@doRseries1 Determinism says that everything happens due to the prior state of the universe. However, physics has shown that at the most fundamental level of reality, the quantum world, nature is probabalistic. E.g. there's an 80% chance that an atom will do this, and 20% it will do that. The events you see around you are the average outcomes of all the atoms that comprise the object in question. It's in principle possible that you will float in the air next time you jump. Just not probable.
@zzap999 Do you mean, for example, is determinism in action when deciding which flavour ice cream to choose? I think so. Your brain will have a preference and decide which ice cream to take; even though it will feel like free will. If you consider the probabalistic nature of the universe, you might say that determinism isn't true. That doesn't save free will. The only way free will can be saved is by putting it this way: a person is free when they are living how they want to live.
@l337z0r I'd like to think that "I" make the decisions and not some second entity called "my brain" like my brain was a siamese twin brother protruding from the side of my head and extruding sap and grotesque teeth. Ever seen the movie "Total Recall".
@zzap999 Everything "you" are, is the result of brain activity. Unless, that is, you take the religious stance and believe that your consciousness -somehow- pervades outside of your body; that is, external to all the world of matter and space time (called Dualism, btw. An ancient idea.). If you don't believe that, then you have to subscribe to physicalism/materialism, and admit that EVERYTHING you think "you" are, even your consciousness, is the result of neural activity. Science supports this.
@l337z0r There is a theory in Mathematics(forgive me, I forgot the name) that analogously says that it is impossible to know everything about yourself or the brain because the only tool you have to attempt to do that is your brain. It is like pulling yourself out of your own boot straps.
@l337z0r Correction, it is likely trying to pull yourself out of your own boot straps. I'll look for the name of that theory and it's implications later and get back to you.
@zzap999, did the movie "Total Recall" have any effect on the way you think?
Your brain isn't "protruding from the side of the head" while producing thought anymore than your liver is protruding from your belly while producing gall.
The brain is part of the body. In order for the body to grow a brain a network of nerves and blood-vessels connect the brain to the rest of the body and thus to the environment. Sensory input, feedback, chemicals, and genes determined brain growth and function.
You are who you are today because of factors beyond your conscious control. Your height, your weight, your religion (or lack thereof), your political affiliation were all the result of a dynamic interaction of your body with environmental factors. You are who you are today because of the sensory input you've received, the nutrition you have received, the genetic endowment you were born with, the language you're learned and the way you've learned to use that language, and a host of other factors.
@zzap999, self is a word. It has the same significance as the feeling a dog gets when a flea is crawling on his tail. He sees the tail as belonging to himself and the flea as something external to him. But he doesn't have the word "self," because the word is constructed with complex language, which dogs don't have.
In humans, the word "self" can evoke images and feelings of the particular being that is seen when one looks in a mirror.
The "self" is totally dependent on words for existence
@zzap999, very few YouTubers have degrees in philosophy. But there are lots of philosopher-wanna-bes. I'm not one of them.
I didn't say the self was a feeling. I said the self to a human has the same significance as the feeling a dog gets when he looks at his tail. He knows the tail belongs to himself. But he doesn't have the language necessary to put his feeling into words.
When a person looks in the mirror, he feels the person looking back is a reflection of himself. Humans do have words
Nevertheless, a word is not a being. The word "being" is a sound/symbolic representation used by humans to mean "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently." (WordNet 2.0 via DICT.org)
And one of the definitions of "self" is "a being regarded as having personality." Self can also mean "a being that can consciously reflect on his own existence," which most likely would require a complex language only known to be possessed by the human animal.
@unseenstrings Does a dog have an awareness of it's own mortality? Does a dog worry that within 15 years(7 years for Great Danes) that they will eventually die? Only human beings do because humans have a self, an "I", and thus a soul. So it's more than words. The self is an actual thing.
@zzap999, dogs are aware of a car killing one of their own. And they become aware of their own mortality when near a busy road. And dogs are also aware of some things that humans are not. That is one reason we've kept them around for so long to help protect us. Elephants have indicated that they are aware of death. Children who've never learned language show no more awareness of death than any other intelligent animal.
"Self" and "I" are words. Words are a language that is spoken or written.
The dog is aware that the tail connected to his body is his tail. But he doesn't have the words we use to describe that relationship. He only has feeling, associative memory, and imagination, which collectively--together with mirror neurons--are the cognitive foundation of our complex language.
