@ineptsegue Okay. So we THINK the choices we make are free, but in fact they are forced - forced by events/conditions we are unaware of. Is that correct?
@ineptsegue I'm still confused. If I command my arm to move right, it moves right. If I had picked left it would have gone left. So my consciousness has control over my body. Isn't that free will? Or are you saying that something MADE me pick right rather than left? If so, what was it?
I don't think the author REALLY believes the will is not free. If he did, why would he have made so many videos trying to sway us to his thinking? What difference does it make, if we can't act on it?
I'm trying to understand why I should invest my time into understanding this debate. (No sarcasm) I'd appreciate it if someone would answer these two questions very plainly... like you're explaining it to a 14 year old.
1. What can I predict if I'm on the correct side of this discussion?
2. How will it hinder me if I'm on the wrong side of this debate...?
@hob976 Great questions! We actually do address them in the videos, but you might find it easier to read about it at beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/15 . In brief, belief in free will is a major barrier to compassion for others and oneself. It is unlikely that you will have increased predictive capacity as a result of understanding that "free will" as such is an illusion, but you may behave quite a bit more rationally, and more empathetic, once you understand and internalize this.
Very well explained that free will does not exist whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.
The following has nothing to do with your video: I also had the exact same point of view about causality like you have. However, a year ago I watched a lecture of Richard Feinman where he said: ´You´re not going to like what I´m going to tell you, its chance, pure chance.`
He was referring to a photon hitting a piece of glass and then either going thru it or being reflected.
I refuted this, there had to be a cause!
I wanted more information and watched prof Muller´s ´Science for future presidents.´
This lecture is given in a way that simple-minds like me, also can follow the teachings, haha!
To keep a long story long, after half a year of thinking and watching videos of reputed physicists, it suddenly hit me: ´No causality, there couldn´t even be!´
I can tell you that in first year university physics a great deal of emphasis was placed on hammering into our heads the concept that we cannot calculate a rock's exact position with perfect accuracy. In fact they spend a lot of time on teaching significant figures and errors on measurements. Even if you repeat the same experiment under controlled circumstances of a laboratory, you will NEVER get exactly the same results to perfect precision.
Perhaps I chose a bad example, then. Thanks for the suggestion; I'll have to change it to something with variables that are easier to calculate. I assume you're not suggesting that catapulting a rock isn't a deterministic process, though?
How does Determinism account for randomness. Of course, randomness does not equate to freewill, but randomness can only be determined so far as probabilities. Is that good enough? Does that count as determining some action or other?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I don't think determinism does account for randomness—the two concepts are inconsistent. Personally, I doubt randomness exists, but I can't prove that. The point here, though,isn't that the universe is completely causal, but merely that there is no free will.
I believe their are things that can only be determined so far as probabilities of occurrence. I don't think that every single thing that happens can be determined beforehand... on the other hand, we can say what will probably happen.
Are you saying you think that some events are wholly or partly random, or are you saying that human beings are simply not capable of predicting them because we are not perfectly rational? If the first, then I am inclined to disagree, but I do not know for sure that you're wrong. If the second, then I agree with you.
Atomic decay is a statistical process. We cannot predict when a single atom will decay. Thus, we call it random. Atomic decay has been know for over 100 years. We still cannot predict when a single atom will decay. We do know the cause effect processes that are underlying the decay process. But guess what, these events are even more unpredictable. The further we investigate causality leads us to smaller scales which are more unpredictable.
Einstein also doubted that randomness exists. It the underlying idea in his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein debated for decades with Bohr as a result of his refusal to accept a universe with non-deterministic features. It is widely considered that Bohr has been proven correct. The process of atomic decay is not deterministic....it is random.....and science has made no progress in understanding any underlying features of randomness.
I've heard a lot of people assert exactly what you're saying here, but this doesn't make a lot of sense. It is completely impossible to prove that an event has no cause. One can only prove that you don't know of a cause that's involved. And when we're talking about quantum movements, there is a lot of room for causes we have no way to detect (and we may never be able to).
