So even in string theory, wich we do not yet fully understand, there is no 'chance'. We don't know why some particals appear different when we observe them and when not, we don't know when they will show up, so we call it "chance". But as soon as you DO understand it and you can see the strings (wich offcourse we will never...) you can predict the particals movement. Untill then you can call it 'chance' for all you want, but that doesn't mean it is.
When this man is beginning to talk about quantum Theory, he starts to get wrong. Because tháts when he says Determinism stops because of 'chance'.
Chance does not exist. Chance is merely that wich we (humans) cannot understand or predict.
Example from the vid: As soon as we start to weigh the coin he throws, test this mans strenght, check the humidity in the air etc etc etc, we can EXACTLY predict if its going to be heads or tails. If you know ALL the factors in the world, you can predict all
If our choices are determined by who we are and what situation we find ourself in, would it not make sense to say that those choices are the product of our will. How is it that our will is not "free" if our choices are not determined by who we are (and situation)? What are is our will "free" from then -- who we are and what situation we find ourself in?
I would call indeterminism arbitrary, random, or at best stochastic. I don't see any freedom in that.
The human brain programs itself to do thing's, it can't really be compared to a computer expert knowing how a computer will behave because the computer will only do things it has been told too by a 3rd party. Self conciousness grants you free will.
If both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with free will, then the notion of free will is incoherent. But maybe the original assumption was the problem. Perhaps determinism can be compatible with free will after all!
off-camera voice clearly does not get it. The coin analogy is as follows: if decisions in the brain are as random as a coin toss, then it means that they are out of our control anyway. Russell was not saying that choosing to flip a coin to make decisions is a way around determinism - a coin toss is determined anyway since a coin is governed by physics. The point is that if you say that your decisions are not determined, they are random, then it's still not free will.
5:49 "You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." - Morpheous
@loyalcma I think it helps to define very very carefully what "free will" means. The abstract definition many people use is incoherent. Something like: "Free will is the ability to chose my actions freely in absence of an cohersion or outside influences" just doesn't make any sense when examined.
@notfree25 Depends on what you mean by color. Under my definition it had a color, because color is the reflection of light by an object. (and yes black isn't a color but white is.)
perhaps we have free will to make decisions in life, however those decisions were based on outside forces of which we had no control over. in a sense free will and determinism co- exist. in the grand scheme of things however,I believe there is no free will. I could be wrong I could be right. all I know is that whatever you believe is what is true for you. so in a sense we are all right and all wrong.
quantum mechanics is still deterministic even though it does only determine the probability of any future event, it is still determining the future just not predetermining. With undeterminism we must have events happen idependent of all which has gone before. This does not happen in quatum mechanics.
If everything is deterministic you can't have free will. Because the brain is a physical object and therfore it can be determined what state the brain will be in, determined by previous and current states of your brain and the states of everything around you. If quantum physics are enough to not make the brain undeterministic, then I still don't see how you can have free will. Because you can not control the randomness of quantum physics with your brain, so to me that whould be random will.
I think he believes he has choosen the blue candy by free will 1st: just because he is not conscious of the reasons his subconscious mind decided based on his body' need of a blue pigment from nature to fullfill that momentary lacking in his chemical reservoir. 2nd: the group of miofibres of his arm were predisposed that instant to stretch with the less efort to that point, 3rd his brain colors prefference based in past pleasurable experiences, like an complex deterministic algoritm.
It would seem that in an ABSENCE of philosophy one doesn't really have free will.
But just like a positive visual feedback loop produces wild and unpredictable results, a self-analysing philisophical mind becomes infintiely close to free will.
We have the capacity to formulate intentions, preferences and strategies in
pursuit of survival needs - as do all sentient beings.
We also have the ability to appraise and monitor the environment to take account of influence on alternative courses of action and to predict the likely consequences ( precisely what I'm doing in selecting words for this comment) &
knowing that Unseenstrings is around waiting to pounce.Am I free to choose to post or cancel?. If not he' ll soon tell us why
The outcome of heads or tails would have been determined by the power and angle etc of the flip... which is determined by the brain... and we're left with the same conundrum all over again.
"Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables and cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious piper."
Whether those forces include random or probabilistic elements is irrelevant: the key word is 'control'. We don't control these forces -they control us. Hence there is no free will.
What's all the fuss about brain? Do we realy think just with our brain? You know, brain is just a part of our nervous system. Realy big part, but anyways it's just a part.
For example when "blood in my vains is boiling" (you probably know that feeling even if you are quite calm person) my body has significant impact on what I am thinking about. And I can even turn it around and say (still metaphorically though) that I am thinking with my fists in that moment. Or when you are hungry? Think of it.
@EndureTemptation the brain is part of the body. The particular development of the brain is a result of genes, sensory input, and the medium in which the brain is housed. Some people state this fact as "The brain develops in accordance to the individual's genetic endowment and the environmental circumstances to which he has been personally exposed." This can be further simplified as, "The individual is the result of nature-nurture (genes-environmental circumstances) interaction
Dear Professor Russell. One decision that is determined, or that we are forced to make is, that one, has to make a decision-- even if that decision is not to make a decision. We can't be free from having to make decisions therefore no free will.
We are forced to Will whether we Will it or not. Therefore it can't be free. Nothing in life is free. Looking at the sky costs energy.
