@TheSkepticalAtheist By non-linear determinism, I mean, a cause could be in the future, as an effect can be in the past. Emotion, an eternal motion, the animating life force, a current, a wave, a way, not moving in one direction but all directions at once... does that make sense?
That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it for a bit because I'm not really sure. Never really thought about it in that way before. I'm not sure about a cause being in the future, though. I'll definitely think about it and get back either in PM or maybe even a video. I recently got a video response about my determinism videos, so I may include this in my response. Thanks for your thoughts!
@TheSkepticalAtheist With our current perspective, that being fixated on the linear, we'd never know for sure whether or not a cause could be in the future, unless of course we ease away from the fixation or change our perspective. To do that, we'd have to really reexamine the concept of linear time, and essentially adjust the concept itself. Honestly, non-linear determinism makes a lot of sense to me. And, I feel as if it would support the APPEARANCE of freewill.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Sorry for the spam of comments. Anyhow, like when a pebble is thrown into a pond, it causes ripples in every direction; you could look at an event in time like that. For instance, if I remember correctly, the affects of 9/11 were recorded four hours prior to the actual event. Read this... glcoherence[dot]org[fslash]monitoring-system[fslash]about-system[dot]html
@Clear404 the existence of free will is not what makes us morally responsible. The existence of God is what makes us morally responsible. If God doesnt exist then we have no moral obligation to anyone.
What makes you think this is a logical conclusion? All you're saying is that might makes right. You could substitute the word "God" with any other name, and the logic is still the same.
You're saying that because God is strong enough to punish you, what God says is "moral." There's no other logical reason to believe that God suddenly makes us morally responsible to anyone.
How can you demonstrate that without God, we have no moral obligations? These are just assertions.
if there is no God, then everything is "ultimately" meaningless. Because we are all just going to cease to exist. Everything will cease to exist, any memory or thought or action we ever did has no ultimate meaning. Every memory of every action you have ever made, or will make is meaningless. That is my logical conclusion. Which is why I stated that free will is not what makes us morally responsible, God is what makes us morally responsible.
I disagree. If there is no God, then things don't come with intrinsic meaning. Even "meaning" itself has no meaning until we give it meaning. Meaning is a psychological phenomena. Cats, dogs, or any other animals don't need "meaning" to go about their lives. We give meaning to our lives. Our own meaning.
And, of course we have moral obligations. If we didn't, our species wouldn't survive. If killing were okay, we'd have killed ourselves off before we even got started.
the survival of the species holds no weight, we are all dead regardless. Delaying an inevitable, does not change the inevitable. The space in-between, ultimately has no value, or ultimate purpose, because it all ceases to exist. You adding value, is redundant as well, what if my value says your value has no value, who is right? Secondly, you cannot hold any moral obligation over anyone, this life is all people have, if they want to kill, why not, they die regardless.
Survival of the species is of utmost importance. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We've evolved to survive. Our "morals" are a product of that evolutionary process. We've evolved to be a social species because our niche is intelligence and cooperation. Other animals have power and speed, or other advantages which make them suited for survival.
If we didn't get along, we wouldn't survive and we would go extinct. Our psychology matters little to our DNA.
@YuGiOhDuelChannel there's more than one way in which someone can lack moral responsibility and moral obligations. I agree that if God does not exist, then no-one has any moral obligations. The existence of God is, in my view, a necessary condition of us having moral obligations. But it is not sufficient. We also need free will.
so if you have free will, then what kind of will does God have? Who's will is more free, God's or ours? Does "free" have multiple meanings? What choices can you make, that haven't already been determined by God? Your choices being determined does not take away your responsibility, you still made them, and desired to make them. You do not "need" free will to still be held responsibly by God for your choices.
@YuGiOhDuelChannel I'm a compatibilist about free will. So I don't think determinism undermines free will and thus it doesn't undermine moral responsibility either.
I don't know what sort of free will God would have. But as I'm a compatibilist it doesn' t really matter. It is only if you're an incompatibilist that issues start arising re God's free will.
@YuGiOhDuelChannel I should add that when it comes to God, all I'd say we can know about him is that a) he exists and b) he is morally good (which on my view means that he approves of himself). That's it. So that's why I say 'I don't know' to the issue of God's free will.
I should also point out that if you think moral responsibility is compatible with determinism then any disagreement between us is purely semantic as I mean by free will that which makes us morally responsible.
@TheSkepticalAtheist You ask how we can know that God is morally good. Well, we can't know it for certain, but it seems eminently reasonable to suppose he is. my reason is that I think the best way to understand what morality 'is', is that it consists in God's commands and approvals - and that we sense these, albeit unreliably, through our moral sense. If someone approves of Xing, then it is highly likely that they X themselves. So that's my reason for thinking God is morally good.
I take it that premise 1 is the one you'd want to take issue with. It is the controversial one! So I'll now give the first step in a longer argument in support of it. Here:
1. If an act is wrong, it is required not to be done
2. Some acts are wrong
3. Therefore some acts are required not to be done.
2. If an act is required not to be done, then an agent requires it not to be done
3. Some acts are required not to be done
4. Therefore an agent requires some acts not to be done.
So at this stage then, I think we can say that to sense that something is wrong, is for it to appear as if the thing in question is required not to be done by somebody.
But who? Well, an agent of some sort. Who? Not you. Not me.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...God seems to me to be the only credible answer. Note - at this point I'm not saying God exists. I'm just defending premise 1 (premise 1 does not assert God's existence). Premise 1 is consistent with morality turning out to be an illusion. But what it is an illusion 'of'. It is an illusion of being instructed, or required, by some external agent, not to do things and to do other things.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd....God is the only real candidate, because if we found out that there really was a God - an agency behind creation - and that what we term 'morality' is just what it is for us to hear God, to pick up, albeit in a rather out-of-focus way - on what it is he wants - we would not consider our moral sense to be illusory. Whereas if we found out that our moral sense was just a sense of our own unconscious desires, we'd conclude our moral sense presents us with an illusion
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...and so that's why I think it is only if God exists that our moral sense is a sense of something real. If God does not exist, then our moral sense is just a quirk of our brain chemistry. It presents us with the illusion that there are external instructions that we must uphold. But without an external instructor, the impression is an illusion. So that's why the absence of God entails that there are no moral truths.
@TheSkepticalAtheist cont'd...that's also why the existence of moral truths, entails the existence of God.
Anyway, that's my 'moral' case for the existence of God. To block it you must either embrace moral nihilism or deny that morality consists of requirements, or deny that requirements can only be issued by agents. I don't think any of those options is attractive.
Again, to say that God's existence is the only way we can have moral absolutes is to say that might-makes-right. What reason are you giving, or how can you explain your reasoning behind saying that God's existence is what causes us to have moral responsibility, other than the idea that God is strong enough to punish, therefore what he says is "moral?"
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, to be morally responsible at least two conditions (and probably more) need to be satisfied. First, morality needs to exist. By 'exist' I mean there need to be some moral truths - some moral statements need to be 'true'. if morality did not exist, then no-one could do any wrong. The second condition is that we have free will.
You're now asking me why morality requires God, so I'll give my reasons. But in order to forestall certain lines of criticism....
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...let me first just make clear that I am not religious. I don't believe we can find out anything about God from any 'religious' text ever written. I believe God exists. But I don't think he wrote the bible or any other book (I think you exist, but I don't think you wrote the bible either!). I also have no 'faith' in God's existence whatsoever. I believe in God solely on the basis of two arguments, one of which is the 'moral' argument. I'm odd like that.
@YuGiOhDuelChannel Whether or not god exists, you've got an obligation by nature to be morally responsible; moral responsibility is weaved deeply within human nature. With that being said, for me personally, god is totally irrelevant when it comes to moral responsibility.
and where is that written? Do you just feel that you have a natural obligation, so you must? Without God everything is ultimately meaningless, because everything will just cease to exist. Every memory of every obligation you think you have will not exist, and might as well not have ever existed. If something is ultimately going to cease existing, it might as well just not exist now. There is no difference, the space in between non existence, and non existence, is meaningless.
Why do you think free will involves making decisions that are uninformed by, uncaused by, outside forces? That doesn't seem to be anything like free will. Free will is whatever it takes to transform a thing, into a moral agent.
Here's why we have free will. Free will is a requirement of having moral obligations. We do have moral obligations, and that fact is more self-evident than any proposition about the compatibility or otherwise of determinism and free will. Therefore we have free will
I don't agree with your first premise. Free Will isn't a requirement for having moral obligations. If something is moral, it is moral outside of the choices which one may make. Morality doesn't depend upon the ability of one to choose it. Taking another person's life without reason (morality is not black and white; could find reasons why killing could be considered moral) would still be wrong even if no one in the world were able to resist killing.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, there are two basic elements to morality - valuable states of affairs, and actions that are right or wrong (or permissible). States of affairs can be described as 'good' or 'bad'. Actions are right or wrong. The precise nature of the relationship between the two is a matter of controversy.
