i think free will is an impossible task i mean, how can you consciously create a thought? Thoughts have to just simply arise from another source, which is our subconscious. We have no control over our sunconscious and here is where our actions, thoughts, and feelings are determined. Our consciousness recieves these later and there are many experiments that show that the brain has already determined the decision that the person later carries out. Free will is an illusion
Interesting. A small note for you guys, there's this game, well, you can't really call it that, about free will and predetermination. It's called "The Stanley Parable". I literally cannot explain what it is about, you just have to play it. It leaves you thinking for a few days or weeks about free will. It is beautiful, even though the only thing you do is walk around.
i am typing this because im told to by nature entirely, if i weren't to type this comment i would be going against what i REALLY want to do, i would only be trying to spite the idea of pre-determinism, but if i did that then it would still not be my choice, it would be because out of ignorance; ignorance is a personality trait, personality is determined by genes and environmental factors such as other people who are in turn controlled by their genes and the people around them... its a mind fuck
This video is wrong, our free will over choice of environment is non-existent.
We have genetic attributes in our bodies mentally and/or physically that pre-determine what kind of environment we will thrive most successfully in and groove/fit in the best.
In short; we don't have a choice over deciding whether we like one place over another, we are actually deciding what place will fit our needs/want the best. We are a horse and our cowboy on the saddle is our body determining our actions.
@upintheskyler your thinking on a physical realm think culmination of consciousness and equalibrium in matter to antimatter. And that very concept + and - on our levels of space(our d3) and time being all matter encompassing field or dimension. think that on a dimension that is like our dna of conciousness and the pond of could be
@upintheskyler Just to ammend your analysis a little I would have to say that whether the environment we choose winds up suiting us after all is an interesting but not decisive point. We chose our environment bcuz...like any other choice...it suits our values which make up our personality which is in our cortex which is wired by DNA which is luck...phew! Anyhoo...I like your analysis...I just wanted to tweak it a little. Cheers!
@upintheskyler Exactly. But saying all that at once to people heavily conditioned with lies would be detrimental. Let them first ponder on "having somewhat less of free will" for start :D
If everything was predestined as was my typing this stuff right now and other people reacting to this post which may cause many to believe that all this is nothing but a joke made by destiny and that free will is a lie, then here's a simple answer:
If you were predestined to be moron, would you act like one right now?
If someone says free will is an illusion, how does he know?
If free will doesn't exist, shouldn't God answer before US for the things "we" did? I mean, we didn't choose...HE did...
@supereldinho NOW YOUR GETTING IT! Our Creator imbued us with His faults as well as his virtues. Cause-and-effect! Free WIll was INVENTED by St. Augustine in 380AD to get God off the hook for creating evil. It was a popular misconception, but a misconception just the same. How can we choose who we will be when the thing that does the choosing (our brain)has already been wired by our DNA and then altered by life circumstances we did not choose? Its not free from the things that define it.
@HedgehogRebellion Well we didn't choose what we are(gender, race and genetic flaws), but we are responsible for the things we knowingly do, right? And about the whole "fate" issue, I think people are subconsciosly drawn to it because in doing things they think would prevent it, they unknowingly trigger events that lead to the outcome they tried to avoid. Hence, we begin to doubt out free will. God knows everything we did and will do. But he never tells us what that might be.
@supereldinho Our decisions reflect our identity...our nature, right? And our nature (sex, race, genetic flaws, place we were born, what time period we were born in, our parents social economic status) is not OUR CHOICE.
So who is really responsible. Sure we have to lock criminals up, but it\s not our place to condemn thier souls while we jail their bodies/
@HedgehogRebellion Well people lock others up because they think they would harm society. While in fact human civilisation is only progressing towards self-destruction. And many often doubt God's existence because there's too much evil in this world, misinterpreting the fact that all those people chose to be evil, because doing evil things is always easier than doing good ones. People care more about their own profit than common wealth. But, it's mostly due to human greed.
uh, semen (or rather, DNA itself) doesn't contain "knowledge". everyone is born stupid until we undergo a process of learning, called life. The "subconscious tendencies" may also be learned in culture. There is a LOT that geneticists still DON"T know. This is a very disappointing video.