I don't see how a quantum event effecting a person's choice can possible make that person responsible for the choice. Would you be responsible for attacking a person if you were walking through a store and by "chance" a shelf fell over and knocked you into the person in the process?
I say debating determinism vs indeterminism only adds superfluousness to the scientific fact-finding investigation of the structure, state, and processes of non-quantum complex physical systems--brains included.
Plus humans are quite predictable. One can predict that the person who is born in India will most likely grow up to be a vegetarian Hindu. Any variance we see will result from a variation in the environmental circumstances to which each individual is personally exposed
The individual develops as a consequence of genetic-environment interaction. This interaction determines who the person is and how s/he will react in any given situation. The brain is a physical system driven by causal dynamics
@unseenstrings Good point. Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, cause and effect still hold true. Every thing a human does, thinks, feels is an effect, and every effect must have one or more causes. I don't like the phrase "Determinism versus Free Will" because it suggests that if the universe is not deterministic, then free will must exist - but this argument is flawed. Pessimistic Incompatibilism is the view that free will is false and that the universe is indeterministic
Also, why do they always say "Free will versus determinism", as if strict newtonian determinism is the only thing that could disprove free will. As the professor explained, the 'randomness' (or 'probability-ness', or however you want to say it) involved in quantum mechanics disproves both free will and determinism (assume the definition of determinism means a sort of perfect mechanistic newtonian universe).
People who claim free will lies in Quantum mechanics are fools. So are compatibilists.
Why does the professor say "Free will/determinism 'PROBLEM' " ? There is no problem - it is solved already. he explained the answer himself:
1) The universe is not perfectly deterministic
2) The non-deterministic aspects of the universe are probabilistic/random (or however you want to say it), and we have no control whatsoever over such probabilities/randomness
Free will advocates are constantly looking for ways to promote their illusion. When a claim can be debunked--such as the BS claim of free will--then redefinition is in order. Compatibilism is the new way of redefining free will into existence. The term is of such recent invention that it isn't even in Merriam-Webster's dictionary online. But no doubt the BSers will spread their bull until the BS is accepted into the dictionary.
@unseenstrings what're you talking about dude? Compatibalism has been around for thousands of years. The Greek stoics were Compatibilists. Also David Hume back in the 18th century.
Philosophers have been arguing ever since the advent of philosophy. Philosophy can even be used to argue that we don't exist in reality. But my point was that the actual word "compatibilism" is a recent invention. Merriam-Webster online doesn't even have a meaning for the word. I can't find the history of the word. Sure, I can find plenty of BS by modern "compatibilists" saying "compatibilism" has been around for a long time. And they use the same argument that was once used against free will.
To argue free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy. The implication of the argument is one or the other is true. However, disproving determinism does not prove free will, even though proving determinism does disprove free will.
The argument against free will has historically been physical necessity or causal law versus free will. Now so called, "compatibilists" use the same argument as evidence for free will (WTF!). And they brand both determinists and libertarians as incompatibilists!
No doubt George Orwell would get a kick out of their "doublespeak." And he would likely especially find it laughingly ironic for the "compatibilists" to hijack the argument against free will and turn around and use it as a defense of such; and he would snicker at their stratagem of creating negativity toward opposing ideas by lumping the ideas under the same banner (incompatibilism).
Compatibilists keep the old illusion of free will alive in the public mind. Philosophical language is uncommon
@johndoe43210 The problem lies in the fact that the choices we make (perhaps not ones as simple as choosing a coloured candy) seem like they are neither predetermined nor random. We have preferences, and knowledge to call upon to help us in making decisions. These can be different between people (random to an outsider with no previous knowledge of said person), yet the same for one person making a choice repeatedly. For instance, given a choice between a ripe or rotten banana although...
@johndoe43210 ...the first time may be random, if you ate the rotten banana I can pretty much guarantee that the next time and every time after that, the ripe banana be chosen. Is that chance? I think not. The reason it's considered a problem is that although the mechanics of our choices are most likely based on probability, that isn't all there is to it. Half an answer isn't complete enough for everyone to be pleased with it, therefore it's still a problem that is up for solving.
Some interestig comments here. Funny how each and every 'theory' has rules and constraints attached. Maybe we are using totally the wrong model to picture such things. Maybe the act or thought of constraining in a given model has already dissolved the very essence we are trying so hard to capture :):):)
How can we think outside the box when we have never been outside the box? Maybe we are the box! This life and experience thing is still very experimental - maybe next time round :):):)
Maybe we are also programmed to do what we do. Is a computer programme aware of itself -No because it has no brain LOL. But on a deeper level of programming that bypasses our levels of conciousness and analysing capabilities - so that it truly lies outside of our awareness in all respects. Does the whole universe then also run with a different privilege level of conciousness as does each and every thing encompassed within it? :):):)
HOw can you be a consciouss observer and not have any control of your situation. So you can observe but you can't act on what you experience based on that observation? THat doesnt make any sense. You must have control of your environment at least to the extent to which you understand in your surroundings. ANd it must be as unique a response as your conscioussness is because it is a function of it
I'm a "computer expert" (computer science master student) and it isn't possible to predict everything that is going on in computers. Mainly because they are faulty (sw+hw). They *should* be deterministic, but in reality aren't really.