If we lack free will, then I agree that we could still talk about states of affairs being good or bad. That part of morality would survive. Happiness would still be 'good' etc
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...but let's focus on actions - on right and wrong. If an action is 'right' it is morally obligatory, and if an action is wrong, one is obligated not to perform it. That seems essential to the concept.
You can only have a moral obligation to do, or desist from doing something if one is free to do, or not do, that thing.
So if we lack free will, we cannot have any moral obligations.
We do have moral obligations. And this fact is clearer than...cont'd.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...it is clearer, more self-evident, or is a proposition about which we have a greater degree of conviction, that we have moral obligations, than that free will is incompatible with determinism.
It would therefore be irrational to conclude that we lack free will because determinism is true.
The rational conclusion is that we are mistaken in thinking free will incompatible with determinism.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd....so I suppose my basic claim is this: it is far more counter-intuitive to claim that we have no moral obligations, than it is to claim that free will is compatible with determinism.
It is more counter-intuitive to claim that moral obligations do not require free will, than it is to claim that free will is compatible with determinism.
If we discover determinism is true, the rational conclusion is that we've discovered determinism and FW are compatible.
There are certain factors that challenge the concepts of determinism and one of them is Schrödinger's cat, which might disprove the fact that a coin flip is decided once it leaves the hand (or even by the time big bang occured for that matter). The direction electrones take is also considered random. So as you reserved yourself from denying; random events might take place in quantum physics - maybe god plays dice with the universe after all. This however doesn't prove free will, only randomness.
Ok, from watching other videos about free will, I see that you atheists have no clue, or no other idea as to what free will is, why, because you live in a box, and you think that everything is mathematics, that's why the way you reason is so narrow. Free will has to do with the ability to feel, and you can't explain feelings with mathematics, if you can understand that, then you will shift to another gear. You r parroting what other atheists say, and that's ur first problem, u don't think.
You're right, you can't explain "feelings with mathematics." You're ignorant of other sciences like neurology and basic human physiology and psychology.
@TheSkepticalAtheist You think I'm some stupid idiot, is that what you think, you think I don't know what science knows, or how much they know, do you really think that it's a mystery, that science is keeping these things secret from us. Let me tell, a scientist is just a person that studies math and chemicals, that's all, the interaction of chemicals, because that's all we know, scientist don't have special senses that other ppl don't have, so they don't know anything that I don't already know.
How about instead of spending all this time criticizing mathematics and science (which the computer you're using to type on is the result of), how about you begin proving (citing your sources) the claims you are making. And don't resort to "it's common sense."
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, I'm a sentient being, I have logic, I have feelings, I believe in God, why, because no human being could have written the bible, ahhhhh, because of love, evil, hate, so many things, because of the feeling that I get when I look at a sunset, because when I tell my son that I love him, I know, I mean, I know, that I'm not a machine just making noise. I mean, if you can't see that, then, you don't want to.
@TheSkepticalAtheist By the way, human physiolody and psychology involves, living cells, science have no clue as to how a cell is alive. Physiology and psychology involves sentience, again, science has no clue as to why or how we are sentient. so you are the ignorant one. Your fancy words don't impress me.
I don't understand what you're saying. Science has no clue as to how a cell is alive? Are you really that ignorant of the state of scientific knowledge? Or is this something that your pastor told you to say? How a cell is alive is basic scientific knowledge.
Where are you getting these ideas from? It isn't from actually reading a science book. You're just making it up.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, I don't have any pastors, so don't confuse me and don't assume you know anythign about me. As a matter of fact I have a medical text book in my house, and this plainly says, that science knows very little about the living cell. The last time I checked, they still know the same thing. If you know something I don't know, then you show me. I watch video, with real scientist, and beieve me, they don't know. So you my friend are dead wrong.
You are incorrect... again. You don't even understand the very basics of how science works. Do you know what has to happen before any scientific work gets published?
@TheSkepticalAtheist You are arrogant and ignorant. Do you think that atheists own science, or something like that. What are you saying. Science happens everyday, what are you saying. You speak as if this was some mystery that only atheist know. You make me laugh.
@cmpresents What about the idea of feelings being evolutionary selected? Surely humans with ambitions to satisfy its need of love has better prospects of survival. Otherwise happiness wouldn't be so closely connected to, and triggered by reproduction, nutrition, rest, bright future prospects and so on. After all, feelings are generated in the brain and are caused by hormones and neurotransmitters responding to impressions. It's not very abstract.
You are talking mathematics, cause that's all you and scientist know. You have no clue, I mean, you are clueless as to how a neuron really works, as to how the brain works, science has not clue as to how these things happen. Yet you atheists insist on saying that everything in the universe is stricktly mathematical, I mean, just how the hell do you know that, is that another theory, because that's what it's, and you expect ppl to just believe what you are saying, proof what u are saying.
I, personally, don't know how a neuron really works, but that doesn't mean that that knowledge isn't out there... and regardless, the point is meaningless. You mean to say that because science can't explain everything RIGHT NOW, the entire endeavor is meaningless.
And, in terms of mathematics and this line of reasoning you're presenting, the mathematical view of the Universe has been demonstrated over and over... you've demonstrated nothing except moving goalposts.
@TheSkepticalAtheist There's no mathematical formula that can explain sentience. You can't create feelings with mathematics, you can't create consciousness with mathematic. You see, I know this and you don't. So it's your problem that you can't understand this fact. I've demonstrated, that your logic is flawed and has no answers to my questions.
You're demonstrating that you're lacking a very basic understanding of science. "Mathematics" is not a method of creating anything. How about this... can you explain to me what you believe mathematics actually is?
@TheSkepticalAtheist What do u mean by that, that knowledge isnt' out there, outthere where, in the universe. Science has come along way in many things, but the real questions, are still a mystery. Science knows very little about the universe, they really don't have a clue as to what the universe is, or where it is, or anything like that. And I don't see scientist studying love or what love, do you.
How exactly do you know that this is the case? What law of nature requires that "only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings?" I see where you're trying to go with this, but you won't be able to get there without evidence to support your claim.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Because I know the limits of science and because it's common sense. All the great philosophers believed in dualism also. There is no physical evidence for nonphisical things, that is impossible.
What do the limits of science have to do with the creation of conscious beings? Furthermore, "common sense" isn't evidence. Sure, it's "common sense" that gravity exists, but you can' t explain gravity just by saying that it's "common sense." You have to explain how it works.
And just what do you mean by "dualism?" Dualism has to do with the mind/body connection. That has nothing to do with what you're talking about. And why did you bring up proof of non-physical things?
@TheSkepticalAtheist You say in your video that u only believe in matter and energy, if there was only matter and energy, then there would only be matter and energy, that's it, no living things, no plants, no animals and certainly no humans. Simply put, you can't explain life and the complexity of life with your simple matter and energy theory. If you want to semantics, then you can talk to someone else. You atheists are all the same, but you don't produce answers.
I can refute your entire hypothesis with a single question: who made God? I know that's what you're getting at. You want to say that something can't come from nothing, except when it comes to the thing you want to come from nothing.
You're right, there is no evidence for things which are non-physical. Or, in other words, you can't prove or disprove things which are non-physical. I say, all the more reason to reject the idea that they exist.
@TheSkepticalAtheist God is a living entity, the source. No one created God and that's the whole point, you need God in the equation. Without God, there would be no life, period. Or, without life, you can't have life.
Okay, you clearly said in your first post that "Only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings." But, your entire hypothesis falls flat when you apply it to God. The problem is that you want me to make an exception for a god who you can't even demonstrate exists.
Your hypothesis is logically contradictory.
1. Only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings.
If you claim that there is free will you will have to prove it just like if you claim there is a god. However there is simply no way to prove it because you can un do an action, so free will is not falsifiable.
i have a question. What is there to be appreciative about when it comes to determinism? I have noticed though that most people who believe in it, don't seem to be too enthusiastic about it. I am just wondering what the benefits are when it comes to talking about determinism alot. Does it make them feel smarter?
Just because something doesn't make people happy, doesn't make it untrue. I'd rather know the truth than pretend that everything is supposed to feel good. I guess that's the way I see it.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Yes but imagine if you were wrong. You would be wrong and you would be unhappy at the same time. And why aren't you guys celebrating determinism since you figured it all out? This is how i see it. Im not saying it's how it is. But it's how it really seems. Seems like determinists are infact slightly jealous that free will people tend to be happier and they want to take that away from them because they can't stand them enjoying something that they don't think they have.
