If a plant could talk, it could tell a rock that it has free will because whereas the rock just sits there or gets bumped around, plants grow, blossom, branch out, etc., with seemingly no external forces acting on it.
Of course, it would have no conception of how the sun effects the process of photosynthesis. It would "think" that it was "self-propelled"—that it had free will.
This is the argument that Stefan is making. I'm agnostic on determinism, but Stefan's argument here is no good.
If someone can argue with this...well congradulations...you will be the first person in more than 3 years to prove me wrong. But...you probably wont...because you probably cant.
Hope this is going to improve. The atomic thing was setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The universe as a whole follows physical laws. We are a part of that universe so we follow the same cause-and-effect physical laws. Everything must have a cause. Therefore, no free will. That doesn't mean that life doesn't have meaning. All my life I have acted as if I have free will and I will continue to do so. What else can you do?
@mikef179 Which cause and effect laws are you talking about? Newtonian Laws? All fundamental physical laws are stochastic in nature, not causal. We only derive causal laws at the macroscopic level to simplify the calculations.
God can know what choice you will make without affecting your free will. If I hand a starving child a cupcake, he/she has the free will to eat it or reject it, but I know he/she will eat it because I know the child is starving. God knows all, he's omniscient, he knows exactly how we will behave, even though we have free will. Does that not sound rational to you?
I'm not sure if anyone else has posted a comment like this, but isn't another way to describe 'the soul' simply 'one's conscience' (conscience being thought, which is a form of energy) ? Most of the discussion about what happens when we die revolves around if our 'conscience' goes on - religious people do think so (re: the afterlife/heaven), they just call it 'the soul' going on rather than 'the conscience' - the soul is just the religious way of saying 'conscience', in other words.
Hmm I'd like to understand your argument but I have a problem: A single skin cell for example is also "alive" and it can "live", although not for long, even if separated from the whole body. Does this single skin cell have any other properties then what's determined in it's DNA? Can it grow into a bone cell if attached to a another person's bone? Being alive doesn't seem to exactly invalidate determinism, or am I completely of base here?
@hazeee123 That's not his point. You have to watch the next video I guess. Here he is only showing that the whole is more than the sum of the parts and so one cannot invalidate free will in a human simply because the parts are subject to causality.
RECOGNIZE the layers of MIND; ((Remember the point about Miracles as a means of organizing different levels of consciousness. Miracles come from the subconscious (below conscious) level. Revelations come from the above conscious level. The conscious level is in between and reacts to either sub- or super-conscious impulses in varying ratios. Freud was right about the classification, but not the names. He was also right that the content of consciousness is fleeting."))From Course in miracles. com
We are programmed biological robots. I would say we have the ability to make choices, but limited by our programming, that is, all our choices are merely responses to input determined by our programming. We effectively have no choice in what we choose. :-)
@JLeeMagnetic the dichotomy of Determinism vs free will is completely false. Human behaviour is far too complicated a subject to be summed up either way.
Human beings are moulded by our environments to the extent that it affects the size of various regions of the brain. Grow up in a fearful environment, you have a larger amygdala. A larger amygdala also means more aggressive responses. Our genes are expressed even dependent on environmental stimuli.
@JLeeMagnetic what that dichotomy does is remove the most important facet of human behaviour - and that's context. If you really believe you've got free will, get yourself into a "fight or flight" situation, and see how little you control your behaviour.
Biologically speaking, free will is nonsense. It relies on the existence of the soul, some character vessel separate from biology and environment, which is just silly.
@sugarcanegray biologically speaking yes free will is nonsense. But Thats if u measure reality in terms of biology, which i don't have a problem with. But even if you had free will, i don't believe you would be able to measure it biologically cuz a soul is not biological. U may think a soul is silly, i don't disbelieve in it but i have an open mind. But full determinism is not proven and evidence suggest that randomness can exist. These are smart physicists so being open is not unreasonable.
@JLeeMagnetic by the way, there's plenty of scientific literature on determinism. It's rooted in nature, so your liking it to believing in unicorns is plain stupid. There is not one shred of evidence for free will, and furthermore it goes directly against all scientific research into the subject.
Watch this video to show just how easily free will is completely disproven: youtube dot com/ watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM
@JLeeMagnetic I'm not mad at you at all, just offering some insight into the free will subject. I'm not pushing determinism either, as I said, the "determinism/free will" dichotomy itself is a complete fallacy.
Did you watch the video I posted above? It shows very simply how the notion of an absolute free will controlling our behaviour is utter nonsense.
Also might I recommend watch Dr Sapolsky's Human Behavioural Biology lecture series from Stanford University posted here on YouTube.
@sugarcanegray The thing is I do get what Dr Sapolsky's is saying. I don't know everything but in general i do get what he is teaching. But the thing is he never said that the environment ''forced'' someone to turn out some way. Usually the word is ''affected'' or ''influenced''. So the ironic thing is that even when we learn about these biological things, dna, environment, predictability, when you take a step back there still is that door that you always knew. Nothing really has changed.
@JLeeMagnetic yes it seems there are a lot of "influences" but no "determinants" when it comes to human behaviour. Even genes are known to only be a small component when it comes to behaviour. All the factors combined, dna and genetics, environment etc all add up to make us what we are.
This was the point I was originally trying to make - that the subject is too complex to sum up in either direction concretely.
@sugarcanegray If i were a 100 percent determinists, no doubt. This is what would happen. I wouldn't react and get mad at people atleast as much. They had no other choice. And so by me realizing that, the atoms in my brain shifted with my perception in a harmonious way. I would not care as much about bad things happen, I would not take credit for good things happening. I would not argue against a free will person and call them stupid. They had no choice. Yet determinists don't follow this.
@sugarcanegray I have a friend who is a determinist. A total contradictor. Says you ''HAVE'' to follow the universes plan because your a human being so you have to pretend. He says predicting the future can help you, although admits u cant change a thing. He always says he should have, or u could have done this. And when I correct him all he does is crack up hella hard in a state of confusion and says oh yea huh, hmm... Then he says, well you still gotta pretend to make things fun.
@sugarcanegray if u got time, click on this guys stephs channel and type in determinists in search for his video. U will see what he's talking about when it comes to them contradicting themselves. I don't necessarily have a problem with someone thinking determinism might be possible, but when they say it's a fact and they get mad at u and still pretend like u have a choice, that is very funny. To me a fact is only a fact when it's 100 percent proven, not when theres some evidence.
@sugarcanegray im not saying that i can falsify determinism. Im not trying to ''prove'' free will either. But what is funny to me is how determinists don't really act like they are determinist. It's like they believe in determinism but then they kinda forget it when they have a conversation and act like they are free and expect you to be too. Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little. Yet determinists never seem to understand the point im making.
@JLeeMagnetic "Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little." this is very true and a very strong point against determinism right there. Just because someone might have, say, the gene that has something to do with aggression, this does not determine the fact that they will be aggressive throughout their lives - it might predispose them, but a predisposition is not the same as a predetermination.
@sugarcanegray What that tells me is that most determinists may believe in it but not as much as they say. They still act like it's your choice and hold you to it, judge you, nothing changes when they talk about anything else. I would imagine if I believed in determinism like it was factual, my wordings would change. I would not use words like choice, could have, unfortunately, etc... They keep bouncing back from 3rd person to 1st person and don't even realize it. Nothing has changed for them.