I'm sorry to say, but the randomness of quantum physics is not because we can't measure the things correctly, its the very property of matter itself... or so says the Uncertainty principle al quantum physics rests upon.
What I mean with randomness is that you can't determine what my coin toss is going to be prior to me tossing the coin. After I toss it, you can calculate trajectory, etc... but after I toss it, not before.
Quantum physics states that we can't know the position and momentum of elementary particles. That doesn't mean their movements are without cause. It is at least possible (and I think likely) that current models of quantum physics don't represent a complete understanding of the universe. Again, it isn't possible to prove a negative, so there isn't (and will never be) any way to prove that causeless events occur—though we could conceivably find the causes in the future, if indeed there are any.
This is of course a natural line of reasoning. One which I have followed and believed in for many years. Proof, however, is a another philosophical debate almost as worthy as free will. Proof always requires certain axioms. Axioms, themselves are not proven because they would require further axioms. All we can do is hope to pick axioms that are most likely true. In science, 'proof' is the accumulation of many overlapping theories which are consistent with eacxh other.
I agree. And granted, our lack of ability to find causes despite looking in some of the obvious places could mean randomness. On the other hand, it could mean something else—it may be, for example, that two things that seem to be separated by a distance can affect each other.
To me, it makes sense that given the apparent universality of causality in larger spheres, our difficulty in perceiving such incredibly small things, and the seemingly nonsensical nature of the idea that some things happen for no reason, the universe is causal. But I don't claim to have the answer for sure, either. Randomness or not, though, we know there's no free will.
Not to rock the boat here, I have a simple question. But how can essence of choice come in front of the existence of choice? I heard your example with the catapult. Now if a family decides to have a child(existence), but they can not decide how this child will become or pick its gender. So wont it mean that the existence come before the essence? Same way when man makes a choice? :)
You're using the words "essence" and "existence" in a peculiar Existentialist sense that doesn't really shed light on the issue at hand here. What exactly are you asking? We're suggesting nothing more or less here than the idea that humans are very likely not exempt from the law of causality, and that if they are, randomness is not what is meant by the concept of "free will."
it is because you compare humans and their choices same way as a catapult firering rocks. I just get the idea that you compare humanism to materialism. I always thought that ´humans and their choices may be a bit more unpredictable then a catapult and its co-ordinates of where it fires the rock.
What I am trying to ask is, how can we determin the human mind, before we even know the specific human. If the individuals mind is unpredictable, wont it makes his will free until we know the individual? I mean how could we predict that Hitler wanted to invade Polan? Or that the terrorist wanted to destroy World trade center? So how can we determin other peoples actions? :)
How would our lack of knowledge create free will? Certainly human choices are far more difficult to predict than the landing point of a catapulted rock. That's because there are many more factors involved. But just because we don't have the ability to predict many of the choices people make doesn't mean those choices aren't caused by previous factors and *in principle* predictable. Complexity does not equal free will, although it is probably one of the factors involved in creating its illusion.
Ah okay, I have no further questions. Do not get me wrong, I could not agree more on your view on free will. I do believe our actions are determined by certain factors. Although I am a little skeptical about the religious ways of determinism, which is why im an atheist :)
Beingism is an atheistic philosophy as well. But I'm unsure what you mean by "the religious ways of determinism." I suppose that some theists may believe in a sort of predestination resulting from God's omniscience, but typically, I think, determinism is a secular notion.
What I mean by "the religious ways of determinism" is the thought that "If make bad choices or make bad things, you will suffer eternally, or be reincarnated to something lesser" The very thought is absurd if you ask me, mostly because there is no solid proof that such things happen :P
Yes, quite absurd! It's not logically impossible, but you have to make some pretty strange assumptions in spite of a total lack of evidence to believe in such things.
I've only watched the first minute but I disagree thus far. Human brains do not make "choices" or "decisions" any more than any other physical object does. It's nonsensical to say that the last domino in a long line of falling dominos "chose" to fall but it's "choice" was causally determined by preceding events. If it's "choice" was the result of causal circumstances then it simply was not a "choice" or "decision" at all.