'Decision making' is not something based on a single atom. But, even if that were conceded and decisions are 'random', free will still can not exist. Either your choices are deterministic or they are random, either way, you play no role in affecting the outcome.
@enclave2k1 . Yes you do. Action is what affects the outcome, leading to more and more choices, and then more choices. If it were all predetermined, then what's the point? We (everything that is--the universe) would have been perfect from the very start and not subject to biospheric pressures that demand evolution. Right?
"If it were all predetermined, then what's the point?"
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure: 1. Favorable emotions are associated with X. 2. Therefore, X is true
"would have been perfect from the very start"
Evolution has nothing to do with decision making in the sense this discussion is concerned. I have no idea what biosphereic pressure is or how it's relevant.
@enclave2k1 . Pressures in the biosphere, meaning influences from places that are external to us, individually. Social systems are pressures, weather is a pressure, food availability is a pressure. All these pressures, and more, through the choices they present, influence our evolution. Our decisions can either push along our evolution, or our demise, both individually and as a species. Without choice, evolution is not possible. Profitable vs. non-profitable. Non-profitable = death.
@enclave2k1 , I disagree. That was not an appeal to emotion. Without free will, then there is no choice. Without choice, there is no growth through experience. Profitable change encouraged by the application of wisdom from experience is what causes evolution toward the more profitable state of being. Therefore, we cannot have a discussion about anything involving evolution without acknowledging the importance of decisions geared tword achieving profitable states. Emotion is irrelevant.
Evolution does not happen on an individual basis; "choices" are on a strictly individual basis. I still fail to see how the two are related. Growth through experience has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution by natural selection.
@enclave2k1 .No one specified natural selection. Evolution does occur on an individual basis because as growth (mental and spiritual) occurs, we change in state (much like digital systems incur state change vs. analog positional change). A change in state occurs as a result of, and signifies an adaptation to internal or external pressures (biospheric pressures including other humans, dogs, food availability, working conditions, etc.), never to revert to the ways of old. Tadaa! Evolution.
Ok well, you're wrong if you're referring to the theory of evolution, as in the one grounded in science. If you're just referring to evolution as change; fine, but really that's meaningless and a baseless assertion.
@enclave2k1 . Dude. If dolphins had not recognized the dangers of land-based predators and had not chosen to run to the water for safety then their noses would have had no reason to start growing on top of their heads. It's all about choice. Everything. Recognizing the need for change is what drives living things toward optimal conditions--evolution. It may take years--generations--millenia--but it changes us in ways that we can't imagine now. How is this baseless and "meaningless"?
I said referring to evolution as a synonym for change is meaningless in this conversation, because you said in your previous response 'No one specified Natural selection'. With no grounding in science, the word doesnt really matter in this kind of conversation; ie "I evolved today after I ate a cookie".
Strangely enough you try to bring up natural selection in this response (without mentioning the word explicitly), but you misrepresent how evolution actually works.
You do this by mentioning how dolphins have changed over time. Choice isnt what drives selection, though. Those with attributes (phenotypic or genotypic) that allow an organism to reproduce better will outlive those who don't (over generations). As a result those genes are more likely to get passed on. Compound that over time and you have scientific evolution.
This will be my last response as we seem to keep coming back to the same matter. Read The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins IMO.
@enclave2k1 . Dawkins is too closed-minded to be referenced. Doesn't surprise me much, though. Most scientific method fundamentalists refuse to believe that there are truths that they can't wrap their maths around, or categorize in venn diagrams and other types of rigid systems (boxes). Science is a belief system, too. Anyway, it's been. . .something. . .talking with you.
@TodaysThought . Good question. I think we have to view existence from a larger perspective. Check out Thomas Campbell's "Big Theory of Everything". It's interesting.
What I fail to understand is why physicists think that just because things are, by our standards (up to now in terms of technology) ,termed indetermisitic (unpredictable)at subatomic level then they are generally not deterministic. Our inability (as of present) to guarantee determinism at subatomic level should not warrant ruling out of determinism at that level. Inability shouldn't guarantee a definitive conclusion. Well, everyone doesn't conclude as such!
Just because something isn't predictable does not mean that it's not fixed !
As he says though chance is not the answer.
It's more likely the fact that "the arrow of time" can go both ways at the quantum level is what actually produces free will - assuming the brain actually works based on quantum level events.
Just to add to my first statement - fractals are fixed and deterministic but certainly not predictable - to find out the exact detail of a fractal requires infinite resolution and infinite iterations, I'm convinced that say radioactive decay is a fractal process - it's deterministic but not predictable (for a single atom).