No one is saying that it's all been figured out. More than anything, this is a thought experiment, an exploration. Happiness really plays no role in the discussion.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Let me ask you this. Lets pretend that one day more and more evidence showed that you have some free will. Again, this is just hypothetical. How would your views and emotions change? Would you be upset at having some free will or would you be the same?
I don't know that my emotions would change, but if there was evidence to suggest we had Free Will, then I would align myself with that position. As it stands right now, I'm just not convinced that this is the case. I'm not saying I'm correct. I'm only saying that I'm not convinced at this point and time that Free Will exists.
The definition of free will I prefer is, "Choosing something, when you could have chosen something else."
With the analogy of the chessboard. There is a SET number of moves possible. All that means is your choices are limited. It doesn't mean you're not free to move your horse, as opposed to your pawn. BUT you are definitely not free to work outside the limitations of the game.
The problem is that we really don't know that we COULD have chosen anything else. There's no way to know if we really could have chosen anything other than what we do. In the chess analogy, yes you CAN "choose" to move your knight or your pawn. But, at the end of the day, the move you made could have been the only possible move because you were determined to make that choice to begin with.
I realize there's no way to demonstrate this, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility
@TheSkepticalAtheist I like the chess analogy. At first, you used the SET number of moves possible to demonstrate that the choices are limited by external forces. Now I think you're questioning whether internally choices are determined by some set of rules.
the best way I can frame it, "What determines your choices/beliefs?" I'd have to say 2 things. (1) Inheritance and (2) Environment. None of which you have control of.
I like to think these 2 factors have influenced my decisions to always lead with my king's pawn (Which i do quite often). But do I always make that choice? No.
The problem I have is, if Freewill does not exists. Then people are not morally responsible for anything they do. Hitler was determined to behave the way he did. So I believe in FreeWill because I don't think we have a choice. LoL
@PostITnoteGUY My idea of a rational choice is "something one chooses to do to maximize their benefits and minimize any costs of such a decision". That seems deterministic, but is way to vague to be such, as it doesn't really say whether such a being that does that's mind follows the natural laws or not. Its definitely a choice, that would be at odds with the idea that you can make choices not based on any external factors though.
@PostITnoteGUY You're definition is so vague, it doesn't exclude nor include whether it fits a determinist framework. You can't come up with a scientific idea that is so vague, as it will end up like a myriad of other theories that are too vague to be tested but might sound right, just dismissed out right.
@PostITnoteGUY The idea is that you're actions are responses to both internal and enviromental stimuli, and not something you choose to or not to do hased on your own whims, that the "free" will is an illusion, not the wills themselves. You will to eat lunch, but that goes back to the survival instict to survive, and the evolutionary pressures to kill plants and animals for your survival.
I don't think that we can really judge whether or not we have Free Will by using the standard of "experience," or that we "feel" like we have the freedom to choose. Feelings are, after all, merely a brain state, the result of cause & effect, the chemical reactions in our brains. Our feelings are merely the manifestations of these cause and effect reactions.
@PostITnoteGUY However, what are we debating over? How can we know? If we can't define our terms, they run an easy risk of being too vague to be debateable, as i can't read your mind to know what you're concieving of it to be, and our definitions may even drastically differ.
@PostITnoteGUY I'm not making any special claims by saying that the mind/brain is the product of natural laws playing out (determinism), those who support the concept of free will, say that the mind (whatever it is to them, it varies) is an exception (why? How do they know?)
If you're not even sure how to define free will, can you define it at all? As for life, I can define that. Hence, I'm able to say whether or not I support a concept of free will.
@PostITnoteGUY I see determinism as everything in nature as obeying natural laws, and is hence, as a result, predictable to a degree. Perhaps I just don't understand what is being posited by free will? It usually either is some vague, metaphysical concept, or it is a concept meaning "is free to make choices without external influences", by external, its usually meant outside one's body.
@PostITnoteGUY O ok. I do agree that there are things we don't yet understand, but that doesn't mean that everything doesn't follow natures laws. As far as we know, the universe for the most part, at least at the scale we live in, is deterministic. And that which is indeterministic, those subatomic particles, come into and out of existence in a chaotic manner, as indeterminism is chaotic.
How would you define free will? And what evidence suggests it exists?
@PostITnoteGUY Everything is deterministic in that there is order, everything follows naturalistic laws, and everything happens according to those laws as a result. The Big bang isn't proof that something can exist that is indeterministic, as we don't actually know what caused it. However, against my own idea, particles in a vacuum coming into and out of existance is an example of indeterminism, but as far as I know, its chaotic (which we are not), and only exists on the subatomic realm.
No, this is not the case. A Free Will has to escape the laws of cause and effect. It is an extraordinary claim to make that something contra-causal can emerge from merely deterministic matter. The burden is on the one claiming Free Will to demonstrate it, or at least show how it would be plausible.
I wouldn't say that it's an assumption. To say that consciousness is more than a cause and effect chain which is manifested through the matter it consists of is a claim which must be proven.
I don't think that determinists explain away Free Will as something supernatural. Most determinists don't believe that Free Will exists.
While consciousness is unique, I think that it remains to be seen that it is unbound by the laws of physics and chemistry. After all, isn't consciousness merely an emergent property of the matter it consists of?
Good question. I think it's called Determinism because the controversy is whether or not humans have Free Will, and cause & effect probably doesn't suffice in that situation.
As for your second question, I think that it logically follows that because we are constructed of the same matter as everything else, there is no special reason to believe that the matter in our brains functions any different from the rest of the matter in the Universe - according to physical laws.
I'm not fan of illogical thinking, but largely because of my brain's wiring, I've always assumed I had free will, and until recently, have ignored this philosophical question becuase I don't like it. XD
Though I'm thinking you might be right, as there is no logical reason to suppose free will exists. At least none i heard of. As for a soul, even if we had one, it clearly doesnt affect how we live, so how could it give us free will? It might as well not exist.
I think Free Will is something most people just assume we have. But, when you really think about it in all of its detail, it becomes very difficult to make a case for it. There is really no mechanism to support the claim.
@TheSkepticalAtheist We assume we have it because it really seems like we do. We also have no other reason to think otherwise, afterall, I'm choosing to write this, nothing seems to be making me. Though as you say, its hard to make a case for free will, and being that everything else is deterministic, as its made of deterministic matter, as we are, how are we different?
Exactly. And I may be purely speculating here, but I think we will be surprised at just how deterministic our behavior really is as we learn more about neurology and exactly how the brain works. Right now we're merely scratching the surface.
@TheSkepticalAtheist True. Though seeing this video, I have to wonder if we've already discovered the answer to the free will vs determinism question:
I am sorry. I did not mean to insult you or your intelligence. I simply made a comment. I also did not say anything about free will or determinism whether i agreed with you or not. I merely stated that, in keeping with trying to 'see' your position, understanding ALL the factors involved is a good thing. If one does NOT understand all the factors, (which is a reality by your own admission) then, one must be careful in making 'determining' conclusions.
I completely understand what you're saying. I've done a few more recent videos on determinism where I talk about Quantum Mechanics. And you are absolutely right in that I don't fully understand the subject matter.
But, I think that a full understanding isn't really necessary in that there are certain thing that ARE known which support my case that QM does not provide a mechanism for Free Will.
Once you have become somewhat 'insightful' as to the makeshifts of the universe all the way to the subatomic world, perhaps you will be better informed to actually make the kind of assumptions that will warrant an intelligent regard of your video presentation.
In keeping with your condescension, you haven't really given me anything to go on, here. There are no experiments which demonstrate that quantum events impacting the macro world. All you've done is insult my intelligence.
Even granting quantum effects, this only puts our "Free Will" at the mercy of randomness, instead of deterministic laws. This still gets us nowhere in terms of the "uncaused cause" of truly Free Will. Thanks for the insults, though.
You talk about an argument seemingly against determinism being found in Quantum Physics. You do not accept that as a viable position, while at the same time confessing you do not know much about it. I would encourage you, before you make such statements about determinism, that, you put, what to me is a vibe of 'bias' in your preposition, aside, and have a look at ALL the possibilities of the argument in question.
I just recorded a video today, and I'm uploading it (them - it's a 2 parter) now. I talk a little about why I don't think QM is really a valid argument in support of Free Will. Of course, I could be wrong... lol
Even indeterminism doesn't support free will though.. according to modern science free will is an illusion no matter what you choose (unless you go down the pseudo-science route some have taken).
That said.. even as an illusion, it's still pertinent to us and one might argue it becomes a matter of philosophy over science.
I think it's impossible to have free will. I believe in the LaPlace Demon (google it) yet I watched an interesting documentary from BBC called "the secret life of chaos" that made me not as sure as I used to be about it. You should watch it, it really makes you think about a bunch of stuff.
