just pathetic.

[RedDevileire]

This is a bit pathetic , you really have showed yourself to be quite the fool

[BroBroDude]

@RationalBullets In short, you missed Science.

Not sure what else to tell you. Either you are going to fundamentally redefine modern physics or you are going to accept determinism. Or you're gonna be wrong.

[BroBroDude]

@RationalBullets Jesus Christ. The determinist doesn't argue that there are no choices or decisions, but only that those decisions are not acausal or self-caused.

[IterProLibertasV]

Thats funny.. presumptuous to a pre-recorded podcast.....clown...

[vteam02]

The arguments you present here are excellent! :D

[giovanhagar]

Why is this guy reading word for word from a script?

[verstwo2]

Check out his video 'statism is dead' I've left a bunch of comments explaining.

[verstwo2]

"Determinism assumes to know the source of free will to the point where it can explain it's actions and causes,"

-no, this is a bit of a strawman. Determinism doesn't claim to know the entire causal chain of events between this moment and the begining of the universe...it only concluded that there must be a chain from the premise that everything must have a cause. To have knowledge of all the events that lead a decision would require a knowledge that verged on omniscience.

[verstwo2]

@RationalBullets-Oh the other hand, determinism does not imply that because a person is not the ultimate causal source their will, that a person cannot be held responsible for their actions. It only recognizes that both will and action are only a part of a larger causal chain of events. We still have the category of 'person' within that causal chain to whom agency can be attributed. ie animals that wouldn't be considered to have free will can still be considered responsibile for their actions.

[BroBroDude]

@verstwo2 No. In the absence of free will responsibility as commonly defined does not exist. So annoying to see determinists refuse to follow through.

There is no such thing as responsibility for one's actions. Plain and simple. This doesn't however change much of anything about justice and social order.

[verstwo2]

@BroBroDude - "In the absence of free will responsibility as commonly defined does not exist. " - I'm not opposed to changing the common definition. It would just have to be more complex (which it is).

Rereading my post I should clarify with an example; if I push a button with my finger, my finger caused the button to be pushed, my finger is responsible. However we could follow a chain of causation to my brain, to my biology, ancestry, etc. But it's still My finger that pushed the button.

[BroBroDude]

@verstwo2 "Accountability" probably makes more sense for what you are describing, since you're literally just accounting for the cause of a particular affect. But it doesn't really matter. You have the concept correct.

[verstwo2]

I find most of this debate boils down to semantics. I would define 'free will' as the ability to make decisions without restraints or the concept that the will can be free of any external causation. But you cannot deny that are will IS the result of a causal process that does not begin or end with us.

Your 1st statement presupposes freewill and is thus circular. And your 2nd statement is incorrect as free will does imply that our will is free of external causation.

[verstwo2]

determinism does not negate the existence of subjective concepts or decision making. It simply asserts that these things are not independent of the rest of the universe, there are the result of causal relationship with everything else.

[verstwo2]

Lol...I really like your upside down anarchist symbol.

Actually the rock IS responsible for destroying the car...where else would you put the responsibility?

ugh, stefbot. He thinks he's soo smart. Yet he indulges in so many logical fallacies. But he uses big words, so he must be right....right?

[jwiska]

concentrating to hard on the item you put your letters on, that is the teleprompter... you are reading off something then putting the time to split in audio... why do you do this?

[Valelacerte]

You couldn't have a real debate so you fabricated one?!

[bunabayashi]

Instead of cleverly editing an existing debate which was clear and concise, why not simply debate Stef?

[Sepero1]

Thank you for asking. I contacted him for a discussion and he declined.

[Anon1696]

Subscribed.

[5y89sdfih]

LOL, that was great.

[JuSdAt]

Do u remember the part where the self proclaimed 'philosopher' quiverred when he asked why determinists would argue with him (it baffled him for eons).. the answer was because humans r designed to correct each other. He quickly went back to the rock scenario fully aware that he'd been stumped. lol. Cause & Affect. He's bright enough to know that in a donation based business, telling the donators they dont have freewill is a step 2 far. Freewill gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling when donating.

[Sepero1]

Aw, I think that's kind of harsh to say about donators. :)

The man's gotta eat, and he can't rightly make use of copyright laws enforced by the state. So he's doing the next best thing- accepting 'donations' for his work.

[JuSdAt]

ok cool. Btw, Im not crticising the donations system that he's got going on. Im saying that he'd get less donations saying he believes in determinism. I also think he's fully aware of that. :) He's just very good at manipulating debates so he can get away with arguing FOR freewill even if he doesn't necessarily believe in it. - for eating purposes.

[verstwo2]

I think that is a common trend with stefbot...he says anything that will get him subs. He seems too intelligent to believe some of the garbage he spews sometimes (most of the time). Many if not most of his arguments are riddled with fallacies.

[andrewh817]

@verstwo2 care to point out a fallacy?

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

Well I think human beings are programmed to want to spread the truth, so if his listeners were convinced that what he was saying is true, then they inevitably, because of the programming, would want to donate.

[JuSdAt]

I dont think humans are programmed to spread the truth.. they will lie until their pants are on fire to protect their evolutionary status!

[andrewh817]

@JuSdAt Stef said that if determinists actually believe there is no free will, they wouldn't ever debate people because if it's their destiny to believe in free will, then they can't decide to switch positions, regardless of the evidence.

[BroBroDude]

@andrewh817 Yes, he did. And that is offensively retarded, especially for a bright and well-intending guy.

Despite the absence of free will, it is impossible to KNOW that someone is determined to believe this or that. Arguing for that reason makes perfect sense.

Stef's positions on both free will and arguments about it are his achilles heel to say the very least.

[verstwo2]

@andrewh817 - "determinists actually believe there is no free will, they wouldn't ever debate people because if it's their destiny to believe in free will,"

-there is a strawman fallacy. determinist may claim that everything is caused and therefore determined, but they don't claim the omniscience to know what the future holds. If I were to have a debate and change minds - that in itself would also be predetermined, but not preknown. Hope that clears things up.

[smjones3]

Brilliant! Why no one said this in the debate is a shame. People may not like the fact that everything is determined, but that does not make it any less true.

I would love to see Stephan's response to this.