For a simple real-world example use a pendulum magnet over two static opposing magnets and try to predict where the pendulum will stop based on the start position :)
@neuraxon77 interesting, I would agree with you depending by what you mean by reference frame. but if your suggesting a compatiblist perspective, the libertarian would disagree because they would claim that although the compatiblist concept of freedom as volintary action is a necessary component to freedom but also involes causal origination, which is neccesary to define interterminism, which is obviously incompatible with dterminism.
i think in order to understand why our universe is deterministic u need to read more about m-theory
in m theory , the basic principle is , the more u get to a smaller scale , the more possible outcomes that system has ..
once u get to the scale of quanta , where particles are waves when not interacting , when u interact with a particle and collapse its wave , u are collapsing the possible universes into 1 that only u observe , cus in another possible outcome ,the particle moves a different way
in a way determinism is still about chance , but the margin of error is too small ..
so if u have a steel ball rolling down a perfect flat surface, u can predict its movement with 99.99999999% accuracy
thats cus theres a small chance that it wont move that way .....due to the fact that its atom move in uncertain ways....the chance is small , but its still there..
theres a small chance that your entire hand can pass throo the keyboard ..but the odds of that happening are too small...
i think at the small scale quantum particle are so uncertain , i think its because at the small scale u are looking into waves of probability , so u are looking at possible outcomes , when a wave collpases , only 1 choice is real
in a parallel universe it would of collapsed in a different way
so , in a way, our only link to parallel universes is the quantum scale .
well thats too bad cus thats how it works ...the universe is deterministic on the large scale ....
a perfect example is radioactivity
u know for sure a certain element's half life ..like uranium , u can calculate how much will 1 kilogram of uranium last , in a certain ammount of years 1 kilogram will reduce to half a kilogram do to radioactivity and this time is exact.
however an individual uranium atom might decay now , it might decay in 10000 years we will never know ,
Honestly i fail to see your point, "one kilo we can certainly predict half life, however one atom is highly uncertain"... what about two uranium atoms? how certain can we be? and does our incapability to fully predict quantum world indicates that nature have a "free will"? the more data you cross-process the accurate result will output, for example weather prediction...
it doenst matter if u fail to see my point , my point is correct ...ask any college student that knows anything about chemistry ....ask them what half life means ...
thats just 1 of the things that happens ,
il give u another example , u have a bar of metal ...u dont know with certainty how the individual atoms move inside the bar (assuming its a liquid metal or something) but u know how the bar moves ,
For majority concept of free will is easier to comprehend than of determinism, i find it the other way around, as you said it since the laws of physics are determine and we act accordingly to them hence our "choices" are determine, the quantum physics paradox is no more than our block of understanding the principle governing the quantum realm-->which eventually reflected upon the "Newtonian world"
I watched this for my psychology exam...what i learned- that i don't really have free will and i want candy
Sahara2321 1 week ago
i thought that i chose to watch this video, but it really wasn't up to me
bob123789456 2 weeks ago
So even in string theory, wich we do not yet fully understand, there is no 'chance'. We don't know why some particals appear different when we observe them and when not, we don't know when they will show up, so we call it "chance". But as soon as you DO understand it and you can see the strings (wich offcourse we will never...) you can predict the particals movement. Untill then you can call it 'chance' for all you want, but that doesn't mean it is.
Free will does not exist. Nor does chance.
9Joel9 3 weeks ago 4
@9Joel9 Amen to that x)
ismaelvis 3 days ago
When this man is beginning to talk about quantum Theory, he starts to get wrong. Because tháts when he says Determinism stops because of 'chance'.
Chance does not exist. Chance is merely that wich we (humans) cannot understand or predict.
Example from the vid: As soon as we start to weigh the coin he throws, test this mans strenght, check the humidity in the air etc etc etc, we can EXACTLY predict if its going to be heads or tails. If you know ALL the factors in the world, you can predict all
9Joel9 3 weeks ago
so what happens if you can't decide which one should be tails and which one should be heads?
oneguy218 3 weeks ago 2
i understood nothing .... anyone knows wat he talks about?
WhiteMoonLights 3 weeks ago
If our choices are determined by who we are and what situation we find ourself in, would it not make sense to say that those choices are the product of our will. How is it that our will is not "free" if our choices are not determined by who we are (and situation)? What are is our will "free" from then -- who we are and what situation we find ourself in?
I would call indeterminism arbitrary, random, or at best stochastic. I don't see any freedom in that.
qonf 1 month ago
The human brain programs itself to do thing's, it can't really be compared to a computer expert knowing how a computer will behave because the computer will only do things it has been told too by a 3rd party. Self conciousness grants you free will.
boxxer221 1 month ago
If both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with free will, then the notion of free will is incoherent. But maybe the original assumption was the problem. Perhaps determinism can be compatible with free will after all!
soultorment27 1 month ago
Professor, you chose to flip the coin.
sproket888 1 month ago in playlist Boundaries of the Knowable
off-camera voice clearly does not get it. The coin analogy is as follows: if decisions in the brain are as random as a coin toss, then it means that they are out of our control anyway. Russell was not saying that choosing to flip a coin to make decisions is a way around determinism - a coin toss is determined anyway since a coin is governed by physics. The point is that if you say that your decisions are not determined, they are random, then it's still not free will.
kazuyasays 1 month ago
5:49 "You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." - Morpheous
stuffedk 2 months ago
The problem of free will or predetermined will is also stressing my mind, need help
loyalcma 2 months ago
@loyalcma I think it helps to define very very carefully what "free will" means. The abstract definition many people use is incoherent. Something like: "Free will is the ability to chose my actions freely in absence of an cohersion or outside influences" just doesn't make any sense when examined.
reafdaw01 1 month ago
if i randomly picked a candy from a bag and popped it in my mouth without anyone observing what color it was, did that candy actually had color?
notfree25 2 months ago in playlist Boundaries of the Knowable
@notfree25 Depends on what you mean by color. Under my definition it had a color, because color is the reflection of light by an object. (and yes black isn't a color but white is.)