Spoken language gave us an evolutionary advantage. Written language helped us accumulate knowledge to the point of building pyramids and shortly thereafter, venturing into space
You make many assumptions based on what you have been taught. But what if you'd never been taught language? What if you'd been raised by a Bonobo mother? How close is human nature to the nature of the nonhuman animal? What aspects of your so called "self" are genetic, and what aspects are learned?
Have you ever heard about the forbidden experiment? Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) tried it. So did Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 13th century. Others have too.
@unseenstrings Your confusing awareness with extinct. Humans worry and fear their limited life on earth because they are aware of it from a religious and philosophical level. Humans even put meaning to life and death in the belief in an afterlife. Look at the ancient Egyptians and Hindus. Animals are amoral and only respond to their senses. Humanizing animals is a delusion invented by confused human beings.
@zzap999, apparently you're confusing extinct with instinct. And you seem very confused on other matters too.
Maybe you can tell me how a newborn knows to suckle just like a puppy knows to suckle? Does one teach the babe to do so? Or is it instinctive?
Better yet, define instinct for me and define awareness. Can instinct be modified to allow the organism to adapt to new and different circumstances? Or is instinct like gears interlocked together with only one possible type of movement?
Why do you say that when the babe needs to defecate, it is because of awareness, but when a pup needs do defecate it is because of instinct? Is the pup rewarded for pooping outside and scolded for pooping on the floor? How is the babe treated differently? Tell me how the internal mechanisms of control would differ once a babe has been "potty-trained" and the pup has been "house-broken"? Can your "mechanisms of control" be scientifically examined or is one of them attributed to such BS as a soul?
The argument of Determinism vs free will commits the either-or fallacy, since disproving determinism does not prove free will. Therefore, one cannot logically argue for or against the idea since the idea is fallacious from the get-go. Now, historically free will has been defined as the ability to reach a decision without restraint or in spite of physical or divine necessity or causal law. This means the argument should be free will vs God's will; or free will vs physical necessity or causal law.
1. (Philosophy) The doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human act & decision is the consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Also called necessitarianism.
2. (Philosophy) the scientific doctrine that all occurrences in nature take place in accordance with natural laws.
3. (Physics) the principle in classical mechanics that the values of dynamic variables of a system & of the forces acting on the system at a given time, fixate the values of the variables at any later time.
Can't determinism versus free will lead to a form of false dichotomy? The insinuation is that it is either determinism or free will. And agreed, proving determinism is true does disprove free will. However, proving determinism is false does not prove free will; but that is the implication
Originally the question was whether there was a ghost in the machine or not. Therefore, the debate should be between physicalism and a belief in ghosts and magic. Should we blindly believe in ghosts & magic?
Why do we treat the physical brain any differently than we do other complex physical systems? This picture ain't quite right.
Also, when free will is discussed, I never hear things like serotonin levels being discussed, genetic variant in enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAOA) being discussed, and statistical predictability of some human behavior. Why? Isn't the fact that a person born in India develops an aversion toward eating meat relevant to whether meat eating is a choice free from influence?
@unseenstrings "Why? Isn't the fact that a person born in India develops an aversion toward eating meat relevant to whether meat eating is a choice free from influence?" Because the question isn't "am I attracted to X" but "do I HAVE to avoid X." The fact that you pose this question shows that you don't know what the argument is about. An aversion to eating meat does not force you not eat it. You have a choice. You can eat what you hate and not eat what you like,
@tumbleweedjoe, no, the question is, can human choices supersede the limits imposed by the physical necessity or causal law that govern all other physical systems? That is, does the particular neuroanatomy previously developed within the individual's brain & the existing physiological chemistry of that brain have anything to do with the person's choice behavior? Or are choices magically free from previous development & existing chemo-physiology?
A person from India doesn't have more moral integrity than the person slurping on a nice hot juicy Whopper. Life merely hasn't taught the Whopper-eater & vegetarian Indian the same lessons. Choices are based on the tastes we acquire because of our own personal experiences. For example, the heterosexual doesn't have more moral integrity than the homosexual. He merely doesn't feel the same needs & desires. Are you saying you crave another man but have more "moral integrity" than the homosexual?
@unseenstrings I will grant that free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy if by determinism you simply mean that nothing happens without a cause, unless it is a necessary being. However, if by determinism you mean the idea that causality is reducible to material and efficient causes, then I will not grant that since (as this video shows) materialism, if true, would render even the idea of free will impossible and (as my videos on materialism demonstrate) materialism itself is false.