Let's say a person's going to choose a meal from a menu almost at random. But this person has some inclinations about what food sounds more appealing based on his or her previous experiences with eating, food ads, and hear say. So if this person gets a hot dog based on a predetermined event that caused this person to like hot dogs, at any point would you consider suggesting that any act of free will may have already been determined? And if so, would that make free will a fictional concept?
3:10 Balls. The more you know, the higher the probability that your prediction will be correct. Are you also tracking every potential meteoroid, solar flare, earthquake, volcanic eruption, civil disturbance, weather pattern, insect behavior... how long should this list be? While easily imagined, total certainty of prediction is simply not real.
4:30 "Theoretically possible" only in total isolation (really impossible) from all unaccounted influences (see above).
I'm saying exactly this. The more you understand about initial conditions, the closer you get to predicting any event, no matter how far in the future it is. And this would prove that what we perceive as Free Will is an illusion. We are merely the working out of a chain reaction which began 14 billion years ago.
Nothing, except the universe itself "knew" the initial, and "knows" the present, conditions. This "knowledge" is actually irrelevant to the question, as it does not PREDICT anything: it simply IS. PLEASE read Dennett!
To perfectly predict even the ball position or coin toss, you MUST isolate the experiment from practically the whole universe. "Predicting" the present from the big bang is and will always be impossible. Pure imagination, totally unreal.
0:39 Why would "you" WANT to make choices entirely independent from, or in opposition to, outside influences?
1:35 Chess is conveniently digital (64 squares, 32 (or less) pieces with simple, fixed behaviors) giving 10|43 positions, 10|52 games, i guess. Now 10|80 "elementary particles" with frequently varying behaviors in how many possible locations ("Plank volumes" in the universe) | how many time increments ("Plank intervals" in 13.8 billion years)?
I think the problem is that we don't know enough about QM to say anything meaningful in this case. At least I don't. It could be completely possible that elementary particles also act according to specific rules which we simply haven't discovered yet. Again, this seems to be explaining one mystery with another mystery.
I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I'm just saying that in my case, I don't feel comfortable using something as new of a science as QM to explain something like Free Will.
2. The only "computer" powerful enough to track (and predict?) the sequence of states of the universe is the universe itself.
3. QM uncertainty applies (and defeats "deterministic" prediction) because the sequence of states of every "particle" (and/or "wave") in the universe must (but cannot) be known to make an absolutely correct prediction.
4. What is this "I" that may or may not "have" free will?
I think free will is impossible from a naturalistic point of view as well as one that is not naturalistic (spiritual, etc..). In other words, free will is illogical in any deterministic or indeterministic system, natural or spiritual. There is no escaping the causal/acausal dichotomy...and neither grant free will.
Not all laws of physics are deterministic. You need the laws of probability and statistics to understand quantum mechanics (not that I do). Whether the universe is deterministic is a question beyond me. I don't think we can definitely conclude that it is though.
I'm curious if probability and statistics are used because these laws aren't deterministic, or simply because we don't possess mathematics and understanding sophisticated enough to say that they are? I could be wrong, but it's something I don't have enough knowledge to assess.
As far as I'm concerned, until the evidence is in, I have to withhold judgment. I think that if we find ourselves looking for an out (in terms of wanting Free Will), latching onto things which "might" provide that mechanism, I think that raises a big red flag.
To say that Free Will comes from quantum mechanics sounds like grasping at straws. We hardly understand it to begin with. To use it as an explanation for something is equivalent to explaining a mystery with a mystery. "God did it."
I agree, QM does seem to bring randomness into the picture. Until someone unifies QM with the other forces, I think it is still a mystery.
But, our brain processes seem to work on the electro-chemical level, not at the quantum level. Even if there is some randomness provided by QM, that would not help with "choices" at all.
I would absolutely agree. Something on such a small scale as QM is not going to influence something like decision making. But then again, that's based on my limited understanding of the subject. But, intuitively and logically, it seems to make sense.
Free will from QM is indeed like Gdidit, (and, anyway, no free will at all.)
Think about what is free from what: humans have more DEGREES of freedom than insects or bacteria (to make the comparison stark). More detailed perception and more options between which a choice may (must) be made, as well as more levels of feedback (maybe six in the cortex alone) refine the "chooser", (relatively) freeing it from simple reflex and strict instinct.
There are no laws IN the universe outside of minds which generate them to assist prediction for a purpose.
The immediate purpose is satisfaction of desires and attaining of goals. The underlying "purpose" is survival (more precisely, successful copying). But "survival" (through copying) is only a FACT (or not) regardless of intent (or none).
ALL predictions are probabilistic projections of abstractions (e.g. "laws") from past experience selected by "similarity" to present perceptions.
The real point of this comment is that there are NO laws IN nature. All "laws" are abstractions from experience formulated by creatures (us) for (creature-specific) purposes: satisfy desires, reach goals. Purpose, desire and goal all arise in entities with complex data processing systems (like us). There is no reason to suppose that "nature" has such features otherwise.
Nature is not bound by laws, we make them up to help us predict nature's (future) behavior.
What about emergence? Quantitative change leads to qualitative change. Something completely new emerges. For example, you add separate grains of sand, when do you have a heap of sand?
The emergence of mind from many connections in the brain...?
But, wouldn't this emergence be a product of this determinism, and in fact, consistent with determinism? Would it be like saying 2 is an emergent property of combining 1 and 1? I guess what I'm saying is that isn't it reasonable to conclude that something which comes to be from a deterministic system must necessarily be, in itself, deterministic?
Again, I'm saying this outside of the assumption of the supernatural.
Emergence does not help with free will, as whatever emerges does so based on events that precede the emergence. In this way the emergence can never be something different than what the (either causal or acausal...most likely causal) events dictate.
That's just my point, whatever emerges is completely new, with a novel quality, that does not come from the qualities of the constituents. Sorry, I don't have examples at the moment, may remember some later.
Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time. ...
Excellent video. My name is Ken Chamberlain in Syracuse NY. i'm that atheist you exchanged a few words with on Buzz yesterday. My view on the subject seems to coincide with yours. Apparently, free will is an illusion.
Hey man, thanks for the comment! Determinism is something I still struggle with. I guess I don't want it to be true, but I have a hard time denying it.
Yeah, I just posted it today. I'm finding that I have to label myself an unwilling determinist. As it stands right now, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise. I think you could say that I'd be putting my faith in unknown laws of the Universe... giving myself a reason to believe in Free Will by invoking an unknown known... almost like a religion.
So yeah, I'm still struggling with this one. That's the main reason I posted this video. Maybe someone out there can show me where I'm wrong...
I believe our world is set in motion deterministically, yet cause and effect is non-linear; if that makes any sense at all..?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
What exactly do you mean by "non-linear?"
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist By non-linear determinism, I mean, a cause could be in the future, as an effect can be in the past. Emotion, an eternal motion, the animating life force, a current, a wave, a way, not moving in one direction but all directions at once... does that make sense?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it for a bit because I'm not really sure. Never really thought about it in that way before. I'm not sure about a cause being in the future, though. I'll definitely think about it and get back either in PM or maybe even a video. I recently got a video response about my determinism videos, so I may include this in my response. Thanks for your thoughts!
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist With our current perspective, that being fixated on the linear, we'd never know for sure whether or not a cause could be in the future, unless of course we ease away from the fixation or change our perspective. To do that, we'd have to really reexamine the concept of linear time, and essentially adjust the concept itself. Honestly, non-linear determinism makes a lot of sense to me. And, I feel as if it would support the APPEARANCE of freewill.
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Drop me a PM when you get it all together!!
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Sorry for the spam of comments. Anyhow, like when a pebble is thrown into a pond, it causes ripples in every direction; you could look at an event in time like that. For instance, if I remember correctly, the affects of 9/11 were recorded four hours prior to the actual event. Read this... glcoherence[dot]org[fslash]monitoring-system[fslash]about-system[dot]html
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@Clear404 the existence of free will is not what makes us morally responsible. The existence of God is what makes us morally responsible. If God doesnt exist then we have no moral obligation to anyone.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 1 month ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel
What makes you think this is a logical conclusion? All you're saying is that might makes right. You could substitute the word "God" with any other name, and the logic is still the same.
You're saying that because God is strong enough to punish you, what God says is "moral." There's no other logical reason to believe that God suddenly makes us morally responsible to anyone.
How can you demonstrate that without God, we have no moral obligations? These are just assertions.
