Philosophy Blog: FREE WILL PART 3

[1Diaaa]

say I bear witness to Allah and Muhammed is his messenger I sence that you would be a great muslim . Islam will fill your heart with happiness and confort your soul and answer your questions . free will is to humans and jins and we have the choice to do what we want not like a rock lies on the ground unless someone moves it

[abudujana210]

so he put it in a record befor it has happend so no effect on ur free will theis is showing knoldge of God we belive that Gods knoldge is complet dosnt increas or decrese he is first with out a beganing and he is the eternal he does not resmble man or any of his creature he is depandent and has no partner the bigest mastake philosophers make is aragance that they can solve every thing u are not great if u cant rlise ur creater

[abudujana210]

free will is simple but can only be taken to a surten level in reaserching. becuse this is matter that is over whilming to the mind if u cant understand u will have dout in God even though he is wright. good created us for the purpose of worshiping to see if you will worshp him. you have to chose do it or dont you n=know the consicunce. And me as a muslim i beliv in predistinaton like God has in acount who is going to hell and who isnt and this is simple God is what = the all knowing

[R0CKFACE]

nice...interesting...

[OptimusWinkel]

I agree with burnvictim77

[fivedinners]

could conciousness be the cause and we the effect?

[soviet1942]

He says "Uh" too much, very annoying

[Speedylipper]

Since, you say people apply the gap theory to things they can't explain. how would pyshics or philosophy explain spirits and ghosts, when they experienced by a group and not just an individual. This is coming from the fact that some horror movies say they are based on true events.

[Valefarous]

I think you're basically right, although in the real world I think most of these systems are deterministic but interconnected, even a little reflexive. Like there's weird feedback between things. I might not want to do something difficult but I can make myself want to do it if I want to get something that it will give me. I dunno if its as true in things like value, but I think this model you're giving is basically right just more simple than the real thing.

[Valefarous]

"but I can make myself do it" should have read something like, "I may not initially want something, but I can go through the decision process about wanting it and will inevitably want to do it if I want something it will get me." was more what I wanted to convey.

[Valefarous]

kind of like your plans and wants generally inevitably organize around the strongest wants

[moegreen2]

Nice videos.

Can't say I disagree with anything. But when you talk about choice, I think it's just as much about what we avoid as what we choose. Not that it makes a big difference, but that would make us a bit more random and not so goal oriented.

[bender3033]

.... Any time where an individual is presented with a set of choices, although there are those four things, motivation, value, opportunity and evaluation, that have an influence/ determine what choices you act upon, we are ultimately free to act, and excercise free will because all choices must be consciously evaluated within the context of the utility/ satisfaction that the subject will derive from that action.

[bender3033]

Everything can be considered in the context of the economics' concept of utility, where utility refers to the "satisfaction" or "pleasure" derived from doing something. If you choose to eat a chocolate, u derive pleasure from it. Even when u do something that you don't necessarily like , like jury duty, there is a satisfaction that is derived either from giving back to society or having potentially escaped the negative repercussions of skipping jury duty....

[commentorz]

So what I am saying is we have the free will to act/do/think/believe what every we want, we will always be influenced by society, laws, physical laws, etc.. but our thoughts ARE random. "Random" is the word that humans created to explain things that cannot be for tolled. No one knows EXACTALLY what is going to happen to the world day by day, but tomorrow will surely be influenced by our actions the previous day, which is an example of why some people cannot get a grip on randomness.

[commentorz]

Think of something, anything you want, you are going to think of something random, no one will ever know what that thought is unless luck (extreme luck, telepathy comes into play). But there. Your thought will include something in your knowledge. Say a picture. It will have a certain color/characteristic etc.. we already have locked into our brain. Therefore and original idea, but technically nothing is original because you are just compiling everything you know into a complete separate thought.

[CACBCCCU]

Are you responsible for anything done by you? If not, that would seem to me to be more like possessing an operable will unbound by constraints. Yet, responsibility logically disappears when the "free will" discussed in this video is effectively eliminated from consideration as being anything meaningful.

I guess I'm saying that at this point, after going through the same phase of questioning "free will", it's now a paradox to me how people can think like this once they become adults.