Definition: materialism = physicalism; and E=mc² is mass–energy equivalence of physical bodies. No formula exist to explain bodies without material form or substance, because we have no way of knowing whether immaterial (nonphysical) things exist anywhere except as a figment of the human imagination, since immaterial (nonphysical) things would be physically undetectable. Ghosts would be undetectable while equally ghosts may not exist anywhere except in the mind of scared/psychotic individuals.
The mind is no more of a thing than pain is a thing. Mind and brain are sometimes used synonymously, even though mind is "merely" a particular sensation produced by the brain that gives rise to organism function. In other words, chances are all organisms with brains experience the sensation of mind.
Free will is not a thing that exists in reality. Free will is best described as a myth arising as a result of an illusion. That is, the fable of free will arises as a result of "to err is human."
Now if your argument is not based on your own probability to err as a human, and if your arguments are not based on conformational bias common to all humans, and if your argument and videos do in reality "demonstrate materialism itself is false," as you say, then I should be reading about you as one of the greatest philosophers who has ever lived. I'll believe it when I see it.
Well, since much of philosophy is merely mental masturbation, I'll believe it when empirical evidence proves it true
@unseenstrings "Nothing is what sleeping rocks dream about". If ghosts exist, then they are just as "material" as you are. All those paranormal documentaries on t.v(assuming they are real) seem to suggest that even ghosts trigger their electromagnetic detecting instruments. If that is the case, then ghosts are material just as electromagnetic waves and light are material.
@unseenstrings I would take the position that even prisoners act out freely even due to their limited confinement. Some of the choices may not be what they would make if outside of prison(gay sex). However, it is still a choice.
@zzap999, are you saying your choice to engage in gay sex was the result of being in prison? Maybe not everyone who is in prison resorts to gay sex. Why would one person choose to have gay sex in prison and another not? Can intimidation and/or threat ("boo games") be possible factors? Could early learning experiences lead one prisoner to make a choice another would be too inhibited to make (also because of early learning)? Can any choice be free from the brain's neuroanatomy & chemical balance?
THis is what I wrote to a stubborn determinist. HOw can you be a consciouss observer and not have any control of your situation. So you can observe but you can't act on what you experience based on that observation? THat doesnt make any sense. You must have control of your environment at least to the extent to which you understand in your surroundings. ANd it must be as unique a response as your conscioussness is because it is a function of it
@ICANGO247 We are conscious and as humans have intelligence. However, whenever we "decide" to do any action, the brain had already began inputing signals before we are aware of it, giving the illusion that we are in control.
@ICANGO24 the problem is consciousness arises as a result of non-conscious processes. What does the MAOA enzyme have to do with behavior? What does serotonin levels? What about dopamine levels? What does dendrite development or pruning back have to do with behavior?
The difference in the choice you make & the choice another person makes is the difference in the neuroanatomy & physiological chemistry of your brain in comparison to the brain of the other person. No choice is ever free from such
Oh, and BTW @ICANGO24, the "suggested reading" for this video appears to be books one would expect to be suggested by the Catholic Church. For example, anyone not a logician who reads Lewis should also read John Beversluis' "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion." Besides, why is the viewer bogged down with a mountain of suggested reading that are irrelevant to the so called, "determinism-free will" debate? I smell a rat with a religious agenda.
@unseenstrings This video is part of a series. If you paid attention you would have seen that. Also, not all the recommended authors are theists. You "smell a rat with a religious agenda"? So having religious motivations invalidates an arguments? No, that't the genetic fallacy. You are just a common materialist who cannot differntiate between physical science and the materialist philosophy. This video definitively, once and for all, destroys determinism.
Wow! So the video information isn't about the video. Instead of creating a playlist and playlist info, you copy all the information about a series (playlist) into the video info box, even if it is irrelevant to the specific video. Interesting. That seems like the old befuddle and beguile stratagem.
This is not saying that was your intent. You may not know the basics of public discourse. Your communication should be clear, concise, and cohesive. In brief, the saying is, "Keep it simple stupid"
@tumbleweedjoe, nothing is wrong with being religious as long as your religiosity does not interfere with your objectivity. Of course, the very foundation of religiosity is contrary to "Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (objectivity). So I guess asking a religious person to be objective is like telling the earth to orbit the sun the other way around. It ain't gonna happen.
"Proving" indeterminism does not prove free will. Remember?