reafdaw01 1 month ago
perhaps we have free will to make decisions in life, however those decisions were based on outside forces of which we had no control over. in a sense free will and determinism co- exist. in the grand scheme of things however,I believe there is no free will. I could be wrong I could be right. all I know is that whatever you believe is what is true for you. so in a sense we are all right and all wrong.
jflecker8 3 months ago
@jflecker8 So if I believe that I'm a scrambled egg that makes it so?
reafdaw01 1 month ago
The mic needs to go farther down on the jacket next time. I can't even listen for all the wet slapping mouth adjustment sounds.
littlebloodyskirts 4 months ago
Iv'e never seen anyone eating and giving a lecture at the same time !
brindow1 4 months ago
No Free will to pick a tartain sweety
Films4You 4 months ago
@juiceforjoe No, they're smarties. Minstrels are all brown.
heresjonny666 4 months ago
it worked almost, i dont feel like commenting or thumbing animore
antero15051984 5 months ago
quantum mechanics is still deterministic even though it does only determine the probability of any future event, it is still determining the future just not predetermining. With undeterminism we must have events happen idependent of all which has gone before. This does not happen in quatum mechanics.
sam321b 5 months ago
If everything is deterministic you can't have free will. Because the brain is a physical object and therfore it can be determined what state the brain will be in, determined by previous and current states of your brain and the states of everything around you. If quantum physics are enough to not make the brain undeterministic, then I still don't see how you can have free will. Because you can not control the randomness of quantum physics with your brain, so to me that whould be random will.
babayga94 6 months ago
I think he believes he has choosen the blue candy by free will 1st: just because he is not conscious of the reasons his subconscious mind decided based on his body' need of a blue pigment from nature to fullfill that momentary lacking in his chemical reservoir. 2nd: the group of miofibres of his arm were predisposed that instant to stretch with the less efort to that point, 3rd his brain colors prefference based in past pleasurable experiences, like an complex deterministic algoritm.
PQUINTA6 6 months ago
It would seem that in an ABSENCE of philosophy one doesn't really have free will.
But just like a positive visual feedback loop produces wild and unpredictable results, a self-analysing philisophical mind becomes infintiely close to free will.
Animals, determined. Enlighted man, "choosing".
threebobs 6 months ago
@threebobs big words, don't make your argument well good init
JeLoUs2 6 months ago
I used to be a determinist.
But this contradiction is unworkable:
How can a person argue that I "ought to choose" to believe in free will, when I'm "not able to choose" to believe anything?
If I'm not in control, then don't ask "me" to do anything.
Sorry, I exist. I'm aware. I'm conscious. It's a strange thing. Get over it.
threebobs 6 months ago 2
@threebobs
very good!
dancingwithcalvin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@threebobs
haha very good!
dancingwithcalvin 5 months ago
if our thoughts and actions are just a cascade of spontaneous chemical reactions in our brain and body then there is no free will..
apatheticwretch 6 months ago
@apatheticwretch Thankfully that isn't the case
bigspliffs 6 months ago
It's all to do with bluetails and redheads.
okaartin 8 months ago
I'm determined to have free will.
2eelShmeal 8 months ago
We may have external freedom, but never internal freedom :) Our past and our futures control us. It seems to me...
feliztex 9 months ago
We have the capacity to formulate intentions, preferences and strategies in
pursuit of survival needs - as do all sentient beings.
We also have the ability to appraise and monitor the environment to take account of influence on alternative courses of action and to predict the likely consequences ( precisely what I'm doing in selecting words for this comment) &
knowing that Unseenstrings is around waiting to pounce.Am I free to choose to post or cancel?. If not he' ll soon tell us why
golsno147 9 months ago
quantum indeterminancy............and SMARTIES yeah!
LightShadowWarrior 9 months ago 10
@LightShadowWarrior hahaha
burning1er 9 months ago
The outcome of heads or tails would have been determined by the power and angle etc of the flip... which is determined by the brain... and we're left with the same conundrum all over again.
rawssremix 9 months ago
Comment removed
leeyukching 10 months ago
and what is it you call chance?? a consciousness within the atom that is
warrenbonpri 10 months ago
I think QM is just as deterministic as any other concepts.
flame me.
FiggleSmit 11 months ago
A quote from Einstein:
"Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables and cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious piper."
Whether those forces include random or probabilistic elements is irrelevant: the key word is 'control'. We don't control these forces -they control us. Hence there is no free will.
johndoe43210 11 months ago
THAT CANDY LOOKS AND SOUNDS SO GOOD!
danielodors 11 months ago 20
@danielodors lol thats what i was thinking the whole time!
LiberatedMind1 1 week ago
What's all the fuss about brain? Do we realy think just with our brain? You know, brain is just a part of our nervous system. Realy big part, but anyways it's just a part.
For example when "blood in my vains is boiling" (you probably know that feeling even if you are quite calm person) my body has significant impact on what I am thinking about. And I can even turn it around and say (still metaphorically though) that I am thinking with my fists in that moment. Or when you are hungry? Think of it.