[arzyTUBE]

you have good questioning skills man, aka me, questioning the why of our motivation to do stuff in the first place. If its a feeling, its not really free will

[danielvasel]

BOOOOOOOOOORING

[nonphixional1]

in refernce to kgarmas comment . isnt the existence of an omnipotent being itself random. existence is probability there is a chance that there could be nothingness. everything either randomly happens or doesnt do to probability

[KGarma]

iNDIGOarts, that is classic Newtionian. It has been shown that enzymes work through quantum tunneling. People are bags of enzymes.

So everybody is always doing lots of random things. Even when asleep.

[KGarma]

A mathmetician's view.

Things that have free will are called random variables. Random variables have a deterministic representation called a characteristic function. (The characteristic function is the fourier transform of the random variable.)The characteristic function exists in an infinite dimensional space. That is, from a godlike perspective, all is pre-destined, but from our finite perspective, the future is unknown.

[iNDIGOarts]

Agreed.

Also, nothing is random. Randomness is only the result of a lack of or no understanding of the cause of the effect. There are many laws/principles governing/influencing our entire being that are currently known of, that are yet to be discovered and many of which im sure will exceed our comprehension. The power of thought has already been scientifically proven which has a great influence on us whether we are aware of it or not. Free will = Illusion

[gilbretto1]

These governing laws only exist relative to human perception. The laws that haven't been discovered essentially exist within a world of potential that is void of a particular form or mode of characterization and, like the laws themselves, only exists relative to human perception. In this context, there is no external.

[UberHam]

what if you did something completely random

then you didnt do it because you wanted you did it because it was random?

say i look at my fist and then randomly lifted up 1 of my fingers

i didnt want that particular finger to be lifted up, but it did because i chose it randomly

then that raises the question if people are truely capable of generating something truely random

[AmThat]

If Carl Jung was to be believed, the human personality is compiled from opposing tendencies. Whether these tendencies are chosen, or whether environmental circumstances force our the human mind into a particular tendency is unknown. I personally believe that once we are set into our tendencies and paradigms, we are a slave to circumstance for ever after. But if the single choice was made before our personalities were developed, our lives would essentially be a product of our initial choice.

[Lonelycosmos]

Beautifully explained.

You're right on with the confusion added by the limitations of language. The illusion of freedom of the will is woven into our vocabularies.

[lolland30]

I find your video very good, even though I don`t agree 100% with you ,I believe we have freedom of how we focus our attention, not

the impulses we get, but how much attention we give those different impulses

which pretty much fits with quantum theory, and the fact that somebody observing something can change how the matter behaves there is no new discovery

in science that I know of that strenghtens the argument against free will, so it`s still a philosofical/intuitive field

[davidjakewillis]

Arguments either way lead to epistemology, and how the theory of agency, or a metaphysical or materialistic self, can be known: rationally, or empirically.

Assuming you are an empiricist, how does the claim of determinism depend on our experience of it? How can we even be sure of causality, as Hume argued.

It comes down to whether or not there is a self, and how much "elbowroom".

What is your view on the self?

[captzappo]

Let examine this. Free will doesn't exist, but we can't even talk about the subject without using improper terms like "decide" which indicate that we have free will. Let me ask you to do something-"Lift your right arm." Now, how is it possible for my non-material mind to ask you to lift your arm? Did you do it? Why or Why not? How did your non-material mind "decide" how to respond? How can my non-material mind move your arm? Any doubts yet?

[davidjakewillis]

Non material=immaterial?

Immaterial is effectively an adjective for anything that doesn't exist.

Libertarian arguments exist without cartesian duality, or supernatural claims.

[blasto]

very fast? which comment are you reffering too warningdown

[warningdown]

very fast, do you believe there is no god

[blasto]

f the "randomness" of quantum mechanics was proven to effect us on some level it would, at best, suggest a kind of "random will" and still wouldn't free us of cause and effect. I think it would serve to confuse any kind of free will that might exist. And, as much as I want there to be some, nothing in nature aims at it.

[RastaAndy777]

FREE WILL OF JAH RASTAFARI

[universalwhat]

I wish I could express my ideas as fluently.

I thought it was brilliant.

[nazarene1]

Man is in a continual state of confusion. Trying to make sense out of what seems to be nonsense. Meaning the sense of life, existence, the meaning and truth of things. Pure love is the answer to all things. Don't desire to know things more than being in love. God is love. Life is love. No love - no life. That's where the satisfaction is at. It's spiritual, not physical. Bible is important. Don't care what people say. Message is love (oneness with the ONE). ONE: Creator/Answer to all things.