(...) bodily impulses to make you aware (concious) of your actions. Now, here comes the paradox that kills the thought of "free will": while your brain is still busy processing the environmental impulses and the bodily impulses from your last actions - which were a response to those environmental impulses -, your brain is already planning and performing new actions to follow up your previous actions, actions of which your are not yet aware. (...)
Your actions are determined by your senses, and your senses take a certain time to be processed by your brain. Environmental impulses are picked up by your senses, and some of these impulses might be perceived by your brain as problems. Your brain will make your body perform one or more actions to fix these "problems". Your senses pick up the impulses of your actions in the form of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting and smelling what you just did. Your brain will be busy processing those (...)
Everyone who engages in this debate is miles behind me because of the way I deal with this problem. It's not that free will does not exsist; rather that the use of the term "free will" is false. "Free will" will never have any meaning to anyone with a basic and honest grasp of the linguistics here. The use of the term "free will" will actually undermine the will-power of the speaker/thinker. "Strength of will" is the only way these abstract ideas should be dealt with in the mind/language.
I believe the prase nothing is tru everything is permitted doesn't allow us to be free it allows us to be wise being wise means we have judgement,reason,perception having wisdom allows us to have freedom
Our decision to put ourselves in an advantageous postition is itself simply another decision.
This video is flawed init's logic, and should probably be removed, or at least redone in such a way as to address my chain of reasoning. But we know that won't happen bcuz I am correct.
A universe with free will is "equivalent" to a universe without free will. This knowledge is going viral. I can explain this view and trace is back to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Please take a look at my developments.
To find my main page search FaceBook for "Mathematics and Conjectural Reasoning for Math & Physics".
Could your info on DNA be outdated? What about the frog embryo that was born a salamander due to the laser light that shone on it after passing thru the salamander embryo? DNA can be changed.
@TheseEyesGod i know what you are talking about. i have seen no evidence to suggest that the supposed "peter garaiev" did any such experience. but you are right about one thing, dna does change. it doesnt make a difference to the argument against free will though.
I don't know. The jury is still out for me on free will. We're all talking largely at cross purposes, since no one bothers to define the "I" involved - which changes everything. Unless we have that pinned down - which may be impossible - it's just so much talk. Conscious mind occupies about 7% of the mind. That's what most people speak from - & it isn't even all of their own mind, much less the whole of their self. It's a wonder we ever figure anything out =D
@TheseEyesGod i disagree with a few things you said. i think we do speak from the subconscious mind a lot of the time. we dont sit there and consciously think about and word what we are going to say before we say it. idk about you but for me, this comment is coming mostly just like a reflex, a reaction. just like how normal conversation goes. i dont think free will exists at all. but i think we can both agree that even if it does exist, that we have very little free will.
Well, I guess it's not so much that I disagree with you, but that I don't understand where you're coming from. I'll check your page for anything you've uploaded that might show your views in some depth
Meanwhile, when I write or speak I do share my heart & what I really mean (mostly, of course). I suspect we just have far different perspectives on things. To me, free will and choice are critical components of my life. Sure, their range is somewhat narrow.
I don't let that (narrowness) bother me. When I take what I've got & work with that with integrity, other paths always open. It's a spiral that can be ridden upward or down - it's a choice
One of our greatest powers is attitude, which influences vision. We have control of that, if we choose - or we can merely react.
Anyway, if you see any good reason to continue, that's fine. It may serve no purpose - to 2 people seeing nothing better, here, than what they have ;)
@TheseEyesGod well if you want to understand where im coming from i can explain. firstly, the universe is a deterministic system. free will cannot exist in such a system. some say that because there is chaos or randomness at quantum level, that therefore free will can exist. this is false though. the type of chaos at that level doesnt affect, at all, the deterministic system, nor does it cause chaotic things to happen on macro scale. chaos only exists at quantum level. so free will doesnt exist.
@JustTrollinAlong my second argument is that in order for any type of "free will to exist" we must have control without constraint. there must be a decision making process that isnt restricted. this is impossible. who we are is determined by genetics and our environment. i dont see how an "i" can exist considering that its only determined by factors out of our control. and this is the only way it can be. its like proposing a square circle. the concept at its basis is flawed.