EndureTemptation 1 year ago
@EndureTemptation the brain is part of the body. The particular development of the brain is a result of genes, sensory input, and the medium in which the brain is housed. Some people state this fact as "The brain develops in accordance to the individual's genetic endowment and the environmental circumstances to which he has been personally exposed." This can be further simplified as, "The individual is the result of nature-nurture (genes-environmental circumstances) interaction
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 11 months ago
Dear Professor Russell. One decision that is determined, or that we are forced to make is, that one, has to make a decision-- even if that decision is not to make a decision. We can't be free from having to make decisions therefore no free will.
We are forced to Will whether we Will it or not. Therefore it can't be free. Nothing in life is free. Looking at the sky costs energy.
Thank you.
derekjanet 1 year ago
I don't see how a quantum event effecting a person's choice can possible make that person responsible for the choice. Would you be responsible for attacking a person if you were walking through a store and by "chance" a shelf fell over and knocked you into the person in the process?
I say debating determinism vs indeterminism only adds superfluousness to the scientific fact-finding investigation of the structure, state, and processes of non-quantum complex physical systems--brains included.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Plus humans are quite predictable. One can predict that the person who is born in India will most likely grow up to be a vegetarian Hindu. Any variance we see will result from a variation in the environmental circumstances to which each individual is personally exposed
The individual develops as a consequence of genetic-environment interaction. This interaction determines who the person is and how s/he will react in any given situation. The brain is a physical system driven by causal dynamics
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Good point. Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, cause and effect still hold true. Every thing a human does, thinks, feels is an effect, and every effect must have one or more causes. I don't like the phrase "Determinism versus Free Will" because it suggests that if the universe is not deterministic, then free will must exist - but this argument is flawed. Pessimistic Incompatibilism is the view that free will is false and that the universe is indeterministic
johndoe43210 1 year ago
Also, why do they always say "Free will versus determinism", as if strict newtonian determinism is the only thing that could disprove free will. As the professor explained, the 'randomness' (or 'probability-ness', or however you want to say it) involved in quantum mechanics disproves both free will and determinism (assume the definition of determinism means a sort of perfect mechanistic newtonian universe).
People who claim free will lies in Quantum mechanics are fools. So are compatibilists.
johndoe43210 1 year ago
Why does the professor say "Free will/determinism 'PROBLEM' " ? There is no problem - it is solved already. he explained the answer himself:
1) The universe is not perfectly deterministic
2) The non-deterministic aspects of the universe are probabilistic/random (or however you want to say it), and we have no control whatsoever over such probabilities/randomness
3) Therefore free will does not exist
Case closed. I see no problem.
johndoe43210 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@johndoe43210
Here's a MUCH better explanation. What do you think?
On YouTube at watch?v=aC4dXAB7VNI
patrickcorliss 1 year ago
Free will advocates are constantly looking for ways to promote their illusion. When a claim can be debunked--such as the BS claim of free will--then redefinition is in order. Compatibilism is the new way of redefining free will into existence. The term is of such recent invention that it isn't even in Merriam-Webster's dictionary online. But no doubt the BSers will spread their bull until the BS is accepted into the dictionary.
Free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy.
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings what're you talking about dude? Compatibalism has been around for thousands of years. The Greek stoics were Compatibilists. Also David Hume back in the 18th century.
afriend90 11 months ago
Philosophers have been arguing ever since the advent of philosophy. Philosophy can even be used to argue that we don't exist in reality. But my point was that the actual word "compatibilism" is a recent invention. Merriam-Webster online doesn't even have a meaning for the word. I can't find the history of the word. Sure, I can find plenty of BS by modern "compatibilists" saying "compatibilism" has been around for a long time. And they use the same argument that was once used against free will.
unseenstrings 11 months ago
To argue free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy. The implication of the argument is one or the other is true. However, disproving determinism does not prove free will, even though proving determinism does disprove free will.
The argument against free will has historically been physical necessity or causal law versus free will. Now so called, "compatibilists" use the same argument as evidence for free will (WTF!). And they brand both determinists and libertarians as incompatibilists!
unseenstrings 11 months ago
No doubt George Orwell would get a kick out of their "doublespeak." And he would likely especially find it laughingly ironic for the "compatibilists" to hijack the argument against free will and turn around and use it as a defense of such; and he would snicker at their stratagem of creating negativity toward opposing ideas by lumping the ideas under the same banner (incompatibilism).
Compatibilists keep the old illusion of free will alive in the public mind. Philosophical language is uncommon
unseenstrings 11 months ago
@johndoe43210 The problem lies in the fact that the choices we make (perhaps not ones as simple as choosing a coloured candy) seem like they are neither predetermined nor random. We have preferences, and knowledge to call upon to help us in making decisions. These can be different between people (random to an outsider with no previous knowledge of said person), yet the same for one person making a choice repeatedly. For instance, given a choice between a ripe or rotten banana although...
angelwings1086 1 year ago
@johndoe43210 ...the first time may be random, if you ate the rotten banana I can pretty much guarantee that the next time and every time after that, the ripe banana be chosen. Is that chance? I think not. The reason it's considered a problem is that although the mechanics of our choices are most likely based on probability, that isn't all there is to it. Half an answer isn't complete enough for everyone to be pleased with it, therefore it's still a problem that is up for solving.
angelwings1086 1 year ago
I feel like punching him in the face when he crunches those smarties.