@sugarcanegray im not saying that i can falsify determinism. Im not trying to ''prove'' free will either. But what is funny to me is how determinists don't really act like they are determinist. It's like they believe in determinism but then they kinda forget it when they have a conversation and act like they are free and expect you to be too. Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little. Yet determinists never seem to understand the point im making.
@JLeeMagnetic this has nothing to do with your idea of what determinism might mean, but more to do with how the notion of free will is false. As the experiment shows (which has been replicated many many times) the brain in this instance makes the decision to press the button half a second before the conscious mind is even aware of it. That one fact itself totally refutes the notion of free will. It's a pretty basic test too, there are far more complex studies into behaviour out there.
@sugarcanegray It doesn't matter. The reason why is they didn't predict when that half second would occur. You have to understand it's not a complete experiment. Plus it has been further documented that they are not accurate 100 percent of the time, but they are the majority of the time. I have to admit that this experiment was not as impressive as some think it is. If you would like to show me more complex videos, sure.
Also, based on how you define free will in your second video (e.g. ability to calculate long term consequences of actions), I don't see why whether the universe is deterministic or not is relevant to whether or not we have free will. Even if the universe is deterministic, humans can still do all the things you said we could do that you say make us have free will, so isn't your conception of free will actually a compatibilist one? What am I missing?
When you explain what you see as the determinists' fallacy of composition error, I think the determinist position would be more clearly stated if you said, "The actions of the toe are causally determined; the actions of the foot are causally determined ..." etc rather than "The toe has no free will; the foot has no free will..." etc. This makes it clear that you think the causal chain of "atomic determinism" is broken when you form a whole human, allowing the human to somehow have free will.
@Aldelirium I agree that the causal chain does not break, but given that Stefan describes some sort of determinism at the atomic level while denying that humans are deterministic, he must believe that there is some sort of magical break in causality somehow that allows human to choose from multiple possible futures despite the fact that deterministic atoms only have one possible future. I don't think the view makes sense, but it seems to be what he believes judging by the video.
What you should know - it is a scientific fact that we can not know all the variables exactly so it is impossible to know exactly where the bouncing rock is going to end up.
If the Universe is deterministic then you should theoretically be able to construct a mathematical algorithm that would model the Universe EXACTLY. The INSANE complexity of this theoretical algorithm is exactly what shows that determinism fails to meet the test of Occam's Razor. Freewill is so much simpler, by so many orders of magnitude, that it becomes the obvious choice for anyone who still has two brain cells to rub together, Rush fan or not.
Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (where the presence of an observer alters the system and thus the behavior of the object being observed, skewing the observed data) kind of blow the living sh*t out of any mechanistic/linear/deterministic arguments?
@mthrnaturesson, I have a similar viewpoint. I think a lot of folks are making a huge mistake in thinking that the scientific method is purely about empiricism. It is also (and, in my opinion, the greater part) about the intuition (based on a synthesis of experiential data) from which spring the hypotheses that the empirical part of the scientific method exists to test in the first place. Empiricism without intuition is like using only deductive reasoning and never inductive. It's kinda dumb.
Great vid. Though I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that systems of increasing complexity are necessarily a 'problem' for the determinist's argument. I'm an expert of nothing, but looking at atoms forming molecules, forming micro-organisms, forming animals and humans, who form languages, social systems and technology... While it's all amazing, it all also seems to happen in accordance with causality and no hint of free will. Conciousness itself though, still seems like a big question mark.
gonna watch the other parts, but now a few Q's:1) the FREE in the freedomain radio, does it have the same meaning as the FREE in the free will? 2) What is will? 3) IS there a difference between free will and free choice?
I heard a guy once say "the illusion of freewill is itself an illusion". It's not that our senses present a distorted view of reality, it's that we are mistaken about the nature of our experience. What are you really experiencing in every moment??
Had you known God, you would not so freely dismiss His ability to create a closed system with open possibilities. We tend to think in a lineal, time moving forward or backward basis and we cannot comprehend the context of 'all'. As Einstein said 'the universe is expanding into nothing'. This is kind of along the lines of this idea. We cannot fathom how it is possible for the universe to even exist, since it is no where, and yet we sit in Judgment on the Creator of that universe.
To the person who made this video: you are incorrect. You base your arguments on assumptions that are flawed. For example at 6:22 you say that if God already knows something is going to happen, then that event was pre-determined. You say this only because your understanding of God is based on being a dead person. That is, you do now know the God on whom you place your judgments. You assume that God is as you assume Him to be based on logic and you experience of your own existence. Had you known
Considering you never define freewill the name of this series is ironic.
Frankly, you're making faith arguments; constructing strawmen and calling them ridiculous and putting up no evidence for your actual position.
Just think of the brain as a computer whose decisions are a result of our physical construction combined with our life's experiences. At every single point in time these computers make choices constantly, we love and behave ethically, these are all part of our behaviors.
Mr. Molyneux, I remember you saying in your Intro to Philosophy series that the idea of government is nonsensical because it's a group of people who retain attributes that an individual does not. Yet here, you say that aggregations can have components completely opposite to that of it's individual components. Is this a contradiction?
'Life' and 'alive' are just pretty words humans use to describe the state and behaviour of certain deterministic arrangements and systems of atoms and energy.
Free will is possible only to the extent and depth that we can examine our perceptions of the world objectively. It is those who take them for granted who are the most enslaved. This is why only the most courageous are truly free.
For the viewers' and comment-readers' benefit, I was referring to Free Will Part 1, and the reason why I left time demarcations is so that those who wish to can easily confirm what I simply recorded below, and also to safely provide that nay-sayers won't make any difference to those who want to see for themselves. By the way, I believe Free Will is possible, I just hate shallow and inconsistent arguments! Stefbot may be quick witted, but his lack of depth(if you'll forgive me), is unfathomable.
At 12:27: You(Stefbot) acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the determinists' position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not Stefbot? And at 12:47 you say, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a logical argument, these can be viewed as either motives or causal, as you yourself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
I don't believe there is any evidence for anything being random. We define as random that which falls outside our ability to predict. Reality does not owe us an understanding of it. Reality does not owe us the ability to measure and predict it. The funny thing about randomness is that it keeps moving as our ability to observe, understand and therefor predict improves.
Similarly the universe was defined as infinite because it couldn't be measured.
Saying the ability to debate free will requires free will is circular reasoning. While the ability to authentically debate it with an authentically undetermined outcome is dependent on it's existence, the illusion of having such a debate is not.
But if ther is lot of wariable time dimensions so many that you may act completely random on some of they. And you just not act random this dimension because luck. And you are so luck that not eaven any person exept lunatic act random this time dimension. Posibility of that is not very small because ther can be biljons and biljons time dimension.
Y'ever considered what Terence McKenna would suggest to truly answer this question for you? That's five dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms. I assure you, after this experience, your mind will be put to rest concerning this so-called dilemma. It's a heroic dose, but on the other hand, certain questions will be answered forever for you.
I am starting to enjoy every single video you make. However here, you did not make an argument for free will. You made an emotional argument for the beauty of complexity. At least that's what I got from it. Tell me if I misunderstood. Great video anyway. -sorry for my english, im romanian-
Interesting, but somewhat circular. I find most philosophical debates such as this one suffer from the nature of logic itself. It appears to be impossible to construct an argument, logical or otherwise, that does not make arbitrary and ultimately unjustifiable prepositions as a starting point.