[nazarene1]

The thoughts of the righteous tend to life. Only God, our Creator and savior, is righteousness. Oneness with God is salvation. To love God is to be one with God. Man can never understand God with the mind of man. Can't understand God and the things of God, the way we understand man and the things of man.

[nazarene1]

Physical doesn't create. It's mind that creates. The Master Mind is the Most High. To connect our minds with God's mind, letting God's mind reign, is important. We're made to love and live. That's our general purpose always. Life is sharing and caring. Living as spirit in flesh, mind in matter, reflection of God(Life) in man. Mind is spirit, because thought is spirit. The origin of thought is God.

[nazarene1]

Can't understand the Creator based on our own thinking. Must spend much time meditating, which is to empty the mind, so we can hear the Most High's thoughts. Remember, we are creation. So think nothing; let the Most High remain our driver, we being the vehicle. Faith and love.

[nazarene1]

Trust in the Source of life, who's deep within all of creation, ourselves especially. We must always be open to its voice - the voice of truth. For we are real, meaning the fact that we exist; so, God exists. Lean not on our own understanding, but let the knowledge and understanding of the Most High reveal itself.

[nazarene1]

Life in its true essence is purity. Man complicates life. The beauty of life is evident. It's beyond the physical. To live in love(oneness), is to live in life. This brings about true sight - revelation. Salvation. Peace. Security through overstanding. Thought isn't physical. It's the understanding of the physical. Truth is deep within everyone. Speaks all the while. Thought is beyond physical understanding. Seek the One who created all. Only there lies the answer.

[nazarene1]

Universe/Space is the mind field of God - the One we call God. Word is expression of thought. Mind is thought. Spiritual, not physical. Word of God is God. Word of God is Life. God is Life. The mind is the will. There's man's will. There's Life's will. Life's will is the overall will. It's love - oneness of spirit. Oneness of creation with the Creator. Creator is not physical. The Thought behind the physical is the Creator.

[nazarene1]

Most High is Life

[jimnpeace69]

Wow Marry me lol!

So do you belive tht our choices are influenced through subliminal messages or do you believe tht another part of brain is accepting of these subliminal messages due to commercial influences we were subjected to as children?

[christosevangelou]

freewill has been taken away from us a long time ago ,as we all have religeous backgrounds and all governed by goverments so everyones freewill has been limited by human from the day you are born and all your valuations and decitions are tedermined and limited by society as goverments and religeon have run side by side for many thousands of years

[FreeWillvideos]

i agree with burn victim - the best way i have heard it put is "you cant do anything other than that which you are going to do".

[skulldaggery]

sorry, I keep thinking the spam button is the reply one. anyways, no I wasn't saying You had an immutable position. I'm just hating you know.

I really wish I could make a video reply, but I lack the hardware. *sigh* Anyways I don't think I could come up with anything better than your video at the moment. I feel still too much of an amature. You were born in 1977 I presume I'm from 1984... 7 years difference I doubt my insight will be of any consequence, or weight.

[skulldaggery]

What is motivation,choice,oppurtunity? how can you observe and explain forms created by man, to explain universal and immutable forms like free will and the physiological processes of choice?whether it is all going to follow the laws, or be diverted by some mystical "free will" This is still a byzantine discussion. 1)Define basic Systems, and then work your way out to the comprehensive one like a form. you can't explain a hypothesis with another.

[burnvictim77]

You are going to have to word this better. Or better yet, make a response video. It will give you a better forum in which to put forth your case.

[rrawwbb]

A value presented itself to me deterministically, and it was that "determinism is o.k.".

[ntang99]

Both determinism and free-will exist. Determination is identified after choice is made but impossible beforehand(randomness). Freewill exists before a choice but loses its mojo afterward. Before I choose, nobody can tell me what my choice will be. I can always choose alternatives. You may argue that you can do the calculation without letting me know and my choice will conform to your prediction. However, if this is true, I should be able to calculate your prediction before I make my choice.

[burnvictim77]

I don't find this a reasonable position, nor do I see evidence to back it up.