@unseenstrings I was asked to put up a bibliography for the series, which I started some time ago and have since been sidetracked from (which is why the videos on materialism are the last videos I've done in a while). I had a son, moved and took on an editing job, so I haven't yet had the time to continue it. In any event, it says "Series Bibiliography" and it's long since I originally intended this series to go on for a long time. If I ever find the time to complete it, you'll see why it's long
If you actually watched this video you couldn't possibly think that I make the claim that indeterminism proves free will. I specifically stated that randomness is no more conducive to free will than is determinism.
@tumbleweedjoe couldn't agree more. it is because we live in a essentially determined universe that consciousness can come about.
people don't seem to realise this. there is no conflict between determinism and free-will. free-will as most put it, is an illusion. but this does not matter because the causes of our decisions are so complex, they are unknown and one cannot even predict their own future choices, let alone another, to any real accuracy.
@tumbleweedjoe i would highly recommend reading 'the selfish gene' in understanding the purpose of the mind from an evolutionary perspective.
another huge influence on me was a thesis called 'life as a manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics' which you can google and obtain for free in PDF.
..glad to see some Classical liberalism and Austrian economics in that bibliography. i have also listened to P Grimm's TTC lecture, and many other books listed.
Indeterminism does not prove free will. I don't understand the continue link between determinism and free will, that there is one or the other. Random events occur in our reality. These random events can not be determined or shall I say predicted with certainty, only to a degree of certainty. Determinism is the act of shooting at a barn door and then drawing a target around the holes in the door. Determinism is inadequate to accurate predict future events. This is my take on the matter.
@TrueEmergence Determinism leads logically to fatalism. As for how one ought to feel about that fact, the answer in terms of determinism would have to be:"However I feel about determinism, that's how I feel about determinism. My feelings on the matter are as determined as everything else."
Actually from an objective perspective random does equal free. We can not see inside people's minds. We can only observe their actions. Free will is hinted at when these actions can not be linked to any causal agents (ie. appear random). The argument that random events are different than free will forgets that philosophy (particularly western philosophy) operates within the objective realm and that none of us can observe the inner workings of consciousness, we can only infer it.
@madscirat Well then you are using "random" in a different sense then here used. If things happen for no reason at all, then reality is absurd and there is no meaningful distinction between "free" and "unfree" or real and unreal. A causeless event which has casual effects (and I'll assume for the sake of argument that particle decay is truly causless (although I doubt it)), would not, thereby be intentional as free will is supposed to be.
@tumbleweedjoe Random doesn't mean causeless. A choice may appear causeless, but a consciousness did in fact make that choice and is the cause. However, we can not directly observe the operation of that consciousness so it only appears to the objective lens as a variability. I would actually guess that choice is behind many 'random' phenomena, from the actions of people, to the movement of electrons. One is our consciousness acting on our brain, the other is...well, another consciousness.
The realisation of determinism is just a description and explanation. It does not mean we cannot strive towards a goal. If I tell you I want you to do something, then your further action is indeed determined by various factors/causes, of which however, I am one of. The idea that it gets rid of responsibility is a fallacy, as among societies, it is a useful concept. Punishment makes sense insofar as it gives incentives(causes) not to act in a certain way. Psychology is the brain, and that's fact.
my head hurts i just need a simple meaning definition of what determinism is.
doRseries1 11 months ago
@doRseries1 check youtube..
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@doRseries1 Determinism says that everything happens due to the prior state of the universe. However, physics has shown that at the most fundamental level of reality, the quantum world, nature is probabalistic. E.g. there's an 80% chance that an atom will do this, and 20% it will do that. The events you see around you are the average outcomes of all the atoms that comprise the object in question. It's in principle possible that you will float in the air next time you jump. Just not probable.
l337z0r 10 months ago
@l337z0r Is it deterministic if there are many possibilities or having very few possibilities that make it deterministic?
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 Do you mean, for example, is determinism in action when deciding which flavour ice cream to choose? I think so. Your brain will have a preference and decide which ice cream to take; even though it will feel like free will. If you consider the probabalistic nature of the universe, you might say that determinism isn't true. That doesn't save free will. The only way free will can be saved is by putting it this way: a person is free when they are living how they want to live.
l337z0r 10 months ago
@l337z0r I'd like to think that "I" make the decisions and not some second entity called "my brain" like my brain was a siamese twin brother protruding from the side of my head and extruding sap and grotesque teeth. Ever seen the movie "Total Recall".