There's a difference between freedom and license - or anarchy. If you would only multiply by the number of people on earth your idea of "we must have control WITHOUT RESTRAINT" then you'll see it could never work. It could, perhaps, on higher dimensions - where souls were more perfected and one with Light - having both Love & respect for all life. On earth, as it is, it would only bring chaos
So, if that's your definition of free will, then we don't have it
@TheseEyesGod well i dont believe in souls or "higher dimensions" in the way you mean so i really dont have a response to that except you would have to prove those exist. and secondly, i was using the philosophical definition of free will as defined in the standard encyclopedia of philosophy which you can look up.
Well, okay - thanks for sharing. Since I take your first proposition - that the universe is deterministic - to be inaccurate, nothing that follows will work for me.
There is an undeniable human tendency to see ourselves as free and morally responsible beings. But there’s a problem. We also believe—most of us anyhow—that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters (what else could?). But we aren’t responsible for our environment, and we aren’t responsible for our heredity. So we aren’t responsible for our characters. But then how can we be responsible for acts that arise from our characters?
@DaMostEnigmatic If our actions stem from our nature...and we cannot pick and choose our nature...then on a GRAND COSMIC scale they are not really responsible. But we have to lock them up bcuz we have a social responsibility and WE cant help it either that we want to be safe.
yeah - he's wrong - way too simplistic - how can you "choose your environment" with what he proposes? we can't 'choose' anything, because all our decisions have already been made by our brain before we realise that they have. whence why we have no free will.
Exactly. Free will is an illusion in that it gives us choices. But our decisions are based in essence, on reason. For instance, just as a ball obeys the law of gravity, so too does a person follow his reasoning. If I ask a person to tell me ten random numbers, he will tell me the numbers that appear first in his mind, and such a sequence is based entirely on a series of predetermined and pre-created chemical reactions.
That was pretty lame. That's not even what the question of free will is about. The question is way deeper. This guy says you have to choose your environment and that is the only free will that you have. The real question is whether you can choose your environment, or anything you do, or if every action and thought that you take is predetermined by the laws of nature.
If you say that "I can choose what to do", then that statement in itself would be caused by watching this video, and the cause of you watching this video is curiosity, and so on. Just because your line of thinking is complex does not mean that you have free will.
@JohnSmith88823 this video did not cause me to say anything, I was already discussing these things in my mind before I ever watched that video. Are you saying this video somehow caused me to believe or not believe in free will? No, I already had my opinion on the subject.
@JohnSmith88823 yes but that doesn't make it predetermined. I could write IN ALL CAPS or in all lower keys, I have free will, no? I'm not sure I understand ur position correctly. I see that you are saying that everything is meant to happen, everything is karma (not good-bad paradigm how many mistakenly think but cause and effect) but we still have free will. some people choose to ignore karma, some reconcile it. in my view free will is ability to do as we wish. whats ur view?
@mishabaikal What's going to happen will happen. There is only one end result and the actions leading up to it are determined by those chemical reactions and such.
@mishabaikal "You" didn't cause those reactions. The brain caused them because of other predetermining factors. You eat because your brain tells you you're hungry. The brain tells you this because if you don't eat you will die.
I agree with you and I believe in determinism. However, a free will believer may argue that he has the choice not to eat. In response you that, you could argue that that person chose not to eat because of what you have said, which caused him to act otherwise to try to disprove you.
@KedViper why do you separae the brain from yourself, the brain is you! Hunger is a survival mode. I am in fact a fan of fasting, so I don't always eat when i'm hungry, sometimes I fast! I chose not to eat. Sometimes I eat, sometimes I don't. If I'm hungry I may or may not go to the store at that moment to get food. Choice, I will myself to go or not to go. Brain is Me, it's not separate.
You can exercise your illusion of free will, so to speak, but one of the factors which determine your actions derive from people telling you that you do not have free will. For instance, if I believed in a free will and somebody told me that I had no free will, depending on the circumstances, I could produce a series of movements which are unpredictable, but based on thought, which is also determined.