TheSkepticalAtheist 4 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
if there is no God, then everything is "ultimately" meaningless. Because we are all just going to cease to exist. Everything will cease to exist, any memory or thought or action we ever did has no ultimate meaning. Every memory of every action you have ever made, or will make is meaningless. That is my logical conclusion. Which is why I stated that free will is not what makes us morally responsible, God is what makes us morally responsible.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 3 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel
I disagree. If there is no God, then things don't come with intrinsic meaning. Even "meaning" itself has no meaning until we give it meaning. Meaning is a psychological phenomena. Cats, dogs, or any other animals don't need "meaning" to go about their lives. We give meaning to our lives. Our own meaning.
And, of course we have moral obligations. If we didn't, our species wouldn't survive. If killing were okay, we'd have killed ourselves off before we even got started.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
the survival of the species holds no weight, we are all dead regardless. Delaying an inevitable, does not change the inevitable. The space in-between, ultimately has no value, or ultimate purpose, because it all ceases to exist. You adding value, is redundant as well, what if my value says your value has no value, who is right? Secondly, you cannot hold any moral obligation over anyone, this life is all people have, if they want to kill, why not, they die regardless.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel
Survival of the species is of utmost importance. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We've evolved to survive. Our "morals" are a product of that evolutionary process. We've evolved to be a social species because our niche is intelligence and cooperation. Other animals have power and speed, or other advantages which make them suited for survival.
If we didn't get along, we wouldn't survive and we would go extinct. Our psychology matters little to our DNA.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel there's more than one way in which someone can lack moral responsibility and moral obligations. I agree that if God does not exist, then no-one has any moral obligations. The existence of God is, in my view, a necessary condition of us having moral obligations. But it is not sufficient. We also need free will.
Clear404 4 weeks ago
@Clear404
so if you have free will, then what kind of will does God have? Who's will is more free, God's or ours? Does "free" have multiple meanings? What choices can you make, that haven't already been determined by God? Your choices being determined does not take away your responsibility, you still made them, and desired to make them. You do not "need" free will to still be held responsibly by God for your choices.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel I'm a compatibilist about free will. So I don't think determinism undermines free will and thus it doesn't undermine moral responsibility either.
I don't know what sort of free will God would have. But as I'm a compatibilist it doesn' t really matter. It is only if you're an incompatibilist that issues start arising re God's free will.
But the bottom line is, I don't know.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel I should add that when it comes to God, all I'd say we can know about him is that a) he exists and b) he is morally good (which on my view means that he approves of himself). That's it. So that's why I say 'I don't know' to the issue of God's free will.
I should also point out that if you think moral responsibility is compatible with determinism then any disagreement between us is purely semantic as I mean by free will that which makes us morally responsible.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
How can we know he exists, and how do we know he is morally good?
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist You ask how we can know that God is morally good. Well, we can't know it for certain, but it seems eminently reasonable to suppose he is. my reason is that I think the best way to understand what morality 'is', is that it consists in God's commands and approvals - and that we sense these, albeit unreliably, through our moral sense. If someone approves of Xing, then it is highly likely that they X themselves. So that's my reason for thinking God is morally good.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Here's the basic moral argument for God:
1. If there are moral truths, God exists
2. There are moral truths
3. Therefore God exists.
I take it that premise 1 is the one you'd want to take issue with. It is the controversial one! So I'll now give the first step in a longer argument in support of it. Here:
1. If an act is wrong, it is required not to be done
2. Some acts are wrong
3. Therefore some acts are required not to be done.
Next step....cont'd.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd....
1. Only agents can make requirements
2. If an act is required not to be done, then an agent requires it not to be done
3. Some acts are required not to be done
4. Therefore an agent requires some acts not to be done.
So at this stage then, I think we can say that to sense that something is wrong, is for it to appear as if the thing in question is required not to be done by somebody.
But who? Well, an agent of some sort. Who? Not you. Not me.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...God seems to me to be the only credible answer. Note - at this point I'm not saying God exists. I'm just defending premise 1 (premise 1 does not assert God's existence). Premise 1 is consistent with morality turning out to be an illusion. But what it is an illusion 'of'. It is an illusion of being instructed, or required, by some external agent, not to do things and to do other things.
God is the only candidate. why? ....
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd....God is the only real candidate, because if we found out that there really was a God - an agency behind creation - and that what we term 'morality' is just what it is for us to hear God, to pick up, albeit in a rather out-of-focus way - on what it is he wants - we would not consider our moral sense to be illusory. Whereas if we found out that our moral sense was just a sense of our own unconscious desires, we'd conclude our moral sense presents us with an illusion
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...and so that's why I think it is only if God exists that our moral sense is a sense of something real. If God does not exist, then our moral sense is just a quirk of our brain chemistry. It presents us with the illusion that there are external instructions that we must uphold. But without an external instructor, the impression is an illusion. So that's why the absence of God entails that there are no moral truths.
And that's also why....
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist cont'd...that's also why the existence of moral truths, entails the existence of God.
Anyway, that's my 'moral' case for the existence of God. To block it you must either embrace moral nihilism or deny that morality consists of requirements, or deny that requirements can only be issued by agents. I don't think any of those options is attractive.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
Again, to say that God's existence is the only way we can have moral absolutes is to say that might-makes-right. What reason are you giving, or how can you explain your reasoning behind saying that God's existence is what causes us to have moral responsibility, other than the idea that God is strong enough to punish, therefore what he says is "moral?"
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, to be morally responsible at least two conditions (and probably more) need to be satisfied. First, morality needs to exist. By 'exist' I mean there need to be some moral truths - some moral statements need to be 'true'. if morality did not exist, then no-one could do any wrong. The second condition is that we have free will.
You're now asking me why morality requires God, so I'll give my reasons. But in order to forestall certain lines of criticism....
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...let me first just make clear that I am not religious. I don't believe we can find out anything about God from any 'religious' text ever written. I believe God exists. But I don't think he wrote the bible or any other book (I think you exist, but I don't think you wrote the bible either!). I also have no 'faith' in God's existence whatsoever. I believe in God solely on the basis of two arguments, one of which is the 'moral' argument. I'm odd like that.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel
well that laws of nature makes us responsible to our species.
lions dont eat other lions. (yes there are exceptions, but not to the laws of physics.)
thats why morality is a different thing you can't draw a parallel from Determinism to morality
3dmoddeler 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel Whether or not god exists, you've got an obligation by nature to be morally responsible; moral responsibility is weaved deeply within human nature. With that being said, for me personally, god is totally irrelevant when it comes to moral responsibility.
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
and where is that written? Do you just feel that you have a natural obligation, so you must? Without God everything is ultimately meaningless, because everything will just cease to exist. Every memory of every obligation you think you have will not exist, and might as well not have ever existed. If something is ultimately going to cease existing, it might as well just not exist now. There is no difference, the space in between non existence, and non existence, is meaningless.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 2 weeks ago
@YuGiOhDuelChannel "Without god, everything will cease to exist." So, how do you know that, and what is god to you?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
You can believe in God, and still be a determinism. God simply becomes the first cause and not nothingness.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 1 month ago
Why do you think free will involves making decisions that are uninformed by, uncaused by, outside forces? That doesn't seem to be anything like free will. Free will is whatever it takes to transform a thing, into a moral agent.
Here's why we have free will. Free will is a requirement of having moral obligations. We do have moral obligations, and that fact is more self-evident than any proposition about the compatibility or otherwise of determinism and free will. Therefore we have free will
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404
I don't agree with your first premise. Free Will isn't a requirement for having moral obligations. If something is moral, it is moral outside of the choices which one may make. Morality doesn't depend upon the ability of one to choose it. Taking another person's life without reason (morality is not black and white; could find reasons why killing could be considered moral) would still be wrong even if no one in the world were able to resist killing.
Morality doesn't depend upon choice
TheSkepticalAtheist 4 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, there are two basic elements to morality - valuable states of affairs, and actions that are right or wrong (or permissible). States of affairs can be described as 'good' or 'bad'. Actions are right or wrong. The precise nature of the relationship between the two is a matter of controversy.
If we lack free will, then I agree that we could still talk about states of affairs being good or bad. That part of morality would survive. Happiness would still be 'good' etc
Clear404 4 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...but let's focus on actions - on right and wrong. If an action is 'right' it is morally obligatory, and if an action is wrong, one is obligated not to perform it. That seems essential to the concept.
You can only have a moral obligation to do, or desist from doing something if one is free to do, or not do, that thing.
So if we lack free will, we cannot have any moral obligations.
We do have moral obligations. And this fact is clearer than...cont'd.
Clear404 4 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd...it is clearer, more self-evident, or is a proposition about which we have a greater degree of conviction, that we have moral obligations, than that free will is incompatible with determinism.
It would therefore be irrational to conclude that we lack free will because determinism is true.
The rational conclusion is that we are mistaken in thinking free will incompatible with determinism.