This also drives me nuts when atheists and religious people argue with each other really. They both make arbitrary statements that are impossible to back up, but presume to be true regardless.
you said if you put together 10 guys, they wont levitate. I find that metaphor not to very compelling, when you talk about free-will and body parts. A better example could be a computer parts? Hard drive, cpu, memory, software - individually by themselves do not create a functioning computer, but when you put them together - they do. So a new function comes out of connecting these individual parts, which by themselves do not poses that function.
There is no freewill.Freewill is the most evil concept that ever happened to mankind.It allows people to hold a superior,as well as barbaic attitude towards others.It allows people to say things like "he did it to himself,so i dont feel sorry for him".or"he did this to me on purpose."which allows justifiable feelings of revenge.It allows people to treat criminals direspectfuly and the mentally ill with contempt&blame.Freewill is a gross belief,which will someday not be believed by the masses
I don't think so. Free will means that man is responsible for his actions. Determinism can just as easily be seen as a sort of excuse. ie. saying that Well I can't be held responsible for murder, or anything wrong.
@JordanKimball no you can't say that. I understood why you would say that and I think as the world moves towards excepting a more deterministic understanding of things certainly people will try to say that sometimes, but it's a very mute arguement. When someone is being immature or ignorant it is definetely their fault, however I think when we look at things deterministically we do find it easier to understand and feel compassion for the motives of our fellow humans wrongdoings. :)
@JordanKimball isn't compatiblism just determinism with freewill defined. Isn't it just determinism with an emphasis on the notion that our "will" is indeed free but just not in the same way that Libertarian Freewillists would say?
if anyone ever trys to say, "it wasn't my fault! my brain made me do it" slap them in the face, say the same thing, and then say WE ARE OUR BRAINS and I bet they won't try it again... Deterministic philosophy supports that our actions should shape our future actions
@JordanKimball it seems to me that compatiblism is the determinists (like our beloved dennet right? :) ) attempt to rephrase the philosophy in a way that makes people who find that determinism sounds uncomfortable feel more comfortable... The terms employed to contrast determinism most greatly from Lib Free Will often tinge of constraint and limit.. It sounds less good.. But that's because people thought up Lib Free Will first and added every bell and whistle they could to it.. Det is real
@JordanKimball I don't feel that way at all. Why should it change anything about what is moral and what isn't if the universe is deterministic or not? Also, how is combatibalism any different from determinism except in usage of words?
One thing that I see is that determinists seem to change to language that sounds a lot like free will whenever morals are brought up. In a deterministic universe there is no such thing as being truth or false because there is no room for an alternate state. So how can you say that something is right or wrong. If you want to argue that causality can't be changed then can you change the way you are? Again, I'm not too knowledgeable about this subject but this seems to be what I've heard argued.
@JordanKimball Okay okay, well I think I would to write you a letter but until then I want you to know that there is an answer for all of this from the deterministic perspective... I need to go to sleep right now but seriously, I have a very good answer for your questions.. For now I'll ask you again, "where exactly determinism differs from combatibalism??" because it seems to me to simply be a difference in definitions...
Mr. Stefbot, are you aware in this video you undercut your own agrument for the existance of free will? Rather than saying something like you subscribe to the doctrine of free will because it correctly reflects the reality of human existance, you say you hate determinism because it takes all the "meaning" out of life. Under all your attempts at logic you believe in free will because it makes you feel good emotionally. Sir, that is not a reason to believe in something!!
@tasteslikepuppies You are quite correct. At 12:27: Stefbot acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the Determinist's position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not? And at 12:47 he says, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a logical argument, these can be viewed as either motive or causal. As he himself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
@tasteslikepuppies You are right! At 12:27: He(Stefbot) acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the determinists' position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not Stefbot? And at 12:47 he says, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a in logical argument, these can be viewed as either motives or causal, as you yourself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
I will to fly,but i can't i don't have no wings.I would do Good,but evil seems to be present with.HMMM.No good deed goes unpunished.At times i will hush,at times i ought to have.
The only person in the Bible to have free will is God,even Jesus submitted His will to the Father.Sorry all you free willers,you are only a tool in God's tool box.
@johngeetar I have and I believe I would not want it any other way.I want an all knowing,all powerful God to be in charge,not some foulable man,not myself that's for sure.Do you realize what you are saying and what the eternal implications are?
@CBALLEN I was a christian for 15+ years, I understand what YOU think the "eternal implications" are. I am just hoping you will take to the logical conclusion all of the assertions you are making about your deity.
@johngeetar LOL,if you're not a Christian now,you never were since God chooses His own,you would have been the one saying LORD ,LORD and Jesus saying I never knew you.
@CBALLEN Do yourself a favor and look up the "no true scottsman" fallicy. You don't know me and you don't know what I have been through. I take it you have embraced the reformed faith?
@CBALLEN Your critical thinking skills are severely lacking. Either that or you are willfully ignorant. I'm sad for you because you never will be for yourself.
@johngeetar It appears that you were made for God to show His wrath against,that's really scary! So don't worry about me,worry about you.Hebrews tells us that if someone who tasted God's goodness would ever leave,there would be no sacrifice left for him.
@CBALLEN So your god created me only to destroy me? Haha, nice. He's all loving right? I'm not worried about me at all. I seriously hope you will spend some time thinking about the god you propose. I understand your world view, as much as you think I don't, I really do. But seriously think for just a moment about what you are saying. It's laughable at BEST.
Anyway, life, consciousness and free will are emergent properties. This doesn't mean that they escape causality as this clown seems to think. He's merely suggesting that when things get extremely complex that maybe magic happens.
isn't free will about being without no limits, having no obstuctions in your way to be or do anything you want or to experience anything you desire and being in touch with your own divine self and also to have the right to change your free will when you so choose to at any given moment
A computer is made of many parts, the sum is greater than the parts. If you take a hammer and break it it will no longer work. What this has to do with free-will, I don't know. A computer still does not have free-will, but can do more things that a single component of it. The fact that we are a complex machine, and can do many things does not rule out that the processes that lead to our actions are determined.
the word free itself implys a chioce without confinement or punishment regardless the chioce...hell is a confinement area for those who choose against the will of GOD...which makes it void of the free aspect...call it what you like but thats a simple fact...you cant tell someone something is free and then charge them for it...whats the opposite of freedom....hmmm...common sense...people in jail arent free...just like free will isnt complete freeness
Let's get right to the point, shall we? If the difference between angels and man is that man was created with freewill and the angels were created to serve god, How did the angels rebell in heaven? They couldn't have CHOSEN to follow satan. They don't posess freewill. Satan cannot tempt them to forsake god. They have no choice. Religion fails at its SOURCE.
I don't understand why God's knowledge that you'll kill a man in ten days removes your choice. It seems to me that God's knowledge of your future choice would be independent of your actual choice. In other words, it's not God's knowledge of your choice that limits it, it's the fact that it is a choice. If Bob chooses to kill Sam, then he is not "free" to not kill Sam, having chosen. Now God's knowledge of this future event wouldn't cause it to happen, so how is does it eliminate free will?
Very good question, and I believe it highlights one logical fallacy present in Stef's thinking. Not that it's particularly important because he is an atheist, but the fact of the matter is that god has always been depicted as omniscient. He is either a thorough reductionist or he exists on the forth dimension is thus timeless. He knows us so well he knows what we will choose, or he has seen us choose it in the future.