Generally speaking, as we grow older, we become more intelligent, so if I were to talk to a new-born baby, his or her actions would be easily predictable since his or her brain is not as complex as someone much older. I could make a scary face and the baby would be scared. However, if I made a scary face to an adult, they would react in a different way depending on the circumstances.
@JohnSmith88823 i so do not agree, I can't even predict my cat, less a baby. Babies have very interesting personalities, and If I make a scary face to a baby I know, he will just look at me funny, or smile, or ignore me. Babies are not able to practice free will just like they are not able to not breathe when they come out of the womb. And if you never done things truly randomly then you are not a right brain! I do random things quite often. Not all the time as it's not logical..
@JohnSmith88823 sometimes truly randomly I would start singing or look in the mirror and make funny faces, without having brain involved at all. I consider myself experienced in meditation, most of the time my brain is off and i just follow my intuition. I literally do not judge,, or think too much at all about events or people. I use my brain when I need to, my brain is a part of me. I don't understand your point of view. Your thoughts are determined but they arent predetermined
@JohnSmith88823 when I write a song, I choose where the song is gonna go. I could choose A or B or C for the chorus, u see? some great musicians truly have god universal "god" playing through them and I get those moments sometimes too, but a lot of times I choose where song direction is going. I really don't understand the concept of not having a free will from your perspective, I wish I did though, just to see how you guys think. I do not separate my brain from me-my brain IS me
But when you write a song, and assuming that you have chosen to write a good song, you would likely choose notes which are pleasing or notes which you think are good. This is not free will, this is determinism with the illusion of free will. If you truly had free will, you'd violate some of the most rudimentary laws of physics and science at large.
@JohnSmith88823 sometimes great music has dissonant chords or melodies to cause an uncomfortable feeling, to challenge a listener. So no, it's not predetermined that the chords will be nice and pleasant. You are saying true free will, will cause me to break law of physics. I will tell you right there this is where I do not understand, if nothing can brake the law of physics, or universal law, then by your definition free will just doesn't exist?
@JohnSmith88823 If free will doesn't exist, what does? I choose to cook my buckwheat with some garlic and onions, rather than with ginger, is that not a choice? In my book, that is fee will, ability to choose from given options. I can't brake the law of physics and make a banana appear cuz I don't have one! You are saying one of examples of free will is when you can make a banana appear out of nowhere? Then we are not talking about the same free will. I'm a human with choices
There are reasons for you deciding to choose something. One simply does not choose at random, no matter how random it may seem. Similarly, a rolling a dice is not random, in that the dice does not have free will. It depends on the circumstances, including the height from which it was rolled, the ground, and so on. If you linearly extrapolate this, you'll see the humans are the same, but we are more much complex because we are multi-cellular organisms.
@JohnSmith88823 i dont see how free will could exist. i dont even think there is a coherent definition for "choice" or "free will". it just doesnt make sense.
@mishabaikal I'm just saying your brain is what's causing not some external force like a soul. If you (or anyone else) believe in that then that's a whole other argument. You can choose to not eat... for a while. But if you continue to not eat then you will die. If you did not reproduce beforehand then the trait that told you not to eat or the trait to not reproduce before will not be carried on. That does not mean necessarily that that trait will not appear again. If a human-
@KedViper hunger is a basic bodily need. Sometimes I do random things, what are those caused by? My brain is not involved at all most of the time, at all. I do not think anything most of the time, I like to keep my brain thought free to achieve higher states of consciousness, to stay away from clutter. Small questions don't bother me as much as big ones. I do not our definition of free will is the same. Perhaps you are right. I just wish it was explained better. I'm pretty open minded
@mishabaikal Well, there's no proof for any of those, so I don't think so. I don't think it's anyone's will. It's just a cause and affect. As far as any of that stuff goes, I honestly don't know. There's just actually not sufficient proof of free will, from what I've seen. I would not want this to discourage anyone, which I mean if you don't have free will then I guess it doesn't matter, but I just play along with it as if I did, so it's not really a downer for me anymore.