TheJhYtGfReD 1 year ago
@TheJhYtGfReD holy shit its so annoying
Chrisjwill87 1 year ago
we're doing a debate, and i'm on the determinism side.
does anybody has a good article that can be sent to me by email, and i can use for example, get facts and support my idea? thank you! :)
Sabrina4EverAndAfter 1 year ago
Comment removed
patrickcorliss 1 year ago
Comment removed
patrickcorliss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sabrina4EverAndAfter
Here's a MUCH better explanation than Stannard's.
On YouTube at watch?v=aC4dXAB7VNI
patrickcorliss 1 year ago
Some interestig comments here. Funny how each and every 'theory' has rules and constraints attached. Maybe we are using totally the wrong model to picture such things. Maybe the act or thought of constraining in a given model has already dissolved the very essence we are trying so hard to capture :):):)
How can we think outside the box when we have never been outside the box? Maybe we are the box! This life and experience thing is still very experimental - maybe next time round :):):)
2JAMMY 1 year ago
He ate the blue smarty!!!!!!!
He gonna get ADHD and Tourettes.
Maybe we are also programmed to do what we do. Is a computer programme aware of itself -No because it has no brain LOL. But on a deeper level of programming that bypasses our levels of conciousness and analysing capabilities - so that it truly lies outside of our awareness in all respects. Does the whole universe then also run with a different privilege level of conciousness as does each and every thing encompassed within it? :):):)
2JAMMY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOw can you be a consciouss observer and not have any control of your situation. So you can observe but you can't act on what you experience based on that observation? THat doesnt make any sense. You must have control of your environment at least to the extent to which you understand in your surroundings. ANd it must be as unique a response as your conscioussness is because it is a function of it
ICANGO247 1 year ago
I'm a "computer expert" (computer science master student) and it isn't possible to predict everything that is going on in computers. Mainly because they are faulty (sw+hw). They *should* be deterministic, but in reality aren't really.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
'Decision making' is not something based on a single atom. But, even if that were conceded and decisions are 'random', free will still can not exist. Either your choices are deterministic or they are random, either way, you play no role in affecting the outcome.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 . Yes you do. Action is what affects the outcome, leading to more and more choices, and then more choices. If it were all predetermined, then what's the point? We (everything that is--the universe) would have been perfect from the very start and not subject to biospheric pressures that demand evolution. Right?
amazinero 1 year ago
@amazinero
"If it were all predetermined, then what's the point?"
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure: 1. Favorable emotions are associated with X. 2. Therefore, X is true
"would have been perfect from the very start"
Evolution has nothing to do with decision making in the sense this discussion is concerned. I have no idea what biosphereic pressure is or how it's relevant.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 . Pressures in the biosphere, meaning influences from places that are external to us, individually. Social systems are pressures, weather is a pressure, food availability is a pressure. All these pressures, and more, through the choices they present, influence our evolution. Our decisions can either push along our evolution, or our demise, both individually and as a species. Without choice, evolution is not possible. Profitable vs. non-profitable. Non-profitable = death.
amazinero 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 , I disagree. That was not an appeal to emotion. Without free will, then there is no choice. Without choice, there is no growth through experience. Profitable change encouraged by the application of wisdom from experience is what causes evolution toward the more profitable state of being. Therefore, we cannot have a discussion about anything involving evolution without acknowledging the importance of decisions geared tword achieving profitable states. Emotion is irrelevant.
amazinero 1 year ago
@amazinero
Evolution does not happen on an individual basis; "choices" are on a strictly individual basis. I still fail to see how the two are related. Growth through experience has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution by natural selection.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 .No one specified natural selection. Evolution does occur on an individual basis because as growth (mental and spiritual) occurs, we change in state (much like digital systems incur state change vs. analog positional change). A change in state occurs as a result of, and signifies an adaptation to internal or external pressures (biospheric pressures including other humans, dogs, food availability, working conditions, etc.), never to revert to the ways of old. Tadaa! Evolution.
amazinero 1 year ago
@amazinero
Ok well, you're wrong if you're referring to the theory of evolution, as in the one grounded in science. If you're just referring to evolution as change; fine, but really that's meaningless and a baseless assertion.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 . Dude. If dolphins had not recognized the dangers of land-based predators and had not chosen to run to the water for safety then their noses would have had no reason to start growing on top of their heads. It's all about choice. Everything. Recognizing the need for change is what drives living things toward optimal conditions--evolution. It may take years--generations--millenia--but it changes us in ways that we can't imagine now. How is this baseless and "meaningless"?
amazinero 1 year ago
@amazinero
I said referring to evolution as a synonym for change is meaningless in this conversation, because you said in your previous response 'No one specified Natural selection'. With no grounding in science, the word doesnt really matter in this kind of conversation; ie "I evolved today after I ate a cookie".
Strangely enough you try to bring up natural selection in this response (without mentioning the word explicitly), but you misrepresent how evolution actually works.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
cont.
You do this by mentioning how dolphins have changed over time. Choice isnt what drives selection, though. Those with attributes (phenotypic or genotypic) that allow an organism to reproduce better will outlive those who don't (over generations). As a result those genes are more likely to get passed on. Compound that over time and you have scientific evolution.