I completely agree. Norman Geisler put it like this, "The answer lies in the fact that God knows - for sure - (infallibly) precisely how everyone will use his freedom. So, from the vantage point of His omniscience, the act is totally determined. Yet from the standpoint of our freedom it is not determined.
This is pretty interesting..but I wonder whether the whole life vs non-life argument really challenges the idea of determinism, or whether it points out our lack of knowledge about the "variables" that are key to the creation of life through the aggregation of all the right atoms in all the right places. Because then its just like when we first discovered electrons could function as both particles and waves..it was shocking from a deterministic perspective, but made sense later!
well then again it still doesn't make sense :). But I will admit that as far as we know, if our logic would seem to tell us that life can not be created from non-living components..then free will is certainly possible as well. I guess that was the point!
Compatibilism is like this he doesnt understand it at all. Some things are deterministic because there is only one possible out come for that situation. Like if you choose between a pretty girl and an ugly girl. The choice is made for you you will always choose the pretty girl unless you have some bias against pretty girls then you'll always choose ugly. But between two equally attractive women you could go either way the causes leading up to this decision give you two or more possible optio
Everything is made up of energy and energy ISN'T created,or destroyed,it just changes form...Well,that means since energy's always existed nothing's ever been created and since everything has always been here and has not been created,it never got the choice to be here to do what it does to begin with(my beliefs on the subject)
In summary: Aggregates of matter gain functions that they previously didn't have. A bit does not do anything on its own, but aggregates of them can make programs, etc.
If we change Descartes's lovely little quote around a bit .... "I think therefore I have freewill" we get a beautiful correlation between thinking and existing and thinking and free will.
How can the whole be greator than the sum of its parts? I agree that life IS an example of this. But that begs the question. The new property that emerges, emerges from where? What source? Can emergent properties be predicted? What are the limits and bounds of "Emergent Properties". I think that physical properties are a material cause that allow metaphysical potential (Emergent Property Reservoir) to discharge into the material. Emergent Properties "Prove" a metaphysical reality, agree?
It is a function of how the parts are integrated together. For example, a transistor cannot be made from two diodes even though all the necessary components are there. The amplification of the transistor is a result of the positioning of the junctions and the relative doping. it is in no way a characteristic of either of the junctions on their own.
if there's free-will why would anyone choose evil, which is something not good? Why would any1 purposely choose that which is not good over that which is good? If he's too weak to choose good then is it his fault that he's weak, and if he can choose to be strong why wouldn't he do that which is supposedly better than weak?
Well it begins to harden when we start not listening to him,it becomes colder and harder thru our acts of disobediance,and yes God has authored it too get harder as we sin more.
If a plant could talk, it could tell a rock that it has free will because whereas the rock just sits there or gets bumped around, plants grow, blossom, branch out, etc., with seemingly no external forces acting on it.
Of course, it would have no conception of how the sun effects the process of photosynthesis. It would "think" that it was "self-propelled"—that it had free will.
This is the argument that Stefan is making. I'm agnostic on determinism, but Stefan's argument here is no good.
VTAcraft 2 days ago
Luck -->DNA
DNA--> Brain Wiring
Brain Wiring --> Personality
Personality --> Decisions
Decsions --> YOUR LIFE
If someone can argue with this...well congradulations...you will be the first person in more than 3 years to prove me wrong. But...you probably wont...because you probably cant.
HedgehogRebellion 2 weeks ago
Hope this is going to improve. The atomic thing was setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The universe as a whole follows physical laws. We are a part of that universe so we follow the same cause-and-effect physical laws. Everything must have a cause. Therefore, no free will. That doesn't mean that life doesn't have meaning. All my life I have acted as if I have free will and I will continue to do so. What else can you do?
mikef179 1 month ago
@mikef179 Which cause and effect laws are you talking about? Newtonian Laws? All fundamental physical laws are stochastic in nature, not causal. We only derive causal laws at the macroscopic level to simplify the calculations.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
God can know what choice you will make without affecting your free will. If I hand a starving child a cupcake, he/she has the free will to eat it or reject it, but I know he/she will eat it because I know the child is starving. God knows all, he's omniscient, he knows exactly how we will behave, even though we have free will. Does that not sound rational to you?
Naytardo 3 months ago
@Naytardo no. if God knows the future, the future is fixed and there is no free will.
Aldelirium 2 months ago
I'm not sure if anyone else has posted a comment like this, but isn't another way to describe 'the soul' simply 'one's conscience' (conscience being thought, which is a form of energy) ? Most of the discussion about what happens when we die revolves around if our 'conscience' goes on - religious people do think so (re: the afterlife/heaven), they just call it 'the soul' going on rather than 'the conscience' - the soul is just the religious way of saying 'conscience', in other words.
BagOfEyebrows 3 months ago
Hmm I'd like to understand your argument but I have a problem: A single skin cell for example is also "alive" and it can "live", although not for long, even if separated from the whole body. Does this single skin cell have any other properties then what's determined in it's DNA? Can it grow into a bone cell if attached to a another person's bone? Being alive doesn't seem to exactly invalidate determinism, or am I completely of base here?
hazeee123 3 months ago
@hazeee123 That's not his point. You have to watch the next video I guess. Here he is only showing that the whole is more than the sum of the parts and so one cannot invalidate free will in a human simply because the parts are subject to causality.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
Basing your major opinions about life upon your emotions sounds like a bad idea.
justinroseart 5 months ago
Is anything outside of atomic causality?
doobersmanster 5 months ago
RECOGNIZE the layers of MIND; ((Remember the point about Miracles as a means of organizing different levels of consciousness. Miracles come from the subconscious (below conscious) level. Revelations come from the above conscious level. The conscious level is in between and reacts to either sub- or super-conscious impulses in varying ratios. Freud was right about the classification, but not the names. He was also right that the content of consciousness is fleeting."))From Course in miracles. com
matthewjohn007 6 months ago
We are programmed biological robots. I would say we have the ability to make choices, but limited by our programming, that is, all our choices are merely responses to input determined by our programming. We effectively have no choice in what we choose. :-)
AnnRKey 6 months ago
@AnnRKey In a way your right. You have no choice because you chose to not have any.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
the notion of free will is scientifically untenable.
sugarcanegray 6 months ago
Comment removed
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic the dichotomy of Determinism vs free will is completely false. Human behaviour is far too complicated a subject to be summed up either way.
Human beings are moulded by our environments to the extent that it affects the size of various regions of the brain. Grow up in a fearful environment, you have a larger amygdala. A larger amygdala also means more aggressive responses. Our genes are expressed even dependent on environmental stimuli.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic what that dichotomy does is remove the most important facet of human behaviour - and that's context. If you really believe you've got free will, get yourself into a "fight or flight" situation, and see how little you control your behaviour.
Biologically speaking, free will is nonsense. It relies on the existence of the soul, some character vessel separate from biology and environment, which is just silly.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray biologically speaking yes free will is nonsense. But Thats if u measure reality in terms of biology, which i don't have a problem with. But even if you had free will, i don't believe you would be able to measure it biologically cuz a soul is not biological. U may think a soul is silly, i don't disbelieve in it but i have an open mind. But full determinism is not proven and evidence suggest that randomness can exist. These are smart physicists so being open is not unreasonable.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic by the way, there's plenty of scientific literature on determinism. It's rooted in nature, so your liking it to believing in unicorns is plain stupid. There is not one shred of evidence for free will, and furthermore it goes directly against all scientific research into the subject.