@KedViper you "play along"? sorry dude :D I do not think we have the same definition of free will. If you mean free will as to do anything we want like a superbeing, then no I do not believe in that. I believe we have a choice between garlic and onion, good feeling or bad feeling, to stay home and get sick or to go out and be healthy. That to me is free will. What is free will to you?
@KedViper Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints (wikipedia) But there are always constraints, so I guess I just do not have the same definition of free will. To me free will is simply a choice. Of course there will always be constraints, so I geuss there's no free will in a sense that there are always constraints.
Just because we can't understand the complexities that the illusion of free will presents us doesn't mean that there is free will. You wrote in all caps because of chemical reactions that occurred in your brain, and there are prior causes of such reactions, which ultimately derive from a specific, universal point. If you truly have free will, you'd be able to control such reactions or act against the nervous system response, say for instance, the reaction of twitching.
@JohnSmith88823 I can slow down my heart rate with breathing exercises. I can meditate to So it is possible to control some bodily functions. Brain is not separate from me, I chose the brain to have this reaction! Why do you guys separate the brain as if it's some other entity, the brain is me! I chose to have that brain reaction. If I choose to randomly stick my head in a sink under cold water, I can do that, there will be no impulse to do that. Just my randomness. I thought it!
Just as a soccer ball obeys universal laws, so too do humans. The only substantial difference is that we are complex organisms and balls are not. Complex multi-cellular organisms can be conscious, and being conscious is just another degree of awareness. This is what gives us the illusion of free will. In relation to your example, I can choose to type differently, but the reason for me doing so would be to reply to your previous comment. Thus, I'd be affected by external factors.
@ohedd Choice is dependent on free will. You have admitted choice in your above post, so you contradict your own belief that there could supposedly be no free will.
@1GodOnlyOne Why would it be? When faced with the decision if you want coffee or tea, this decision is based on past experience, instincts, knowledge, what you crave, and your decision making abilities. You like coffee more, but tea is cheaper and doesn't make your teeth yellow, you crave coffeine but you know it's a bad habbit you want to get rid of but there's this hot girl by the coffemachine and you decide you need a reason to go talk to her.. Your decision: Coffee.
@1GodOnlyOne Ok, so there's one part of a person's decision making process that is reasonable, taking factual things into account and then there's free will... that isn't? I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. Nothing in our nature works that way - practically everything has a causal explaination - there are a few examples of randomness in quantum physics, ex. the path of electrons -. Do you have a reason to believe in free will in the first place? Free will is unimaginable to me...
@1GodOnlyOne Well, that last statement of yours is another matter of discussion, but let's pretend it is. So you mean our free will is caused by something, and once it's triggered it is completely random in its decisions? I mean our thoughts are signals going through the brain on a defined path and these signals are triggered by our impressions. We simply cannot govern the machinery of the brain - it just works the way it's designed to do.
@ohedd Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth -- none of my posts mentioned the word "random."
Free will is not a function of the brain, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm interested to know what method you used to come to the decision that determinism is the correct worldview: Was it a scientific process? An intuitive one? An emotional "gut feeling?"
@1GodOnlyOne I'm sorry, I didn't mean to change the essence of your point. It's just that if the thought process is to be on its own, it needs to be separated from the principles of causality, right? And when something's not causal, it's random.
Free will is not a function of the brain? Then what is it? A property of the brain, like gravity of mass? Surely it must have some kind of mechanic structure explaining it?
@ohedd If the thought process is to be "on its own," then it needs to be separated from everything. However, the thought process does not need to be "on its own" for free will to exist.
Actually, There is no evidence that something not causal must be random. In fact, there is no evidence that anything "random" exists at all.
No, there is no mechanical structure involved in free will. It is a function of the consciousness, and consciousness is independent of brain function.
@1GodOnlyOne If free will and consciousness is not a mechanical structure, but something that just IS, then where might the connection between this abstract, and this materialistic world be? If it's not a mechanical structure, then why is it dependent of blood supply? Only a mechanical structure of the brain needs blood supply?
@ohedd I didn't say that free will "just IS," I said that it has a cause. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. If you have trouble keeping up with what I actually say, rather than make up strawmen, you should scroll up -- it will be a lot easier for both of us that way.