This will be my last response as we seem to keep coming back to the same matter. Read The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins IMO.
enclave2k1 1 year ago
@enclave2k1 . Dawkins is too closed-minded to be referenced. Doesn't surprise me much, though. Most scientific method fundamentalists refuse to believe that there are truths that they can't wrap their maths around, or categorize in venn diagrams and other types of rigid systems (boxes). Science is a belief system, too. Anyway, it's been. . .something. . .talking with you.
Peace
amazinero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amazinero
Here's a MUCH better explanation. What do you think?
On YouTube at watch?v=aC4dXAB7VNI
patrickcorliss 1 year ago
How do you choose the unknown freely when free will is constrained by the known.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought . Good question. I think we have to view existence from a larger perspective. Check out Thomas Campbell's "Big Theory of Everything". It's interesting.
amazinero 1 year ago
What I fail to understand is why physicists think that just because things are, by our standards (up to now in terms of technology) ,termed indetermisitic (unpredictable)at subatomic level then they are generally not deterministic. Our inability (as of present) to guarantee determinism at subatomic level should not warrant ruling out of determinism at that level. Inability shouldn't guarantee a definitive conclusion. Well, everyone doesn't conclude as such!
KuirthiyTV 1 year ago
Comment removed
pufferfishprod 1 year ago
@KuirthiyTV . Sure! Great point. I agree that just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
amazinero 1 year ago
Just because something isn't predictable does not mean that it's not fixed !
As he says though chance is not the answer.
It's more likely the fact that "the arrow of time" can go both ways at the quantum level is what actually produces free will - assuming the brain actually works based on quantum level events.
MakinMagicFractals 1 year ago
Just to add to my first statement - fractals are fixed and deterministic but certainly not predictable - to find out the exact detail of a fractal requires infinite resolution and infinite iterations, I'm convinced that say radioactive decay is a fractal process - it's deterministic but not predictable (for a single atom).
For a simple real-world example use a pendulum magnet over two static opposing magnets and try to predict where the pendulum will stop based on the start position :)
MakinMagicFractals 1 year ago
Free Will and Determinism are two sides of the same coin. It's all in the reference frame.
neuraxon77 1 year ago
@neuraxon77 interesting, I would agree with you depending by what you mean by reference frame. but if your suggesting a compatiblist perspective, the libertarian would disagree because they would claim that although the compatiblist concept of freedom as volintary action is a necessary component to freedom but also involes causal origination, which is neccesary to define interterminism, which is obviously incompatible with dterminism.
ex0gen 1 year ago
i think in order to understand why our universe is deterministic u need to read more about m-theory
in m theory , the basic principle is , the more u get to a smaller scale , the more possible outcomes that system has ..
once u get to the scale of quanta , where particles are waves when not interacting , when u interact with a particle and collapse its wave , u are collapsing the possible universes into 1 that only u observe , cus in another possible outcome ,the particle moves a different way
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago 2
in a way determinism is still about chance , but the margin of error is too small ..
so if u have a steel ball rolling down a perfect flat surface, u can predict its movement with 99.99999999% accuracy
thats cus theres a small chance that it wont move that way .....due to the fact that its atom move in uncertain ways....the chance is small , but its still there..
theres a small chance that your entire hand can pass throo the keyboard ..but the odds of that happening are too small...
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago 2
and then theres the double slit experiment
if u send electrons one at a time throo 2 slits , they behave like waves and interact with themselves to land in different spots on the screen
the more larger the objects u send , atoms, molecules,
eventually u get to a point where the objects ALMOST land in the same spot ....the almost is due to uncertainty
once u get all the objects in 1 spot , the wavelenghts has decreased cus the object is too big , wich means u can know predict it.
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
the universe is deterministic at the large scale
i think at the small scale quantum particle are so uncertain , i think its because at the small scale u are looking into waves of probability , so u are looking at possible outcomes , when a wave collpases , only 1 choice is real
in a parallel universe it would of collapsed in a different way
so , in a way, our only link to parallel universes is the quantum scale .
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
The universe cant be deterministic if the sum of his component behave in an uncertain way.
IsraeliXdude 1 year ago 2
well thats too bad cus thats how it works ...the universe is deterministic on the large scale ....
a perfect example is radioactivity
u know for sure a certain element's half life ..like uranium , u can calculate how much will 1 kilogram of uranium last , in a certain ammount of years 1 kilogram will reduce to half a kilogram do to radioactivity and this time is exact.
however an individual uranium atom might decay now , it might decay in 10000 years we will never know ,
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Honestly i fail to see your point, "one kilo we can certainly predict half life, however one atom is highly uncertain"... what about two uranium atoms? how certain can we be? and does our incapability to fully predict quantum world indicates that nature have a "free will"? the more data you cross-process the accurate result will output, for example weather prediction...
IsraeliXdude 1 year ago
it doenst matter if u fail to see my point , my point is correct ...ask any college student that knows anything about chemistry ....ask them what half life means ...
thats just 1 of the things that happens ,
il give u another example , u have a bar of metal ...u dont know with certainty how the individual atoms move inside the bar (assuming its a liquid metal or something) but u know how the bar moves ,
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
For majority concept of free will is easier to comprehend than of determinism, i find it the other way around, as you said it since the laws of physics are determine and we act accordingly to them hence our "choices" are determine, the quantum physics paradox is no more than our block of understanding the principle governing the quantum realm-->which eventually reflected upon the "Newtonian world"
IsraeliXdude 1 year ago