[skulldaggery]

I don't think any human being to date has the knowledge to even begin to tackle such a topic. systems are made of sub systems, and those are made of further subsystems, in order to understand any system you have to break it to it's most basic parts which is impossible. Freewill is not defineable with any truth, you may guess the right answer but the truth is unknowable to a finite being. Infinite beings don't exist as far as I know, so this is just a fool's errand.

[konikula]

Um, I do not agree about 'recursively subanalyzing understanding is way of understanding whole'.

[copicuk]

i agree konikula. I can logically break down coffee into its chemical subsystems, but I will never fully understand it until I drink it. Experience of the whole is sometimes as important, if not more so, than understanding of separate parts. Furthermore separation often impedes direct understanding through experience.

[skulldaggery]

dude, you're dumb.

[burnvictim77]

Who's dumb?

[GZAwit]

I like this explanation of determinism. I don't like the whole "We have no control over what we do, all choices are already made" BS. Free will and will are two very different terms. We can do whatever we like, but we can't will whatever we like.

[johnnycrisp22]

"A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills"

[Prometheus1df]

Okay maybe I should have phrased that a bit differently because I certainly am not a pessimist but a life affirmer. And I've been thinking about it and I guess it means we're all individuals(generally speaking) by default and obviousily even if the artist isn't mystically inspired they still deserve credit for their unique contributions. Thanks for the reply!

[Prometheus1df]

and of course their "freedom" of expression. What credit can we give to the great artists if their entire work is a neccesary output? Of course I'm not making the case against the value of artists, that would be absurd, but I would be interested on how we confront such a problem.

[burnvictim77]

This seems akin to the 'what is the point of life if there is no God' argument. It defies conventional or traditional thinking, but nothing about determinism takes away individuality. It just means we don't mystically come by our inspirations.

[skulldaggery]

and sorry about my discontinuity in replys... but I do find the topic really interesting, and fun to contemplate, and discuss to no end. But I think anyone taking a fixed, immutable position in this conversation will inevitably be taking a fool's stance.

[burnvictim77]

I don't have an immutable position. If you can explain how free will could possibly work, I'm listening.

[konikula]

Em, I think your position could be argued thru randomizeness x life - because that growing/staying/learning unrandomizeness really points out difference between 'brain system' and 'physical world'. Nonliving object is not evolving, has only few materialistic laws (at any point of unliving nature u can tell why it does what it does, or predict what it will do with observing, but observing living beeing doing something musn't lead you to predict right 'its' next step)

[Prometheus1df]

Hmmm, that's true and it seems like a good solution to the problem but what I'm getting at is more along the lines of how can I say my actions and my creativity etc. define my individuality when they themselves are determined by a series of neccesary causes and effects.A lot of people like to pride their individuality on their "free" choices.

[Prometheus1df]

Hi,I watched your 3 vids and I agree with you I would say on probably all of your points.I do think that causal determinism is true and that reason is a deterministic process. So therefore, yes, free will is an illusion but a problem in holding this view is how do we account for our individuality?

[burnvictim77]

None of us has the same components or the same experiences.

[dreicemoney]

there is no freewill, will is controlled and limited by designed. If someone changes your neurological design then your choices and decisions change along with the design..

[dawgie102]

G.K. Chesterton said, that if determinism is true, then the determinist is predetermined to say so: and the free-willer is also predetermined to say no. So if determinism is true there's no real argument/discussion possible. There's only a sequence of sounds like recordings. Arguments/discussion presuppose arguers to be free to weigh evidence.

[burnvictim77]

You are pre-supposing that weighing evidence is not a deterministic process, which of course it actually is.

[dawgie102]

Then your conclusion are determined.. And my conclusions, if contradictory to yours, are also determined. This situation gives no value to anything you or I say,so both conclusions are useless. All ideas are determined. So none of them have any value at all.

[burnvictim77]

I think you are confusing destined (as in fatalism) with causal (as in causal determinism). If the process of weighing evidence could, based on the same criteria, yield MORE THAN ONE ANWSER it would not be particularly useful. Thus, reason IS a deterministic system. Do you understand my point?

[dreicemoney]

Sounds like a personal opinion to me and not a logical conclusion... Computers have no "free will" does that mean the computations they make have no "value"

[copicuk]

exactly dreicemoney. Value is personal. If through interaction, discussion and exploration, new personal understanding develops, we may improve each others experience of existence. To that process I would ascribe great value. Let's make life better.