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 Everything "you" are, is the result of brain activity. Unless, that is, you take the religious stance and believe that your consciousness -somehow- pervades outside of your body; that is, external to all the world of matter and space time (called Dualism, btw. An ancient idea.). If you don't believe that, then you have to subscribe to physicalism/materialism, and admit that EVERYTHING you think "you" are, even your consciousness, is the result of neural activity. Science supports this.
l337z0r 10 months ago
@l337z0r How romantic.
zzap999 10 months ago
@l337z0r There is a theory in Mathematics(forgive me, I forgot the name) that analogously says that it is impossible to know everything about yourself or the brain because the only tool you have to attempt to do that is your brain. It is like pulling yourself out of your own boot straps.
zzap999 10 months ago
@l337z0r Correction, it is likely trying to pull yourself out of your own boot straps. I'll look for the name of that theory and it's implications later and get back to you.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999 You mean out of body experiences?
l337z0r 10 months ago
@zzap999, did the movie "Total Recall" have any effect on the way you think?
Your brain isn't "protruding from the side of the head" while producing thought anymore than your liver is protruding from your belly while producing gall.
The brain is part of the body. In order for the body to grow a brain a network of nerves and blood-vessels connect the brain to the rest of the body and thus to the environment. Sensory input, feedback, chemicals, and genes determined brain growth and function.
unseenstrings 10 months ago
You are who you are today because of factors beyond your conscious control. Your height, your weight, your religion (or lack thereof), your political affiliation were all the result of a dynamic interaction of your body with environmental factors. You are who you are today because of the sensory input you've received, the nutrition you have received, the genetic endowment you were born with, the language you're learned and the way you've learned to use that language, and a host of other factors.
unseenstrings 10 months ago
@unseenstrings "I" is not the brain. "I" is not the body.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999, "I" is a word consisting of a single letter. "I" is used by a speaker or writer to refer to himself.
Words are used by organisms who have the capacity for language and have learned to use said language.
Learning words is basically learning to associate an utterance/sign/symbol to an emotion and/or to an image.
Words therefore can be used in the thought process. And words thus evoke emotion and imagery.
Words can also be used to create illusions or to clear illusions away.
unseenstrings 10 months ago
@unseenstrings ""I" is used by a speaker or writer to refer to himself." Exactly, so what is the SELF?
zzap999 9 months ago
@zzap999, self is a word. It has the same significance as the feeling a dog gets when a flea is crawling on his tail. He sees the tail as belonging to himself and the flea as something external to him. But he doesn't have the word "self," because the word is constructed with complex language, which dogs don't have.
In humans, the word "self" can evoke images and feelings of the particular being that is seen when one looks in a mirror.
The "self" is totally dependent on words for existence
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings You say self is just a feeling. Then you say the self is a being. Which is it man? Philosopher you are not. Are you just a troller?
zzap999 9 months ago
@zzap999, very few YouTubers have degrees in philosophy. But there are lots of philosopher-wanna-bes. I'm not one of them.
I didn't say the self was a feeling. I said the self to a human has the same significance as the feeling a dog gets when he looks at his tail. He knows the tail belongs to himself. But he doesn't have the language necessary to put his feeling into words.
When a person looks in the mirror, he feels the person looking back is a reflection of himself. Humans do have words
unseenstrings 9 months ago
Nevertheless, a word is not a being. The word "being" is a sound/symbolic representation used by humans to mean "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently." (WordNet 2.0 via DICT.org)
And one of the definitions of "self" is "a being regarded as having personality." Self can also mean "a being that can consciously reflect on his own existence," which most likely would require a complex language only known to be possessed by the human animal.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings Does a dog have an awareness of it's own mortality? Does a dog worry that within 15 years(7 years for Great Danes) that they will eventually die? Only human beings do because humans have a self, an "I", and thus a soul. So it's more than words. The self is an actual thing.
zzap999 9 months ago
@zzap999, dogs are aware of a car killing one of their own. And they become aware of their own mortality when near a busy road. And dogs are also aware of some things that humans are not. That is one reason we've kept them around for so long to help protect us. Elephants have indicated that they are aware of death. Children who've never learned language show no more awareness of death than any other intelligent animal.
"Self" and "I" are words. Words are a language that is spoken or written.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
The dog is aware that the tail connected to his body is his tail. But he doesn't have the words we use to describe that relationship. He only has feeling, associative memory, and imagination, which collectively--together with mirror neurons--are the cognitive foundation of our complex language.