For your will to not be free because your life is determined must result in that your will is free if your life is indetermined. Because there is no meaningful difference there, free is not related to cause and spontaneity. Will is related to choices and an agent so the concept of free is related to choices and agents as well. See my video "Thank goodness we don't have free will" to discover a meaningful concept.
damn good job man for some reason all these people today have been saying will is not free and you finally gave me the answer to own them haha keep it up man! :)
Thank you. Though you seem to think now that I am saying that will is free by definition. That is not meaningful either. For there to be meaning in the question "is will free" you need to explain both what makes it not free and what makes it free. It needs to be possible that it is on either side. As I define it meaningful, your will is free if you are aware of your own goals in life and strive for them. Most people are not aware, and so most people don't have free will, as I've defined it.
We're in total agreement here on all the substantive issues—what you go on to say here is pretty much exactly what we say in the final "In Brief" section of this video. Since the concept of free will as it is generally understood is nonsensical/incoherent, if we redefine it, we can redefine it as being something that's real or something that isn't. We're inclined to think it's more instructive to say we have a will, but that it isn't free. But that's just a question of semantics and framing.
Octans razor
ProfessorDarkly 9 months ago
@ProfessorDarkly I think you mean *Occam's* razor. :)
guidedmarkets 9 months ago
where is part 2?
tlwdssd 11 months ago
@tlwdssd youtube [dot] com/watch?v=H8J6iRZ9f1E&playnext=1&list=PL4B25565483D9503A
Beingism 11 months ago
@ineptsegue Okay. So we THINK the choices we make are free, but in fact they are forced - forced by events/conditions we are unaware of. Is that correct?
nasaguy 1 year ago
@ineptsegue I'm still confused. If I command my arm to move right, it moves right. If I had picked left it would have gone left. So my consciousness has control over my body. Isn't that free will? Or are you saying that something MADE me pick right rather than left? If so, what was it?
nasaguy 1 year ago
I don't think the author REALLY believes the will is not free. If he did, why would he have made so many videos trying to sway us to his thinking? What difference does it make, if we can't act on it?
nasaguy 1 year ago
I'm trying to understand why I should invest my time into understanding this debate. (No sarcasm) I'd appreciate it if someone would answer these two questions very plainly... like you're explaining it to a 14 year old.
1. What can I predict if I'm on the correct side of this discussion?
2. How will it hinder me if I'm on the wrong side of this debate...?
Thank you for very simple answers...
hob976 1 year ago
@hob976 Great questions! We actually do address them in the videos, but you might find it easier to read about it at beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/15 . In brief, belief in free will is a major barrier to compassion for others and oneself. It is unlikely that you will have increased predictive capacity as a result of understanding that "free will" as such is an illusion, but you may behave quite a bit more rationally, and more empathetic, once you understand and internalize this.
Beingism 1 year ago
Great video!
Very well explained that free will does not exist whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.
The following has nothing to do with your video: I also had the exact same point of view about causality like you have. However, a year ago I watched a lecture of Richard Feinman where he said: ´You´re not going to like what I´m going to tell you, its chance, pure chance.`
TossThatCoin 2 years ago
He was referring to a photon hitting a piece of glass and then either going thru it or being reflected.
I refuted this, there had to be a cause!
I wanted more information and watched prof Muller´s ´Science for future presidents.´
This lecture is given in a way that simple-minds like me, also can follow the teachings, haha!
To keep a long story long, after half a year of thinking and watching videos of reputed physicists, it suddenly hit me: ´No causality, there couldn´t even be!´
TossThatCoin 2 years ago
Join me to the dark side, of the universe, were there is no causality, haha!
TossThatCoin 2 years ago
It's tempting... but I think I'll stay here on the side of the universe where elephants don't spontaneously materialize out of thin air. :)
Beingism 2 years ago
Fair enough, it´s not like you would get a raise or something when you were to join the dark side, haha!
Besides, your video is valid in both cases.
Keep up the good work!