Watch this video to show just how easily free will is completely disproven: youtube dot com/ watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
Comment removed
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic I'm not mad at you at all, just offering some insight into the free will subject. I'm not pushing determinism either, as I said, the "determinism/free will" dichotomy itself is a complete fallacy.
Did you watch the video I posted above? It shows very simply how the notion of an absolute free will controlling our behaviour is utter nonsense.
Also might I recommend watch Dr Sapolsky's Human Behavioural Biology lecture series from Stanford University posted here on YouTube.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray The thing is I do get what Dr Sapolsky's is saying. I don't know everything but in general i do get what he is teaching. But the thing is he never said that the environment ''forced'' someone to turn out some way. Usually the word is ''affected'' or ''influenced''. So the ironic thing is that even when we learn about these biological things, dna, environment, predictability, when you take a step back there still is that door that you always knew. Nothing really has changed.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic yes it seems there are a lot of "influences" but no "determinants" when it comes to human behaviour. Even genes are known to only be a small component when it comes to behaviour. All the factors combined, dna and genetics, environment etc all add up to make us what we are.
This was the point I was originally trying to make - that the subject is too complex to sum up in either direction concretely.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray If i were a 100 percent determinists, no doubt. This is what would happen. I wouldn't react and get mad at people atleast as much. They had no other choice. And so by me realizing that, the atoms in my brain shifted with my perception in a harmonious way. I would not care as much about bad things happen, I would not take credit for good things happening. I would not argue against a free will person and call them stupid. They had no choice. Yet determinists don't follow this.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray I have a friend who is a determinist. A total contradictor. Says you ''HAVE'' to follow the universes plan because your a human being so you have to pretend. He says predicting the future can help you, although admits u cant change a thing. He always says he should have, or u could have done this. And when I correct him all he does is crack up hella hard in a state of confusion and says oh yea huh, hmm... Then he says, well you still gotta pretend to make things fun.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray if u got time, click on this guys stephs channel and type in determinists in search for his video. U will see what he's talking about when it comes to them contradicting themselves. I don't necessarily have a problem with someone thinking determinism might be possible, but when they say it's a fact and they get mad at u and still pretend like u have a choice, that is very funny. To me a fact is only a fact when it's 100 percent proven, not when theres some evidence.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray behaviour is determined by a mixture of genes and memes.
Aldelirium 2 months ago
@Aldelirium The study of behaviour is not a science, it is social science. There is a reason for that.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray im not saying that i can falsify determinism. Im not trying to ''prove'' free will either. But what is funny to me is how determinists don't really act like they are determinist. It's like they believe in determinism but then they kinda forget it when they have a conversation and act like they are free and expect you to be too. Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little. Yet determinists never seem to understand the point im making.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic "Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little." this is very true and a very strong point against determinism right there. Just because someone might have, say, the gene that has something to do with aggression, this does not determine the fact that they will be aggressive throughout their lives - it might predispose them, but a predisposition is not the same as a predetermination.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray What that tells me is that most determinists may believe in it but not as much as they say. They still act like it's your choice and hold you to it, judge you, nothing changes when they talk about anything else. I would imagine if I believed in determinism like it was factual, my wordings would change. I would not use words like choice, could have, unfortunately, etc... They keep bouncing back from 3rd person to 1st person and don't even realize it. Nothing has changed for them.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sugarcanegray im not saying that i can falsify determinism. Im not trying to ''prove'' free will either. But what is funny to me is how determinists don't really act like they are determinist. It's like they believe in determinism but then they kinda forget it when they have a conversation and act like they are free and expect you to be too. Usually when you have a shift in the way you think, your actions change a little. Yet determinists never seem to understand the point im making.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
Comment removed
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic this has nothing to do with your idea of what determinism might mean, but more to do with how the notion of free will is false. As the experiment shows (which has been replicated many many times) the brain in this instance makes the decision to press the button half a second before the conscious mind is even aware of it. That one fact itself totally refutes the notion of free will. It's a pretty basic test too, there are far more complex studies into behaviour out there.
sugarcanegray 4 months ago
@sugarcanegray It doesn't matter. The reason why is they didn't predict when that half second would occur. You have to understand it's not a complete experiment. Plus it has been further documented that they are not accurate 100 percent of the time, but they are the majority of the time. I have to admit that this experiment was not as impressive as some think it is. If you would like to show me more complex videos, sure.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
Comment removed
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
Jacque Fresco on Free Will: youtube.com/watch?v=Jjy-FU6tqPI
GoldwireIT 7 months ago
Also, based on how you define free will in your second video (e.g. ability to calculate long term consequences of actions), I don't see why whether the universe is deterministic or not is relevant to whether or not we have free will. Even if the universe is deterministic, humans can still do all the things you said we could do that you say make us have free will, so isn't your conception of free will actually a compatibilist one? What am I missing?
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown you need to watch his video again.
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
When you explain what you see as the determinists' fallacy of composition error, I think the determinist position would be more clearly stated if you said, "The actions of the toe are causally determined; the actions of the foot are causally determined ..." etc rather than "The toe has no free will; the foot has no free will..." etc. This makes it clear that you think the causal chain of "atomic determinism" is broken when you form a whole human, allowing the human to somehow have free will.
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown it does not magically break as the human is part of a system and thus a slave to causality.
Aldelirium 2 months ago
@Aldelirium I agree that the causal chain does not break, but given that Stefan describes some sort of determinism at the atomic level while denying that humans are deterministic, he must believe that there is some sort of magical break in causality somehow that allows human to choose from multiple possible futures despite the fact that deterministic atoms only have one possible future. I don't think the view makes sense, but it seems to be what he believes judging by the video.
WelcometotheUnknown 2 months ago
A good video, whenever I try to explain why I am a determinist to my friends, I find it very hard, and none of them get it or agree :/ morons hahaha
matprithellodave 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Comment removed
i8neo 7 months ago
Comment removed
i8neo 7 months ago
What you should know - it is a scientific fact that we can not know all the variables exactly so it is impossible to know exactly where the bouncing rock is going to end up.
johammbass 7 months ago
And speaking of Rush. . .
Wheels within wheels, in a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex
Time after time we lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects
You call it corn. We call it maize.
SgtCrom 7 months ago
If the Universe is deterministic then you should theoretically be able to construct a mathematical algorithm that would model the Universe EXACTLY. The INSANE complexity of this theoretical algorithm is exactly what shows that determinism fails to meet the test of Occam's Razor. Freewill is so much simpler, by so many orders of magnitude, that it becomes the obvious choice for anyone who still has two brain cells to rub together, Rush fan or not.
SgtCrom 7 months ago
Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (where the presence of an observer alters the system and thus the behavior of the object being observed, skewing the observed data) kind of blow the living sh*t out of any mechanistic/linear/deterministic arguments?
SgtCrom 7 months ago
Or syllogistic. I like syllogistic reasoning a lot because it's so elegant. Like a good calculus proof.
SgtCrom 7 months ago
@mthrnaturesson, I have a similar viewpoint. I think a lot of folks are making a huge mistake in thinking that the scientific method is purely about empiricism. It is also (and, in my opinion, the greater part) about the intuition (based on a synthesis of experiential data) from which spring the hypotheses that the empirical part of the scientific method exists to test in the first place. Empiricism without intuition is like using only deductive reasoning and never inductive. It's kinda dumb.
SgtCrom 7 months ago
Love this guy.
But, talk of escaping causality seems odd and unnecessary.