Clear404 4 weeks ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont'd....so I suppose my basic claim is this: it is far more counter-intuitive to claim that we have no moral obligations, than it is to claim that free will is compatible with determinism.
It is more counter-intuitive to claim that moral obligations do not require free will, than it is to claim that free will is compatible with determinism.
If we discover determinism is true, the rational conclusion is that we've discovered determinism and FW are compatible.
Clear404 4 weeks ago
There are certain factors that challenge the concepts of determinism and one of them is Schrödinger's cat, which might disprove the fact that a coin flip is decided once it leaves the hand (or even by the time big bang occured for that matter). The direction electrones take is also considered random. So as you reserved yourself from denying; random events might take place in quantum physics - maybe god plays dice with the universe after all. This however doesn't prove free will, only randomness.
ohedd 2 months ago
Ok, from watching other videos about free will, I see that you atheists have no clue, or no other idea as to what free will is, why, because you live in a box, and you think that everything is mathematics, that's why the way you reason is so narrow. Free will has to do with the ability to feel, and you can't explain feelings with mathematics, if you can understand that, then you will shift to another gear. You r parroting what other atheists say, and that's ur first problem, u don't think.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
You're right, you can't explain "feelings with mathematics." You're ignorant of other sciences like neurology and basic human physiology and psychology.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist You think I'm some stupid idiot, is that what you think, you think I don't know what science knows, or how much they know, do you really think that it's a mystery, that science is keeping these things secret from us. Let me tell, a scientist is just a person that studies math and chemicals, that's all, the interaction of chemicals, because that's all we know, scientist don't have special senses that other ppl don't have, so they don't know anything that I don't already know.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
How about instead of spending all this time criticizing mathematics and science (which the computer you're using to type on is the result of), how about you begin proving (citing your sources) the claims you are making. And don't resort to "it's common sense."
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, I'm a sentient being, I have logic, I have feelings, I believe in God, why, because no human being could have written the bible, ahhhhh, because of love, evil, hate, so many things, because of the feeling that I get when I look at a sunset, because when I tell my son that I love him, I know, I mean, I know, that I'm not a machine just making noise. I mean, if you can't see that, then, you don't want to.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist By the way, human physiolody and psychology involves, living cells, science have no clue as to how a cell is alive. Physiology and psychology involves sentience, again, science has no clue as to why or how we are sentient. so you are the ignorant one. Your fancy words don't impress me.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
I don't understand what you're saying. Science has no clue as to how a cell is alive? Are you really that ignorant of the state of scientific knowledge? Or is this something that your pastor told you to say? How a cell is alive is basic scientific knowledge.
Where are you getting these ideas from? It isn't from actually reading a science book. You're just making it up.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Well, I don't have any pastors, so don't confuse me and don't assume you know anythign about me. As a matter of fact I have a medical text book in my house, and this plainly says, that science knows very little about the living cell. The last time I checked, they still know the same thing. If you know something I don't know, then you show me. I watch video, with real scientist, and beieve me, they don't know. So you my friend are dead wrong.
.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist By the way, everything science knows, is in text books, it's no mystery.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
You are incorrect... again. You don't even understand the very basics of how science works. Do you know what has to happen before any scientific work gets published?
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist You are arrogant and ignorant. Do you think that atheists own science, or something like that. What are you saying. Science happens everyday, what are you saying. You speak as if this was some mystery that only atheist know. You make me laugh.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents What about the idea of feelings being evolutionary selected? Surely humans with ambitions to satisfy its need of love has better prospects of survival. Otherwise happiness wouldn't be so closely connected to, and triggered by reproduction, nutrition, rest, bright future prospects and so on. After all, feelings are generated in the brain and are caused by hormones and neurotransmitters responding to impressions. It's not very abstract.
ohedd 2 months ago
You are talking mathematics, cause that's all you and scientist know. You have no clue, I mean, you are clueless as to how a neuron really works, as to how the brain works, science has not clue as to how these things happen. Yet you atheists insist on saying that everything in the universe is stricktly mathematical, I mean, just how the hell do you know that, is that another theory, because that's what it's, and you expect ppl to just believe what you are saying, proof what u are saying.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
I, personally, don't know how a neuron really works, but that doesn't mean that that knowledge isn't out there... and regardless, the point is meaningless. You mean to say that because science can't explain everything RIGHT NOW, the entire endeavor is meaningless.
And, in terms of mathematics and this line of reasoning you're presenting, the mathematical view of the Universe has been demonstrated over and over... you've demonstrated nothing except moving goalposts.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist There's no mathematical formula that can explain sentience. You can't create feelings with mathematics, you can't create consciousness with mathematic. You see, I know this and you don't. So it's your problem that you can't understand this fact. I've demonstrated, that your logic is flawed and has no answers to my questions.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
You're demonstrating that you're lacking a very basic understanding of science. "Mathematics" is not a method of creating anything. How about this... can you explain to me what you believe mathematics actually is?
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Are you for real, 1+1=2, that's all mathematics is.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
You're either dumb, or being intentionally ignorant. I have no more to say to you.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist And you have no answers, just stupid remarks.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist What do u mean by that, that knowledge isnt' out there, outthere where, in the universe. Science has come along way in many things, but the real questions, are still a mystery. Science knows very little about the universe, they really don't have a clue as to what the universe is, or where it is, or anything like that. And I don't see scientist studying love or what love, do you.
cmpresents 3 months ago
YOur atheim/materialism can't explain sentient and conscious beings, period. Only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
How exactly do you know that this is the case? What law of nature requires that "only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings?" I see where you're trying to go with this, but you won't be able to get there without evidence to support your claim.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Because I know the limits of science and because it's common sense. All the great philosophers believed in dualism also. There is no physical evidence for nonphisical things, that is impossible.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
What do the limits of science have to do with the creation of conscious beings? Furthermore, "common sense" isn't evidence. Sure, it's "common sense" that gravity exists, but you can' t explain gravity just by saying that it's "common sense." You have to explain how it works.
And just what do you mean by "dualism?" Dualism has to do with the mind/body connection. That has nothing to do with what you're talking about. And why did you bring up proof of non-physical things?
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist You say in your video that u only believe in matter and energy, if there was only matter and energy, then there would only be matter and energy, that's it, no living things, no plants, no animals and certainly no humans. Simply put, you can't explain life and the complexity of life with your simple matter and energy theory. If you want to semantics, then you can talk to someone else. You atheists are all the same, but you don't produce answers.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
I can refute your entire hypothesis with a single question: who made God? I know that's what you're getting at. You want to say that something can't come from nothing, except when it comes to the thing you want to come from nothing.
You're right, there is no evidence for things which are non-physical. Or, in other words, you can't prove or disprove things which are non-physical. I say, all the more reason to reject the idea that they exist.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist God is a living entity, the source. No one created God and that's the whole point, you need God in the equation. Without God, there would be no life, period. Or, without life, you can't have life.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents
Okay, you clearly said in your first post that "Only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings." But, your entire hypothesis falls flat when you apply it to God. The problem is that you want me to make an exception for a god who you can't even demonstrate exists.
Your hypothesis is logically contradictory.
1. Only a conscious being can create sentient and conscious beings.
2. God is conscious, sentient.
3. No one created God.
Do you see the problem here?
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 months ago
If you claim that there is free will you will have to prove it just like if you claim there is a god. However there is simply no way to prove it because you can un do an action, so free will is not falsifiable.
r29 3 months ago
i have a question. What is there to be appreciative about when it comes to determinism? I have noticed though that most people who believe in it, don't seem to be too enthusiastic about it. I am just wondering what the benefits are when it comes to talking about determinism alot. Does it make them feel smarter?
JLeeMagnetic 5 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic
Just because something doesn't make people happy, doesn't make it untrue. I'd rather know the truth than pretend that everything is supposed to feel good. I guess that's the way I see it.
TheSkepticalAtheist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Yes but imagine if you were wrong. You would be wrong and you would be unhappy at the same time. And why aren't you guys celebrating determinism since you figured it all out? This is how i see it. Im not saying it's how it is. But it's how it really seems. Seems like determinists are infact slightly jealous that free will people tend to be happier and they want to take that away from them because they can't stand them enjoying something that they don't think they have.
JLeeMagnetic 5 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic
No one is saying that it's all been figured out. More than anything, this is a thought experiment, an exploration. Happiness really plays no role in the discussion.
TheSkepticalAtheist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Let me ask you this. Lets pretend that one day more and more evidence showed that you have some free will. Again, this is just hypothetical. How would your views and emotions change? Would you be upset at having some free will or would you be the same?