TossThatCoin 2 years ago
I can tell you that in first year university physics a great deal of emphasis was placed on hammering into our heads the concept that we cannot calculate a rock's exact position with perfect accuracy. In fact they spend a lot of time on teaching significant figures and errors on measurements. Even if you repeat the same experiment under controlled circumstances of a laboratory, you will NEVER get exactly the same results to perfect precision.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Perhaps I chose a bad example, then. Thanks for the suggestion; I'll have to change it to something with variables that are easier to calculate. I assume you're not suggesting that catapulting a rock isn't a deterministic process, though?
Beingism 2 years ago
How does Determinism account for randomness. Of course, randomness does not equate to freewill, but randomness can only be determined so far as probabilities. Is that good enough? Does that count as determining some action or other?
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I don't think determinism does account for randomness—the two concepts are inconsistent. Personally, I doubt randomness exists, but I can't prove that. The point here, though,isn't that the universe is completely causal, but merely that there is no free will.
Beingism 2 years ago
I believe their are things that can only be determined so far as probabilities of occurrence. I don't think that every single thing that happens can be determined beforehand... on the other hand, we can say what will probably happen.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
Are you saying you think that some events are wholly or partly random, or are you saying that human beings are simply not capable of predicting them because we are not perfectly rational? If the first, then I am inclined to disagree, but I do not know for sure that you're wrong. If the second, then I agree with you.
Beingism 2 years ago
Atomic decay is a statistical process. We cannot predict when a single atom will decay. Thus, we call it random. Atomic decay has been know for over 100 years. We still cannot predict when a single atom will decay. We do know the cause effect processes that are underlying the decay process. But guess what, these events are even more unpredictable. The further we investigate causality leads us to smaller scales which are more unpredictable.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Einstein also doubted that randomness exists. It the underlying idea in his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein debated for decades with Bohr as a result of his refusal to accept a universe with non-deterministic features. It is widely considered that Bohr has been proven correct. The process of atomic decay is not deterministic....it is random.....and science has made no progress in understanding any underlying features of randomness.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I've heard a lot of people assert exactly what you're saying here, but this doesn't make a lot of sense. It is completely impossible to prove that an event has no cause. One can only prove that you don't know of a cause that's involved. And when we're talking about quantum movements, there is a lot of room for causes we have no way to detect (and we may never be able to).
Beingism 2 years ago
I'm sorry to say, but the randomness of quantum physics is not because we can't measure the things correctly, its the very property of matter itself... or so says the Uncertainty principle al quantum physics rests upon.
What I mean with randomness is that you can't determine what my coin toss is going to be prior to me tossing the coin. After I toss it, you can calculate trajectory, etc... but after I toss it, not before.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
Quantum physics states that we can't know the position and momentum of elementary particles. That doesn't mean their movements are without cause. It is at least possible (and I think likely) that current models of quantum physics don't represent a complete understanding of the universe. Again, it isn't possible to prove a negative, so there isn't (and will never be) any way to prove that causeless events occur—though we could conceivably find the causes in the future, if indeed there are any.
Beingism 2 years ago
This is of course a natural line of reasoning. One which I have followed and believed in for many years. Proof, however, is a another philosophical debate almost as worthy as free will. Proof always requires certain axioms. Axioms, themselves are not proven because they would require further axioms. All we can do is hope to pick axioms that are most likely true. In science, 'proof' is the accumulation of many overlapping theories which are consistent with eacxh other.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I agree. And granted, our lack of ability to find causes despite looking in some of the obvious places could mean randomness. On the other hand, it could mean something else—it may be, for example, that two things that seem to be separated by a distance can affect each other.
Beingism 2 years ago
To me, it makes sense that given the apparent universality of causality in larger spheres, our difficulty in perceiving such incredibly small things, and the seemingly nonsensical nature of the idea that some things happen for no reason, the universe is causal. But I don't claim to have the answer for sure, either. Randomness or not, though, we know there's no free will.