It seems to me that determinists fail to address (or even properly define) indeterminacy and intentionality.
Shortcut: your will is free because you are alive. Now go and be a good person. ;)
JayBlue72 8 months ago
Comment removed
phlexonance 9 months ago
Great vid. Though I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that systems of increasing complexity are necessarily a 'problem' for the determinist's argument. I'm an expert of nothing, but looking at atoms forming molecules, forming micro-organisms, forming animals and humans, who form languages, social systems and technology... While it's all amazing, it all also seems to happen in accordance with causality and no hint of free will. Conciousness itself though, still seems like a big question mark.
WhyteEagle 9 months ago
gonna watch the other parts, but now a few Q's:1) the FREE in the freedomain radio, does it have the same meaning as the FREE in the free will? 2) What is will? 3) IS there a difference between free will and free choice?
bergweg 9 months ago
I heard a guy once say "the illusion of freewill is itself an illusion". It's not that our senses present a distorted view of reality, it's that we are mistaken about the nature of our experience. What are you really experiencing in every moment??
70k3r74m35 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not too long ago the argument was .. how can a bunch of organic parts create life.
not understanding how the brain works or the scientific definition of something like free will doesn't mean that it cannot be formed.
We are beginning to understand emotions like love as a biochemical process.. free will may just take more time.....
maybe free will is just an illusion (in the strictest sense)...
test123ok 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not too long ago the argument was .. how can a bunch of organic parts create life.
not understanding how the brain works or the scientific definition of something like free will doesn't mean that it cannot be formed.
We are beginning to understand emotions like love as a biochemical process.. free will may just more time.....
maybe free will is just an illusion (in the strictest sense)...
test123ok 10 months ago
not to long ago the argument was .. how can a bunch of organic parts create life.
not understanding how the brain works or the scientific definition of something like free will doesn't mean that it cannot be formed.
We are beginning to understand emotions like love as a biochemical process.. free will may just more time.....
maybe free will is just an illusion (in the strictest sense)...
test123ok 10 months ago
A carbon atom has no free will and no propulltion. A car has propulltion. Does that mean that a car has free will??
unclesamfatg 10 months ago
Comment removed
esizzle2005 11 months ago
physical reductionism is crap
verymaddog 11 months ago
Had you known God, you would not so freely dismiss His ability to create a closed system with open possibilities. We tend to think in a lineal, time moving forward or backward basis and we cannot comprehend the context of 'all'. As Einstein said 'the universe is expanding into nothing'. This is kind of along the lines of this idea. We cannot fathom how it is possible for the universe to even exist, since it is no where, and yet we sit in Judgment on the Creator of that universe.
Begin again.
donsteigerwald 11 months ago
To the person who made this video: you are incorrect. You base your arguments on assumptions that are flawed. For example at 6:22 you say that if God already knows something is going to happen, then that event was pre-determined. You say this only because your understanding of God is based on being a dead person. That is, you do now know the God on whom you place your judgments. You assume that God is as you assume Him to be based on logic and you experience of your own existence. Had you known
donsteigerwald 11 months ago
Your DNA wires your brain
Your brain makes your decisions
Luck is everything
chefshitpiece 11 months ago
Considering you never define freewill the name of this series is ironic.
Frankly, you're making faith arguments; constructing strawmen and calling them ridiculous and putting up no evidence for your actual position.
Just think of the brain as a computer whose decisions are a result of our physical construction combined with our life's experiences. At every single point in time these computers make choices constantly, we love and behave ethically, these are all part of our behaviors.
Philosification 11 months ago
Comment removed
Philosification 11 months ago
Mr. Molyneux, I remember you saying in your Intro to Philosophy series that the idea of government is nonsensical because it's a group of people who retain attributes that an individual does not. Yet here, you say that aggregations can have components completely opposite to that of it's individual components. Is this a contradiction?
IronicallyChristian 11 months ago
Comment removed
KieIicious 1 year ago
'Life' and 'alive' are just pretty words humans use to describe the state and behaviour of certain deterministic arrangements and systems of atoms and energy.
Ozmiumic 1 year ago 7
Free will is possible only to the extent and depth that we can examine our perceptions of the world objectively. It is those who take them for granted who are the most enslaved. This is why only the most courageous are truly free.
shrinkrap123 1 year ago
For the viewers' and comment-readers' benefit, I was referring to Free Will Part 1, and the reason why I left time demarcations is so that those who wish to can easily confirm what I simply recorded below, and also to safely provide that nay-sayers won't make any difference to those who want to see for themselves. By the way, I believe Free Will is possible, I just hate shallow and inconsistent arguments! Stefbot may be quick witted, but his lack of depth(if you'll forgive me), is unfathomable.
shrinkrap123 1 year ago
At 12:27: You(Stefbot) acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the determinists' position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not Stefbot? And at 12:47 you say, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a logical argument, these can be viewed as either motives or causal, as you yourself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
shrinkrap123 1 year ago
I don't believe there is any evidence for anything being random. We define as random that which falls outside our ability to predict. Reality does not owe us an understanding of it. Reality does not owe us the ability to measure and predict it. The funny thing about randomness is that it keeps moving as our ability to observe, understand and therefor predict improves.
Similarly the universe was defined as infinite because it couldn't be measured.
"If we don't know it, it can't be known"=false.
momentinpassing 1 year ago
Saying the ability to debate free will requires free will is circular reasoning. While the ability to authentically debate it with an authentically undetermined outcome is dependent on it's existence, the illusion of having such a debate is not.
momentinpassing 1 year ago
But if ther is lot of wariable time dimensions so many that you may act completely random on some of they. And you just not act random this dimension because luck. And you are so luck that not eaven any person exept lunatic act random this time dimension. Posibility of that is not very small because ther can be biljons and biljons time dimension.
s3condwind 1 year ago
Y'ever considered what Terence McKenna would suggest to truly answer this question for you? That's five dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms. I assure you, after this experience, your mind will be put to rest concerning this so-called dilemma. It's a heroic dose, but on the other hand, certain questions will be answered forever for you.
Hanahleia 1 year ago
I am starting to enjoy every single video you make. However here, you did not make an argument for free will. You made an emotional argument for the beauty of complexity. At least that's what I got from it. Tell me if I misunderstood. Great video anyway. -sorry for my english, im romanian-
Yamakoto120 1 year ago
Interesting, but somewhat circular. I find most philosophical debates such as this one suffer from the nature of logic itself. It appears to be impossible to construct an argument, logical or otherwise, that does not make arbitrary and ultimately unjustifiable prepositions as a starting point.
This also drives me nuts when atheists and religious people argue with each other really. They both make arbitrary statements that are impossible to back up, but presume to be true regardless.
KuraIthys 1 year ago
skip to 17:30
and you might actually hear something you haven't before
that's a MIGHT
MirageScience 1 year ago
you said if you put together 10 guys, they wont levitate. I find that metaphor not to very compelling, when you talk about free-will and body parts. A better example could be a computer parts? Hard drive, cpu, memory, software - individually by themselves do not create a functioning computer, but when you put them together - they do. So a new function comes out of connecting these individual parts, which by themselves do not poses that function.
kszpirak 1 year ago
How do you choose the unknown freely when free will is constrained by the known.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
Can I freely choose to act randomly?
HelmetBlissta 1 year ago
What is life? Just a complex chain of chemical reactions that reach maximum entropy when someone dies.
No one would argue that a robot is alive, but it can move around.