JLeeMagnetic 5 months ago
@JLeeMagnetic
I don't know that my emotions would change, but if there was evidence to suggest we had Free Will, then I would align myself with that position. As it stands right now, I'm just not convinced that this is the case. I'm not saying I'm correct. I'm only saying that I'm not convinced at this point and time that Free Will exists.
TheSkepticalAtheist 5 months ago
The definition of free will I prefer is, "Choosing something, when you could have chosen something else."
With the analogy of the chessboard. There is a SET number of moves possible. All that means is your choices are limited. It doesn't mean you're not free to move your horse, as opposed to your pawn. BUT you are definitely not free to work outside the limitations of the game.
rockos414 8 months ago
@rockos414
The problem is that we really don't know that we COULD have chosen anything else. There's no way to know if we really could have chosen anything other than what we do. In the chess analogy, yes you CAN "choose" to move your knight or your pawn. But, at the end of the day, the move you made could have been the only possible move because you were determined to make that choice to begin with.
I realize there's no way to demonstrate this, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility
TheSkepticalAtheist 8 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I like the chess analogy. At first, you used the SET number of moves possible to demonstrate that the choices are limited by external forces. Now I think you're questioning whether internally choices are determined by some set of rules.
the best way I can frame it, "What determines your choices/beliefs?" I'd have to say 2 things. (1) Inheritance and (2) Environment. None of which you have control of.
Cont.
rockos414 8 months ago
Comment removed
rockos414 8 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Cont.
I like to think these 2 factors have influenced my decisions to always lead with my king's pawn (Which i do quite often). But do I always make that choice? No.
The problem I have is, if Freewill does not exists. Then people are not morally responsible for anything they do. Hitler was determined to behave the way he did. So I believe in FreeWill because I don't think we have a choice. LoL
rockos414 8 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY My idea of a rational choice is "something one chooses to do to maximize their benefits and minimize any costs of such a decision". That seems deterministic, but is way to vague to be such, as it doesn't really say whether such a being that does that's mind follows the natural laws or not. Its definitely a choice, that would be at odds with the idea that you can make choices not based on any external factors though.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY How would you define a rational choice?
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY You're definition is so vague, it doesn't exclude nor include whether it fits a determinist framework. You can't come up with a scientific idea that is so vague, as it will end up like a myriad of other theories that are too vague to be tested but might sound right, just dismissed out right.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY The idea is that you're actions are responses to both internal and enviromental stimuli, and not something you choose to or not to do hased on your own whims, that the "free" will is an illusion, not the wills themselves. You will to eat lunch, but that goes back to the survival instict to survive, and the evolutionary pressures to kill plants and animals for your survival.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
I don't think that we can really judge whether or not we have Free Will by using the standard of "experience," or that we "feel" like we have the freedom to choose. Feelings are, after all, merely a brain state, the result of cause & effect, the chemical reactions in our brains. Our feelings are merely the manifestations of these cause and effect reactions.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY However, what are we debating over? How can we know? If we can't define our terms, they run an easy risk of being too vague to be debateable, as i can't read your mind to know what you're concieving of it to be, and our definitions may even drastically differ.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY I'm not making any special claims by saying that the mind/brain is the product of natural laws playing out (determinism), those who support the concept of free will, say that the mind (whatever it is to them, it varies) is an exception (why? How do they know?)
If you're not even sure how to define free will, can you define it at all? As for life, I can define that. Hence, I'm able to say whether or not I support a concept of free will.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY I see determinism as everything in nature as obeying natural laws, and is hence, as a result, predictable to a degree. Perhaps I just don't understand what is being posited by free will? It usually either is some vague, metaphysical concept, or it is a concept meaning "is free to make choices without external influences", by external, its usually meant outside one's body.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY O ok. I do agree that there are things we don't yet understand, but that doesn't mean that everything doesn't follow natures laws. As far as we know, the universe for the most part, at least at the scale we live in, is deterministic. And that which is indeterministic, those subatomic particles, come into and out of existence in a chaotic manner, as indeterminism is chaotic.
How would you define free will? And what evidence suggests it exists?
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Everything is deterministic in that there is order, everything follows naturalistic laws, and everything happens according to those laws as a result. The Big bang isn't proof that something can exist that is indeterministic, as we don't actually know what caused it. However, against my own idea, particles in a vacuum coming into and out of existance is an example of indeterminism, but as far as I know, its chaotic (which we are not), and only exists on the subatomic realm.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
No, this is not the case. A Free Will has to escape the laws of cause and effect. It is an extraordinary claim to make that something contra-causal can emerge from merely deterministic matter. The burden is on the one claiming Free Will to demonstrate it, or at least show how it would be plausible.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
I wouldn't say that it's an assumption. To say that consciousness is more than a cause and effect chain which is manifested through the matter it consists of is a claim which must be proven.
I don't think that determinists explain away Free Will as something supernatural. Most determinists don't believe that Free Will exists.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
While consciousness is unique, I think that it remains to be seen that it is unbound by the laws of physics and chemistry. After all, isn't consciousness merely an emergent property of the matter it consists of?
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Good question. I think it's called Determinism because the controversy is whether or not humans have Free Will, and cause & effect probably doesn't suffice in that situation.
As for your second question, I think that it logically follows that because we are constructed of the same matter as everything else, there is no special reason to believe that the matter in our brains functions any different from the rest of the matter in the Universe - according to physical laws.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
Comment removed
projectoz88 1 year ago
I'm not fan of illogical thinking, but largely because of my brain's wiring, I've always assumed I had free will, and until recently, have ignored this philosophical question becuase I don't like it. XD
Though I'm thinking you might be right, as there is no logical reason to suppose free will exists. At least none i heard of. As for a soul, even if we had one, it clearly doesnt affect how we live, so how could it give us free will? It might as well not exist.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream
I think Free Will is something most people just assume we have. But, when you really think about it in all of its detail, it becomes very difficult to make a case for it. There is really no mechanism to support the claim.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist We assume we have it because it really seems like we do. We also have no other reason to think otherwise, afterall, I'm choosing to write this, nothing seems to be making me. Though as you say, its hard to make a case for free will, and being that everything else is deterministic, as its made of deterministic matter, as we are, how are we different?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream
Exactly. And I may be purely speculating here, but I think we will be surprised at just how deterministic our behavior really is as we learn more about neurology and exactly how the brain works. Right now we're merely scratching the surface.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist True. Though seeing this video, I have to wonder if we've already discovered the answer to the free will vs determinism question:
watch?v=fI1624SwYnI
spartacandream 1 year ago
I am sorry. I did not mean to insult you or your intelligence. I simply made a comment. I also did not say anything about free will or determinism whether i agreed with you or not. I merely stated that, in keeping with trying to 'see' your position, understanding ALL the factors involved is a good thing. If one does NOT understand all the factors, (which is a reality by your own admission) then, one must be careful in making 'determining' conclusions.
wernercarrasco 1 year ago
@wernercarrasco
I completely understand what you're saying. I've done a few more recent videos on determinism where I talk about Quantum Mechanics. And you are absolutely right in that I don't fully understand the subject matter.
But, I think that a full understanding isn't really necessary in that there are certain thing that ARE known which support my case that QM does not provide a mechanism for Free Will.
I apologize for being defensive in my reply.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Once you have become somewhat 'insightful' as to the makeshifts of the universe all the way to the subatomic world, perhaps you will be better informed to actually make the kind of assumptions that will warrant an intelligent regard of your video presentation.
wernercarrasco 1 year ago
@wernercarrasco
In keeping with your condescension, you haven't really given me anything to go on, here. There are no experiments which demonstrate that quantum events impacting the macro world. All you've done is insult my intelligence.
Even granting quantum effects, this only puts our "Free Will" at the mercy of randomness, instead of deterministic laws. This still gets us nowhere in terms of the "uncaused cause" of truly Free Will. Thanks for the insults, though.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
You talk about an argument seemingly against determinism being found in Quantum Physics. You do not accept that as a viable position, while at the same time confessing you do not know much about it. I would encourage you, before you make such statements about determinism, that, you put, what to me is a vibe of 'bias' in your preposition, aside, and have a look at ALL the possibilities of the argument in question.
wernercarrasco 1 year ago
I'm leaning towards indeterminism, atleast until they prove String theory, quantum physics seems to throw a spanner into the works of determinism.
BeardedBill86 1 year ago
I just recorded a video today, and I'm uploading it (them - it's a 2 parter) now. I talk a little about why I don't think QM is really a valid argument in support of Free Will. Of course, I could be wrong... lol
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Even indeterminism doesn't support free will though.. according to modern science free will is an illusion no matter what you choose (unless you go down the pseudo-science route some have taken).
That said.. even as an illusion, it's still pertinent to us and one might argue it becomes a matter of philosophy over science.