Spoken language gave us an evolutionary advantage. Written language helped us accumulate knowledge to the point of building pyramids and shortly thereafter, venturing into space
Self and I are words
unseenstrings 9 months ago
You make many assumptions based on what you have been taught. But what if you'd never been taught language? What if you'd been raised by a Bonobo mother? How close is human nature to the nature of the nonhuman animal? What aspects of your so called "self" are genetic, and what aspects are learned?
Have you ever heard about the forbidden experiment? Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) tried it. So did Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 13th century. Others have too.
Man made language made man.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings Your confusing awareness with extinct. Humans worry and fear their limited life on earth because they are aware of it from a religious and philosophical level. Humans even put meaning to life and death in the belief in an afterlife. Look at the ancient Egyptians and Hindus. Animals are amoral and only respond to their senses. Humanizing animals is a delusion invented by confused human beings.
zzap999 9 months ago
@zzap999, apparently you're confusing extinct with instinct. And you seem very confused on other matters too.
Maybe you can tell me how a newborn knows to suckle just like a puppy knows to suckle? Does one teach the babe to do so? Or is it instinctive?
Better yet, define instinct for me and define awareness. Can instinct be modified to allow the organism to adapt to new and different circumstances? Or is instinct like gears interlocked together with only one possible type of movement?
unseenstrings 9 months ago
Why do you say that when the babe needs to defecate, it is because of awareness, but when a pup needs do defecate it is because of instinct? Is the pup rewarded for pooping outside and scolded for pooping on the floor? How is the babe treated differently? Tell me how the internal mechanisms of control would differ once a babe has been "potty-trained" and the pup has been "house-broken"? Can your "mechanisms of control" be scientifically examined or is one of them attributed to such BS as a soul?
unseenstrings 9 months ago
The argument of Determinism vs free will commits the either-or fallacy, since disproving determinism does not prove free will. Therefore, one cannot logically argue for or against the idea since the idea is fallacious from the get-go. Now, historically free will has been defined as the ability to reach a decision without restraint or in spite of physical or divine necessity or causal law. This means the argument should be free will vs God's will; or free will vs physical necessity or causal law.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
1. (Philosophy) The doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human act & decision is the consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Also called necessitarianism.
2. (Philosophy) the scientific doctrine that all occurrences in nature take place in accordance with natural laws.
3. (Physics) the principle in classical mechanics that the values of dynamic variables of a system & of the forces acting on the system at a given time, fixate the values of the variables at any later time.
unseenstrings 10 months ago
@doRseries1 The whole video just sounds like someone reading out loud from a book in a very dull monotone. I'll just stick to Wiki thank you!
hardrok69 9 months ago
Can't determinism versus free will lead to a form of false dichotomy? The insinuation is that it is either determinism or free will. And agreed, proving determinism is true does disprove free will. However, proving determinism is false does not prove free will; but that is the implication
Originally the question was whether there was a ghost in the machine or not. Therefore, the debate should be between physicalism and a belief in ghosts and magic. Should we blindly believe in ghosts & magic?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Why do we treat the physical brain any differently than we do other complex physical systems? This picture ain't quite right.
Also, when free will is discussed, I never hear things like serotonin levels being discussed, genetic variant in enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAOA) being discussed, and statistical predictability of some human behavior. Why? Isn't the fact that a person born in India develops an aversion toward eating meat relevant to whether meat eating is a choice free from influence?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings "Why? Isn't the fact that a person born in India develops an aversion toward eating meat relevant to whether meat eating is a choice free from influence?" Because the question isn't "am I attracted to X" but "do I HAVE to avoid X." The fact that you pose this question shows that you don't know what the argument is about. An aversion to eating meat does not force you not eat it. You have a choice. You can eat what you hate and not eat what you like,
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe, no, the question is, can human choices supersede the limits imposed by the physical necessity or causal law that govern all other physical systems? That is, does the particular neuroanatomy previously developed within the individual's brain & the existing physiological chemistry of that brain have anything to do with the person's choice behavior? Or are choices magically free from previous development & existing chemo-physiology?