We're not more than the sum of our parts, we have no soul., so we are deterministic.
spartacandream 1 year ago
There is no freewill.Freewill is the most evil concept that ever happened to mankind.It allows people to hold a superior,as well as barbaic attitude towards others.It allows people to say things like "he did it to himself,so i dont feel sorry for him".or"he did this to me on purpose."which allows justifiable feelings of revenge.It allows people to treat criminals direspectfuly and the mentally ill with contempt&blame.Freewill is a gross belief,which will someday not be believed by the masses
fallcrysilk 1 year ago
I don't think so. Free will means that man is responsible for his actions. Determinism can just as easily be seen as a sort of excuse. ie. saying that Well I can't be held responsible for murder, or anything wrong.
JordanKimball 1 year ago
@JordanKimball no you can't say that. I understood why you would say that and I think as the world moves towards excepting a more deterministic understanding of things certainly people will try to say that sometimes, but it's a very mute arguement. When someone is being immature or ignorant it is definetely their fault, however I think when we look at things deterministically we do find it easier to understand and feel compassion for the motives of our fellow humans wrongdoings. :)
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
yeah. I can see your point. I guess I find the arguments for compatibilism the most compelling.
JordanKimball 1 year ago
@JordanKimball isn't compatiblism just determinism with freewill defined. Isn't it just determinism with an emphasis on the notion that our "will" is indeed free but just not in the same way that Libertarian Freewillists would say?
if anyone ever trys to say, "it wasn't my fault! my brain made me do it" slap them in the face, say the same thing, and then say WE ARE OUR BRAINS and I bet they won't try it again... Deterministic philosophy supports that our actions should shape our future actions
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@JordanKimball *redefined
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@JordanKimball it seems to me that compatiblism is the determinists (like our beloved dennet right? :) ) attempt to rephrase the philosophy in a way that makes people who find that determinism sounds uncomfortable feel more comfortable... The terms employed to contrast determinism most greatly from Lib Free Will often tinge of constraint and limit.. It sounds less good.. But that's because people thought up Lib Free Will first and added every bell and whistle they could to it.. Det is real
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@JordanKimball every linguistic bell and whistle that is..
Let me know if you think otherwise LOL :)
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
I have to admit that the idea of determinism is uncomfortable for me especially whenever the subject of morals come up.
JordanKimball 1 year ago
@JordanKimball I don't feel that way at all. Why should it change anything about what is moral and what isn't if the universe is deterministic or not? Also, how is combatibalism any different from determinism except in usage of words?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
One thing that I see is that determinists seem to change to language that sounds a lot like free will whenever morals are brought up. In a deterministic universe there is no such thing as being truth or false because there is no room for an alternate state. So how can you say that something is right or wrong. If you want to argue that causality can't be changed then can you change the way you are? Again, I'm not too knowledgeable about this subject but this seems to be what I've heard argued.
JordanKimball 1 year ago
@JordanKimball Okay okay, well I think I would to write you a letter but until then I want you to know that there is an answer for all of this from the deterministic perspective... I need to go to sleep right now but seriously, I have a very good answer for your questions.. For now I'll ask you again, "where exactly determinism differs from combatibalism??" because it seems to me to simply be a difference in definitions...
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
Mr. Stefbot, are you aware in this video you undercut your own agrument for the existance of free will? Rather than saying something like you subscribe to the doctrine of free will because it correctly reflects the reality of human existance, you say you hate determinism because it takes all the "meaning" out of life. Under all your attempts at logic you believe in free will because it makes you feel good emotionally. Sir, that is not a reason to believe in something!!
tasteslikepuppies 1 year ago 22
@tasteslikepuppies You are quite correct. At 12:27: Stefbot acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the Determinist's position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not? And at 12:47 he says, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a logical argument, these can be viewed as either motive or causal. As he himself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
shrinkrap123 1 year ago
@tasteslikepuppies
No. No he didn't say that at all. He just said that HE was emotionally offended by determinism, not that it was the basis of argument.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
@tasteslikepuppies You are right! At 12:27: He(Stefbot) acknowledged that “..emotionally, I really dislike the determinists' position. Of course, that's entirely true, but it doesn't mean anything.” Why not Stefbot? And at 12:47 he says, “I believe that a determinist position eradicates all the joy of human life.” In a court of law, or a in logical argument, these can be viewed as either motives or causal, as you yourself acknowledged at 13:14, “we are looking at the emotional causality”
shrinkrap123 1 year ago
@tasteslikepuppies I don't know. I think a lot of people would think that is a perfectly valid reason and would happily take the blue pill.
TimYoung8 8 months ago
@tasteslikepuppies where does he say that?
Sivels 6 months ago
This guy doesn't have a vague clue what he's babbling about.
Ridiculous.
Shameful.
It hurts.
trakkaton 1 year ago
I will to fly,but i can't i don't have no wings.I would do Good,but evil seems to be present with.HMMM.No good deed goes unpunished.At times i will hush,at times i ought to have.
watershoe5 1 year ago
The only person in the Bible to have free will is God,even Jesus submitted His will to the Father.Sorry all you free willers,you are only a tool in God's tool box.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN If he is all knowing, then he has no free will. If he knows what he himself will do, he has no power to change it.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar He is God ,He does not change.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Then he is powerless.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar When you have perfect knowledge,why would you have to change your mind?God does not learn,He is the original KNOW IT ALL!
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Take a moment and think about the further implications of what you are saying.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar I have and I believe I would not want it any other way.I want an all knowing,all powerful God to be in charge,not some foulable man,not myself that's for sure.Do you realize what you are saying and what the eternal implications are?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN I was a christian for 15+ years, I understand what YOU think the "eternal implications" are. I am just hoping you will take to the logical conclusion all of the assertions you are making about your deity.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar LOL,if you're not a Christian now,you never were since God chooses His own,you would have been the one saying LORD ,LORD and Jesus saying I never knew you.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Do yourself a favor and look up the "no true scottsman" fallicy. You don't know me and you don't know what I have been through. I take it you have embraced the reformed faith?
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar I'm not giving you the no true scottsman line,Jesus is, when He tells people He never knew them when they thought they were Christians.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@johngeetar Know this though,you are exactly were God wants you,He created everything for it's purpose,even the wicked for the day of evil.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Your critical thinking skills are severely lacking. Either that or you are willfully ignorant. I'm sad for you because you never will be for yourself.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar It appears that you were made for God to show His wrath against,that's really scary! So don't worry about me,worry about you.Hebrews tells us that if someone who tasted God's goodness would ever leave,there would be no sacrifice left for him.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN So your god created me only to destroy me? Haha, nice. He's all loving right? I'm not worried about me at all. I seriously hope you will spend some time thinking about the god you propose. I understand your world view, as much as you think I don't, I really do. But seriously think for just a moment about what you are saying. It's laughable at BEST.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar That's funny,I was thinking just how foolish you are.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Cool.
johngeetar 1 year ago
@johngeetar Now what are you gonna do,just give your worship to the unintelligent ,non-living "dot god"?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
Anyway, life, consciousness and free will are emergent properties. This doesn't mean that they escape causality as this clown seems to think. He's merely suggesting that when things get extremely complex that maybe magic happens.
rooley 1 year ago
isn't free will about being without no limits, having no obstuctions in your way to be or do anything you want or to experience anything you desire and being in touch with your own divine self and also to have the right to change your free will when you so choose to at any given moment
thebluebunny1 1 year ago
@thebluebunny1 nope
dopejoel 1 year ago
Free Will? Read Jean Paul Satre and all your questions are answered :)
WodanBlog 1 year ago
@WodanBlog Quote "Even a jew in a concentration camp had a choice to go left or right"
That's free will folks.