[dawgie102]

of course the universe and it's blind forces made you say that,

which is just as good/bad or whatever I said. In determinism we are robots who say and think what we are commanded...

[marvolutional]

there is no such thing as free will, just free wont... the unconscious (subcortical modules - limbic system and so on) drive our every actions... the cortex (i.e. conscious part) can stop this.. right im off, couldnt be bothered explaining this probely... my phd thesis is in conciousness, so thats my background... ive an engineering background... trying to make a machine aware etc etc...

[stewie1974]

I think Stanislavski the russian director was pretty much on the mark regarding this.

Every human has An objective and a super objective, these are formed by experience. Objective = what i want in this moment.. super objective = what i want overall. These decisions are made by our experiences.

[kento5]

Now what IS free will? How do you define it? In my opinion, it does not exist.

[olivertothescott]

I might have hit someone. My acting out on a 'plate' brought me back down to earth and although it did cost me, things could have been worse. What does this have to do with anything? Hmmm, well, I felt that my angry outbursts had something more to them than just me handling my feelings inapropriately, you seem to know EXACTLY what your on about, I, though trying to look at this incident at both ends of the spectrum, still haven't come to a conclusion.

[burnvictim77]

I think my point with this was that sometimes we don't put 'reason' as the highest priority. We see a course of action, and due to emotion, act impulsively. While this may serve a very important purpose, that doesn't stop our rational mind from *regretting* what happened. This many times helps us try to deal with things more effectively in the future.

[olivertothescott]

yeah, pretty much, well said.

[olivertothescott]

You kinda lost be on the majority of that video, and the debating comments between yourself and mr. Wofgang, but I emphasised with the part speaking of 'on the spot' reactions that you regret after doing. I found after breaking the plate, it converts your rage and essentially calms you down. Its a much needed release that I do wish I hadn't done because it ended up causing me more problems, but, had I not done it I would have stayed in a furious mood and who knows,

[burnvictim77]

If you are having trouble getting where I'm coming from, I made two previous editions of the Free Will blog, so viewing them may or may not help.

[Wolfgang70]

Apart from the (in)determinate nature of our universe: Benjamin Libet's studies show that our conscious decisions are made beforehand unconsciously (which is effectively in accordance with your reasoning about the cause of our desires to decide either way). Perhaps free will is then the ability to think consciously about own decisions and their consequences, which then (presumingly) affects our unconscious future decisions?

[dexarouskies]

Burn, you're getting into shaky ground with cause and effect, because the fundamental nature of our universe is apparently non-causal. It is such, I believe, to preserve the indeterminate nature of our universe, of which, we are a part.

[burnvictim77]

"Apparently?" I think the vast majority of science still supports a causal universe. It's just that the nature of the forces is a little harder to pin down than we had at first thought. But, Garry, think of it like this: without causality, there is no induction and without induction, no learning of any kind. Dig?

[Wolfgang70]

Non-causal effects can very well work together with an appearently causal universe if we assume that the speed of effects is limited (by the speed of light). Then even a non-causal world can be approximated and experienced as a causal world. Example: All derivable mathematical functions are locally indistinguishable from a Taylor series. We could then claim that all derivable functions are polynoms which is a valid concept if we only look locally at the derivation point.

[burnvictim77]

Yes, but there is no reason to assume that what we peceive as causality is false. Moreover, we could never discover a non-causal system because we learn causally, through inductive inference, which goes right out the window without that causality.

[Wolfgang70]

Yes, we cannot understand a non-causal system but we can describe it mathematically, which is already common practice by theoretical physicists (for certain subatomar effects) and engineers (to describe an ideal low pass filter).

[burnvictim77]

Not only can we not understand it, be cannot ever prove such a thing to exist.

[dexarouskies]

The vast majority of science deals with the classical universe. Nobody ascribes any causality to the quantum world, in fact, most say that it is in principle non-causal. This means that the causality that you perceive in the classical world, is in fact just an illusion created by probabilities.

[burnvictim77]

And again - not only is non-causality nonsensical to our minds meaning it provides no useful understanding, but it is also non-provable. How can anyone ever prove a lack of causality?

[BishopKelt]

I once felt that choices in life was somewhat like a plinko machine. That you can lean in a certain direction but you can't jump the board from one mindstate directly into another without a little progress, time, and work.