BeardedBill86 1 year ago
I think it's impossible to have free will. I believe in the LaPlace Demon (google it) yet I watched an interesting documentary from BBC called "the secret life of chaos" that made me not as sure as I used to be about it. You should watch it, it really makes you think about a bunch of stuff.
francisleech 1 year ago
I'm familiar with LaPlace's Demon. In my example, the demon would be the hypothetical computer.
I'll have to check out that documentary, though. Even the title sounds interesting.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Let's say a person's going to choose a meal from a menu almost at random. But this person has some inclinations about what food sounds more appealing based on his or her previous experiences with eating, food ads, and hear say. So if this person gets a hot dog based on a predetermined event that caused this person to like hot dogs, at any point would you consider suggesting that any act of free will may have already been determined? And if so, would that make free will a fictional concept?
FeignHumility 1 year ago
@TSA
3:10 Balls. The more you know, the higher the probability that your prediction will be correct. Are you also tracking every potential meteoroid, solar flare, earthquake, volcanic eruption, civil disturbance, weather pattern, insect behavior... how long should this list be? While easily imagined, total certainty of prediction is simply not real.
4:30 "Theoretically possible" only in total isolation (really impossible) from all unaccounted influences (see above).
prhughes0 1 year ago
I'm saying exactly this. The more you understand about initial conditions, the closer you get to predicting any event, no matter how far in the future it is. And this would prove that what we perceive as Free Will is an illusion. We are merely the working out of a chain reaction which began 14 billion years ago.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TSA
Nothing, except the universe itself "knew" the initial, and "knows" the present, conditions. This "knowledge" is actually irrelevant to the question, as it does not PREDICT anything: it simply IS. PLEASE read Dennett!
To perfectly predict even the ball position or coin toss, you MUST isolate the experiment from practically the whole universe. "Predicting" the present from the big bang is and will always be impossible. Pure imagination, totally unreal.
prhughes0 1 year ago
@TSA
0:39 Why would "you" WANT to make choices entirely independent from, or in opposition to, outside influences?
1:35 Chess is conveniently digital (64 squares, 32 (or less) pieces with simple, fixed behaviors) giving 10|43 positions, 10|52 games, i guess. Now 10|80 "elementary particles" with frequently varying behaviors in how many possible locations ("Plank volumes" in the universe) | how many time increments ("Plank intervals" in 13.8 billion years)?
Forget "determinism" there.
prhughes0 1 year ago
I think the problem is that we don't know enough about QM to say anything meaningful in this case. At least I don't. It could be completely possible that elementary particles also act according to specific rules which we simply haven't discovered yet. Again, this seems to be explaining one mystery with another mystery.
I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I'm just saying that in my case, I don't feel comfortable using something as new of a science as QM to explain something like Free Will.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TSA
1. Read "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel C. Dennett.
2. The only "computer" powerful enough to track (and predict?) the sequence of states of the universe is the universe itself.
3. QM uncertainty applies (and defeats "deterministic" prediction) because the sequence of states of every "particle" (and/or "wave") in the universe must (but cannot) be known to make an absolutely correct prediction.
4. What is this "I" that may or may not "have" free will?
5. Free from what?
prhughes0 1 year ago
I think free will is impossible from a naturalistic point of view as well as one that is not naturalistic (spiritual, etc..). In other words, free will is illogical in any deterministic or indeterministic system, natural or spiritual. There is no escaping the causal/acausal dichotomy...and neither grant free will.
trick0171 1 year ago
Not all laws of physics are deterministic. You need the laws of probability and statistics to understand quantum mechanics (not that I do). Whether the universe is deterministic is a question beyond me. I don't think we can definitely conclude that it is though.
davism97 1 year ago
I'm curious if probability and statistics are used because these laws aren't deterministic, or simply because we don't possess mathematics and understanding sophisticated enough to say that they are? I could be wrong, but it's something I don't have enough knowledge to assess.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I'm curious about that too. Good question.
davism97 1 year ago
As far as I'm concerned, until the evidence is in, I have to withhold judgment. I think that if we find ourselves looking for an out (in terms of wanting Free Will), latching onto things which "might" provide that mechanism, I think that raises a big red flag.
To say that Free Will comes from quantum mechanics sounds like grasping at straws. We hardly understand it to begin with. To use it as an explanation for something is equivalent to explaining a mystery with a mystery. "God did it."
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I agree, QM does seem to bring randomness into the picture. Until someone unifies QM with the other forces, I think it is still a mystery.
But, our brain processes seem to work on the electro-chemical level, not at the quantum level. Even if there is some randomness provided by QM, that would not help with "choices" at all.
loveisallneed 1 year ago
I would absolutely agree. Something on such a small scale as QM is not going to influence something like decision making. But then again, that's based on my limited understanding of the subject. But, intuitively and logically, it seems to make sense.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TSA
Free will from QM is indeed like Gdidit, (and, anyway, no free will at all.)
Think about what is free from what: humans have more DEGREES of freedom than insects or bacteria (to make the comparison stark). More detailed perception and more options between which a choice may (must) be made, as well as more levels of feedback (maybe six in the cortex alone) refine the "chooser", (relatively) freeing it from simple reflex and strict instinct.
What chooses? "You" do. What is "you"?
Investigate
prhughes0 1 year ago
@TSA
There are no laws IN the universe outside of minds which generate them to assist prediction for a purpose.
The immediate purpose is satisfaction of desires and attaining of goals. The underlying "purpose" is survival (more precisely, successful copying). But "survival" (through copying) is only a FACT (or not) regardless of intent (or none).
ALL predictions are probabilistic projections of abstractions (e.g. "laws") from past experience selected by "similarity" to present perceptions.
prhughes0 1 year ago
there is no such thing as purpose in nature. Survival is an outcome, wanting or trying to survive is a result of some features of living beings.
francisleech 1 year ago
@francisleech
i agree. That's what i meant by "survival is only a FACT...". Clearly "purpose" is a feature of (some) creatures, not of nature itself.
prhughes0 1 year ago
@francisleech
The real point of this comment is that there are NO laws IN nature. All "laws" are abstractions from experience formulated by creatures (us) for (creature-specific) purposes: satisfy desires, reach goals. Purpose, desire and goal all arise in entities with complex data processing systems (like us). There is no reason to suppose that "nature" has such features otherwise.
Nature is not bound by laws, we make them up to help us predict nature's (future) behavior.
prhughes0 1 year ago
things happen in one particular way, Prhughes0, I don't believe in magic.
francisleech 1 year ago
What about emergence? Quantitative change leads to qualitative change. Something completely new emerges. For example, you add separate grains of sand, when do you have a heap of sand?
The emergence of mind from many connections in the brain...?
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
But, wouldn't this emergence be a product of this determinism, and in fact, consistent with determinism? Would it be like saying 2 is an emergent property of combining 1 and 1? I guess what I'm saying is that isn't it reasonable to conclude that something which comes to be from a deterministic system must necessarily be, in itself, deterministic?
Again, I'm saying this outside of the assumption of the supernatural.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
Emergence does not help with free will, as whatever emerges does so based on events that precede the emergence. In this way the emergence can never be something different than what the (either causal or acausal...most likely causal) events dictate.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171
That's just my point, whatever emerges is completely new, with a novel quality, that does not come from the qualities of the constituents. Sorry, I don't have examples at the moment, may remember some later.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
Free will is not a quality, it is an ability. One that is not compatible with the causality that consciousness emerges from.
trick0171 1 year ago
Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time. ...
cazyblood3 1 year ago
Excellent video. My name is Ken Chamberlain in Syracuse NY. i'm that atheist you exchanged a few words with on Buzz yesterday. My view on the subject seems to coincide with yours. Apparently, free will is an illusion.
Bornatnight1 2 years ago
Hey man, thanks for the comment! Determinism is something I still struggle with. I guess I don't want it to be true, but I have a hard time denying it.
I'm a reluctant determinist.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
1, I must have somehow found this soon after it was put up--I surfed my way into it through your your channel.
2. The Singer quote has been #1 on my hit parade for the last week.
3.I I have the same free will as a maggot, dragonfly, or mushroom.
4.Yet, I don't label myself a determinist--the laws, ways, or systems of the universe are probablty less understood than we think
oegaziz43 2 years ago
Yeah, I just posted it today. I'm finding that I have to label myself an unwilling determinist. As it stands right now, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise. I think you could say that I'd be putting my faith in unknown laws of the Universe... giving myself a reason to believe in Free Will by invoking an unknown known... almost like a religion.
So yeah, I'm still struggling with this one. That's the main reason I posted this video. Maybe someone out there can show me where I'm wrong...
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
"Of course I believe in free will,I have no choice."
Issac Bashevis Singer
Aaron518 2 years ago 2