Kill yourself NOW if you want... Free Will. I love to be free. Lions couldnt kill themselves if they want... well they' can't "want to die"
WodanBlog 1 year ago
A computer is made of many parts, the sum is greater than the parts. If you take a hammer and break it it will no longer work. What this has to do with free-will, I don't know. A computer still does not have free-will, but can do more things that a single component of it. The fact that we are a complex machine, and can do many things does not rule out that the processes that lead to our actions are determined.
markinu 1 year ago
the word free itself implys a chioce without confinement or punishment regardless the chioce...hell is a confinement area for those who choose against the will of GOD...which makes it void of the free aspect...call it what you like but thats a simple fact...you cant tell someone something is free and then charge them for it...whats the opposite of freedom....hmmm...common sense...people in jail arent free...just like free will isnt complete freeness
JazySnatch 1 year ago
I rap about this stuff
R0CKFACE 1 year ago
Let's get right to the point, shall we? If the difference between angels and man is that man was created with freewill and the angels were created to serve god, How did the angels rebell in heaven? They couldn't have CHOSEN to follow satan. They don't posess freewill. Satan cannot tempt them to forsake god. They have no choice. Religion fails at its SOURCE.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
so, i see preexisting conditions, urges, ideas, influences, causes everywhere i look...
thefreedomartist 1 year ago
i don't think we have free will in anything at all, some examples:
-we didn't bring ourselves into existence, our parents did
-we don't control consciously our bodily functions
-our thoughts in the sense of language were taught to us
-we didn't create the universe
-we react constantly, there was always a reason or reasons we think and do what we do
-even our rebellion against a cause is proof that the cause exists and is different from us
so that which came before us made us possible...
thefreedomartist 1 year ago
I don't understand why God's knowledge that you'll kill a man in ten days removes your choice. It seems to me that God's knowledge of your future choice would be independent of your actual choice. In other words, it's not God's knowledge of your choice that limits it, it's the fact that it is a choice. If Bob chooses to kill Sam, then he is not "free" to not kill Sam, having chosen. Now God's knowledge of this future event wouldn't cause it to happen, so how is does it eliminate free will?
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Very good question, and I believe it highlights one logical fallacy present in Stef's thinking. Not that it's particularly important because he is an atheist, but the fact of the matter is that god has always been depicted as omniscient. He is either a thorough reductionist or he exists on the forth dimension is thus timeless. He knows us so well he knows what we will choose, or he has seen us choose it in the future.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe
I completely agree. Norman Geisler put it like this, "The answer lies in the fact that God knows - for sure - (infallibly) precisely how everyone will use his freedom. So, from the vantage point of His omniscience, the act is totally determined. Yet from the standpoint of our freedom it is not determined.
God knows for sure what we will freely do
rmk00620 1 year ago
This is pretty interesting..but I wonder whether the whole life vs non-life argument really challenges the idea of determinism, or whether it points out our lack of knowledge about the "variables" that are key to the creation of life through the aggregation of all the right atoms in all the right places. Because then its just like when we first discovered electrons could function as both particles and waves..it was shocking from a deterministic perspective, but made sense later!
universeinverted 2 years ago
well then again it still doesn't make sense :). But I will admit that as far as we know, if our logic would seem to tell us that life can not be created from non-living components..then free will is certainly possible as well. I guess that was the point!
universeinverted 2 years ago
Compatibilism is like this he doesnt understand it at all. Some things are deterministic because there is only one possible out come for that situation. Like if you choose between a pretty girl and an ugly girl. The choice is made for you you will always choose the pretty girl unless you have some bias against pretty girls then you'll always choose ugly. But between two equally attractive women you could go either way the causes leading up to this decision give you two or more possible optio
ICANGO247 2 years ago
People are not seperate from the atoms,molecules they are made up of.We are the atoms and molecules so actually I disagree...atoms do make music.
fallcrysilk 2 years ago 2
Are corporeal composition may engender whom we are, but we are not only our atoms.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Everything is made up of energy and energy ISN'T created,or destroyed,it just changes form...Well,that means since energy's always existed nothing's ever been created and since everything has always been here and has not been created,it never got the choice to be here to do what it does to begin with(my beliefs on the subject)
fallcrysilk 2 years ago
In summary: Aggregates of matter gain functions that they previously didn't have. A bit does not do anything on its own, but aggregates of them can make programs, etc.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago 2
Great video!!! One of the better on this subject. Thanks :)
pigment777 2 years ago
"Cogito, ergo sum"....I think therefore I exist.
If we change Descartes's lovely little quote around a bit .... "I think therefore I have freewill" we get a beautiful correlation between thinking and existing and thinking and free will.
TheStarSpark 2 years ago
hey this vid is too long do you really need to repeat SO much!! my time is worth something too you know...
Salocin27 2 years ago
then if your time is worht so much why do you bother watching jeez!
rogerledasoul 2 years ago
How can the whole be greator than the sum of its parts? I agree that life IS an example of this. But that begs the question. The new property that emerges, emerges from where? What source? Can emergent properties be predicted? What are the limits and bounds of "Emergent Properties". I think that physical properties are a material cause that allow metaphysical potential (Emergent Property Reservoir) to discharge into the material. Emergent Properties "Prove" a metaphysical reality, agree?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
It is a function of how the parts are integrated together. For example, a transistor cannot be made from two diodes even though all the necessary components are there. The amplification of the transistor is a result of the positioning of the junctions and the relative doping. it is in no way a characteristic of either of the junctions on their own.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Comment removed
dartplayer170 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if there's free-will why would anyone choose evil, which is something not good? Why would any1 purposely choose that which is not good over that which is good? If he's too weak to choose good then is it his fault that he's weak, and if he can choose to be strong why wouldn't he do that which is supposedly better than weak?
thegreatestchallenge 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Isaiah 63:17
WHY, O LORD,
do YOU CAUSE US TO STRAY FROM Your ways
And HARDEN OUR HEART from fearing You?
Jesus did much the same sort of thing
when he deliberately hid the truth from his listeners.
Romans 9:18
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth."
Now THAT's what I call free will!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
sorry, but that's just superstition...
stefbot 2 years ago 15
"sorry, but that's just superstition..."
May we know what you are referring to, please?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I think he's referring to the fact that the number of bible quotes you use to argue something is directly proportional to your stupidity.
I hate to break it to you man, but Jesus never existed.
moneycrab 2 years ago
He did. But he did not walk on water.
QPOproZaC 2 years ago
" the number of bible quotes you use to argue something is directly proportional to your stupidity. "
When I am in Germany I speak German.
When I am speaking with Bible-believers
I use the Bible to refute their religion.
And there's no need for insults;
do you really think they enhance your credibility?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Well it begins to harden when we start not listening to him,it becomes colder and harder thru our acts of disobediance,and yes God has authored it too get harder as we sin more.
pricelesspam 2 years ago
"Well it begins to harden when we start not listening to him"
That's not what these passages say.
And that's not what happened to Pharaoh;
YHWH hardened his heart
before he ever even heard what Moses had to say.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
wHAT EXACT SCRIPTURE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
pricelesspam 2 years ago