Beingism 2 years ago
Not to rock the boat here, I have a simple question. But how can essence of choice come in front of the existence of choice? I heard your example with the catapult. Now if a family decides to have a child(existence), but they can not decide how this child will become or pick its gender. So wont it mean that the existence come before the essence? Same way when man makes a choice? :)
Happypeanuthourtime 2 years ago
You're using the words "essence" and "existence" in a peculiar Existentialist sense that doesn't really shed light on the issue at hand here. What exactly are you asking? We're suggesting nothing more or less here than the idea that humans are very likely not exempt from the law of causality, and that if they are, randomness is not what is meant by the concept of "free will."
Beingism 2 years ago
it is because you compare humans and their choices same way as a catapult firering rocks. I just get the idea that you compare humanism to materialism. I always thought that ´humans and their choices may be a bit more unpredictable then a catapult and its co-ordinates of where it fires the rock.
Happypeanuthourtime 2 years ago
What I am trying to ask is, how can we determin the human mind, before we even know the specific human. If the individuals mind is unpredictable, wont it makes his will free until we know the individual? I mean how could we predict that Hitler wanted to invade Polan? Or that the terrorist wanted to destroy World trade center? So how can we determin other peoples actions? :)
Happypeanuthourtime 2 years ago
How would our lack of knowledge create free will? Certainly human choices are far more difficult to predict than the landing point of a catapulted rock. That's because there are many more factors involved. But just because we don't have the ability to predict many of the choices people make doesn't mean those choices aren't caused by previous factors and *in principle* predictable. Complexity does not equal free will, although it is probably one of the factors involved in creating its illusion.
Beingism 2 years ago
Ah okay, I have no further questions. Do not get me wrong, I could not agree more on your view on free will. I do believe our actions are determined by certain factors. Although I am a little skeptical about the religious ways of determinism, which is why im an atheist :)
Happypeanuthourtime 2 years ago
Beingism is an atheistic philosophy as well. But I'm unsure what you mean by "the religious ways of determinism." I suppose that some theists may believe in a sort of predestination resulting from God's omniscience, but typically, I think, determinism is a secular notion.
Beingism 2 years ago
What I mean by "the religious ways of determinism" is the thought that "If make bad choices or make bad things, you will suffer eternally, or be reincarnated to something lesser" The very thought is absurd if you ask me, mostly because there is no solid proof that such things happen :P
Happypeanuthourtime 2 years ago
Yes, quite absurd! It's not logically impossible, but you have to make some pretty strange assumptions in spite of a total lack of evidence to believe in such things.
Beingism 2 years ago
I've only watched the first minute but I disagree thus far. Human brains do not make "choices" or "decisions" any more than any other physical object does. It's nonsensical to say that the last domino in a long line of falling dominos "chose" to fall but it's "choice" was causally determined by preceding events. If it's "choice" was the result of causal circumstances then it simply was not a "choice" or "decision" at all.
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
Agreed. Free will cannot exist in either a deterministic or an indeterministic universe. Free will is a non-sensical term. Good explanations.
trick0171 3 years ago
For your will to not be free because your life is determined must result in that your will is free if your life is indetermined. Because there is no meaningful difference there, free is not related to cause and spontaneity. Will is related to choices and an agent so the concept of free is related to choices and agents as well. See my video "Thank goodness we don't have free will" to discover a meaningful concept.
Censeo 3 years ago 2
damn good job man for some reason all these people today have been saying will is not free and you finally gave me the answer to own them haha keep it up man! :)
444DeanMachine 3 years ago
Thank you. Though you seem to think now that I am saying that will is free by definition. That is not meaningful either. For there to be meaning in the question "is will free" you need to explain both what makes it not free and what makes it free. It needs to be possible that it is on either side. As I define it meaningful, your will is free if you are aware of your own goals in life and strive for them. Most people are not aware, and so most people don't have free will, as I've defined it.
Censeo 3 years ago
We're in total agreement here on all the substantive issues—what you go on to say here is pretty much exactly what we say in the final "In Brief" section of this video. Since the concept of free will as it is generally understood is nonsensical/incoherent, if we redefine it, we can redefine it as being something that's real or something that isn't. We're inclined to think it's more instructive to say we have a will, but that it isn't free. But that's just a question of semantics and framing.
Beingism 3 years ago