Free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
A person from India doesn't have more moral integrity than the person slurping on a nice hot juicy Whopper. Life merely hasn't taught the Whopper-eater & vegetarian Indian the same lessons. Choices are based on the tastes we acquire because of our own personal experiences. For example, the heterosexual doesn't have more moral integrity than the homosexual. He merely doesn't feel the same needs & desires. Are you saying you crave another man but have more "moral integrity" than the homosexual?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings "The Lord rains on both the righteous and the unrighteous."
zzap999 10 months ago
@unseenstrings I will grant that free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy if by determinism you simply mean that nothing happens without a cause, unless it is a necessary being. However, if by determinism you mean the idea that causality is reducible to material and efficient causes, then I will not grant that since (as this video shows) materialism, if true, would render even the idea of free will impossible and (as my videos on materialism demonstrate) materialism itself is false.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Definition: materialism = physicalism; and E=mc² is mass–energy equivalence of physical bodies. No formula exist to explain bodies without material form or substance, because we have no way of knowing whether immaterial (nonphysical) things exist anywhere except as a figment of the human imagination, since immaterial (nonphysical) things would be physically undetectable. Ghosts would be undetectable while equally ghosts may not exist anywhere except in the mind of scared/psychotic individuals.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
The mind is no more of a thing than pain is a thing. Mind and brain are sometimes used synonymously, even though mind is "merely" a particular sensation produced by the brain that gives rise to organism function. In other words, chances are all organisms with brains experience the sensation of mind.
Free will is not a thing that exists in reality. Free will is best described as a myth arising as a result of an illusion. That is, the fable of free will arises as a result of "to err is human."
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Now if your argument is not based on your own probability to err as a human, and if your arguments are not based on conformational bias common to all humans, and if your argument and videos do in reality "demonstrate materialism itself is false," as you say, then I should be reading about you as one of the greatest philosophers who has ever lived. I'll believe it when I see it.
Well, since much of philosophy is merely mental masturbation, I'll believe it when empirical evidence proves it true
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings "Nothing is what sleeping rocks dream about". If ghosts exist, then they are just as "material" as you are. All those paranormal documentaries on t.v(assuming they are real) seem to suggest that even ghosts trigger their electromagnetic detecting instruments. If that is the case, then ghosts are material just as electromagnetic waves and light are material.
zzap999 10 months ago
@tumbleweedjoe If determinism is determined by casuality then what determines casuality?
zzap999 10 months ago
@unseenstrings I would take the position that even prisoners act out freely even due to their limited confinement. Some of the choices may not be what they would make if outside of prison(gay sex). However, it is still a choice.
zzap999 10 months ago
@zzap999, are you saying your choice to engage in gay sex was the result of being in prison? Maybe not everyone who is in prison resorts to gay sex. Why would one person choose to have gay sex in prison and another not? Can intimidation and/or threat ("boo games") be possible factors? Could early learning experiences lead one prisoner to make a choice another would be too inhibited to make (also because of early learning)? Can any choice be free from the brain's neuroanatomy & chemical balance?
unseenstrings 10 months ago
THis is what I wrote to a stubborn determinist. HOw can you be a consciouss observer and not have any control of your situation. So you can observe but you can't act on what you experience based on that observation? THat doesnt make any sense. You must have control of your environment at least to the extent to which you understand in your surroundings. ANd it must be as unique a response as your conscioussness is because it is a function of it
ICANGO247 1 year ago
@ICANGO247 We are conscious and as humans have intelligence. However, whenever we "decide" to do any action, the brain had already began inputing signals before we are aware of it, giving the illusion that we are in control.
KirbyPwnz13 1 year ago
@ICANGO24 the problem is consciousness arises as a result of non-conscious processes. What does the MAOA enzyme have to do with behavior? What does serotonin levels? What about dopamine levels? What does dendrite development or pruning back have to do with behavior?
The difference in the choice you make & the choice another person makes is the difference in the neuroanatomy & physiological chemistry of your brain in comparison to the brain of the other person. No choice is ever free from such
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Oh, and BTW @ICANGO24, the "suggested reading" for this video appears to be books one would expect to be suggested by the Catholic Church. For example, anyone not a logician who reads Lewis should also read John Beversluis' "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion." Besides, why is the viewer bogged down with a mountain of suggested reading that are irrelevant to the so called, "determinism-free will" debate? I smell a rat with a religious agenda.
Read, Derk Pereboom
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings This video is part of a series. If you paid attention you would have seen that. Also, not all the recommended authors are theists. You "smell a rat with a religious agenda"? So having religious motivations invalidates an arguments? No, that't the genetic fallacy. You are just a common materialist who cannot differntiate between physical science and the materialist philosophy. This video definitively, once and for all, destroys determinism.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Wow! So the video information isn't about the video. Instead of creating a playlist and playlist info, you copy all the information about a series (playlist) into the video info box, even if it is irrelevant to the specific video. Interesting. That seems like the old befuddle and beguile stratagem.
This is not saying that was your intent. You may not know the basics of public discourse. Your communication should be clear, concise, and cohesive. In brief, the saying is, "Keep it simple stupid"
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe, nothing is wrong with being religious as long as your religiosity does not interfere with your objectivity. Of course, the very foundation of religiosity is contrary to "Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (objectivity). So I guess asking a religious person to be objective is like telling the earth to orbit the sun the other way around. It ain't gonna happen.
"Proving" indeterminism does not prove free will. Remember?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I was asked to put up a bibliography for the series, which I started some time ago and have since been sidetracked from (which is why the videos on materialism are the last videos I've done in a while). I had a son, moved and took on an editing job, so I haven't yet had the time to continue it. In any event, it says "Series Bibiliography" and it's long since I originally intended this series to go on for a long time. If I ever find the time to complete it, you'll see why it's long
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
If you actually watched this video you couldn't possibly think that I make the claim that indeterminism proves free will. I specifically stated that randomness is no more conducive to free will than is determinism.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe couldn't agree more. it is because we live in a essentially determined universe that consciousness can come about.
people don't seem to realise this. there is no conflict between determinism and free-will. free-will as most put it, is an illusion. but this does not matter because the causes of our decisions are so complex, they are unknown and one cannot even predict their own future choices, let alone another, to any real accuracy.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe i would highly recommend reading 'the selfish gene' in understanding the purpose of the mind from an evolutionary perspective.
another huge influence on me was a thesis called 'life as a manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics' which you can google and obtain for free in PDF.
..glad to see some Classical liberalism and Austrian economics in that bibliography. i have also listened to P Grimm's TTC lecture, and many other books listed.
thanks for this :)
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Indeterminism does not prove free will. I don't understand the continue link between determinism and free will, that there is one or the other. Random events occur in our reality. These random events can not be determined or shall I say predicted with certainty, only to a degree of certainty. Determinism is the act of shooting at a barn door and then drawing a target around the holes in the door. Determinism is inadequate to accurate predict future events. This is my take on the matter.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
Would you have a Bibliography for this series, or recommended reading?
AbdielAbiram 1 year ago
@AbdielAbiram Yes, definitely. Already planned.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
You use a very negative slant at the end that I disagree with greatly. There's more than just a fatalist feel about determinism you know.
TrueEmergence 1 year ago
@TrueEmergence Determinism leads logically to fatalism. As for how one ought to feel about that fact, the answer in terms of determinism would have to be:"However I feel about determinism, that's how I feel about determinism. My feelings on the matter are as determined as everything else."
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Actually from an objective perspective random does equal free. We can not see inside people's minds. We can only observe their actions. Free will is hinted at when these actions can not be linked to any causal agents (ie. appear random). The argument that random events are different than free will forgets that philosophy (particularly western philosophy) operates within the objective realm and that none of us can observe the inner workings of consciousness, we can only infer it.
madscirat 1 year ago
@madscirat Interesting.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@madscirat Well then you are using "random" in a different sense then here used. If things happen for no reason at all, then reality is absurd and there is no meaningful distinction between "free" and "unfree" or real and unreal. A causeless event which has casual effects (and I'll assume for the sake of argument that particle decay is truly causless (although I doubt it)), would not, thereby be intentional as free will is supposed to be.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe Random doesn't mean causeless. A choice may appear causeless, but a consciousness did in fact make that choice and is the cause. However, we can not directly observe the operation of that consciousness so it only appears to the objective lens as a variability. I would actually guess that choice is behind many 'random' phenomena, from the actions of people, to the movement of electrons. One is our consciousness acting on our brain, the other is...well, another consciousness.
madscirat 1 year ago
The realisation of determinism is just a description and explanation. It does not mean we cannot strive towards a goal. If I tell you I want you to do something, then your further action is indeed determined by various factors/causes, of which however, I am one of. The idea that it gets rid of responsibility is a fallacy, as among societies, it is a useful concept. Punishment makes sense insofar as it gives incentives(causes) not to act in a certain way. Psychology is the brain, and that's fact.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess
I should remind you that "psyche" means soul. The Greek friends of wisdom knew the difference between the soul and the brain.
TheWizzooo 1 year ago