What "abstract" are you asking about? There's nothing abstract about consciousness or about free will.
ALL of your experiences are connected to consciousness, and ALL of your actions are determined by your free will.
Neither consciousness nor free will are dependent on blood supply. I find it very strange that you would even introduce such an irrelevant concept as blood into a philosophical discussion about consciousness and free will.
@1GodOnlyOne Consciousness is lost when you faint, isn't it? Which means it's dependent on blood. If it wasn't you'd still be reasoning and making decisions while you were unconscious or dead.
@ohedd Your logic is flawed: Height is also lost when you faint, but height is not dependent on blood.
The brain and mind have been shown by science to be completely inactive during dreamless sleep -- they are in a state of rest, and are not functioning at all.
Yet, when one wakes up from dreamless sleep, one has a conscious impression of how long one was asleep. Since the brain and mind were completely inactive, they could not have contributed to that impression, and yet it is there in the consciousness.
This leads to the conclusion that consciousness is independent of mental and brain functions.
@1GodOnlyOne About randomness: The path of electrons are completely unpredictable. I say unpredictable because it's a formality. One can never say anything with certainty about quantum physics based on observations according to Heisenberg's uncertainty princple.
@1GodOnlyOne Ok, that's just incorrect. /watch?v=qvDrOXygV0w&feature=related This is brainwave activity during sleep. We dream, we REM, we move our bodies while we sleep as if we were inside our dreams.
@ohedd Again, I'm interested to know what method you used to come to the decision that determinism is the correct worldview: Was it a scientific process? An intuitive one? Just an unscientific, emotional "gut feeling?"
@1GodOnlyOne No it was not a gut feeling. Neither was it an intuitive feeling. It was a philosophical conclusion of my own based on the principles of causality.
"Consciousness" is a vague expression. It is, just as the term "free will" an abstract model. Therefore; "Free will is a function of the consciousness" is an invalid argument.
"Schrödinger's cat" and the principles of electrons having a completely unpredictible path is by some interprated as proof that random exists.
@ohedd There's nothing vague or abstract about consciousness -- everything that every human being and animal has ever experienced is connected to consciousness, including everything that you have experienced with your five senses, and everything that you have ever felt, studied, or concluded about the brain.
"Free will is a function of the consciousness" is not an argument at all -- it is a statement of fact. You are simply attempting to avoid a subject that you don't comprehend.
@ohedd "Schrödinger's cat" has long been debunked as failing to prove that anything random exists, and mere unpredictability is not randomness -- those are two vastly different concepts. Just because something is unpredictable does not mean that it's random.
There is no evidence anywhere that anything random exists.
@1GodOnlyOne It was more of a logical conclusion based on the principles of causality. It was my own philosophical conclusion, and it is not a specific scientific theory I refer to. I do however base my argumentation on scientific grounds with references to the function of the brain for instance.
My use of the word "design" should not be confused with something that has been intentionally designed with a specific purpose in mind.
@1GodOnlyOne My brain's conclusion was that determinsim is probably correct, based on a number of factors but especially due to the fact that it fits into my general world view on other areas. It's a logical conclusion. It makes sense to me.
@ohedd If you were able to freely choose between the two worldviews at that moment, after having studied all the relevant factors, based on the relevant data, then you clearly have free will.
If you were not free to choose between the two worldviews at that moment, and your decision was predetermined by factors other than the relevant data, then your decision was an unscientific one and must be rejected.
@1GodOnlyOne I don't see how that is proof of free will. If I studied all the relevant factors based on the relevant data and made my decision, that only means my decision has better prospects of being true. That has nothing to do with free will.
Statement number two is correct too. A person who seeks to justify ones world view with science and not the other way around does not qualify as a scientist. I'm not looking to be a scientist, I just identify my philosophy with...
@1GodOnlyOne You started talking about sleep, I talked about death and unconsciousness. You don't reason when you're dead or unconscious, because reasoning is dependent on a mechanical structure that needs blood to work.
"If that decision was chosen freely based on relevant data, then you have free will" well yes? But if that decision wasn't chosen freely, but yet based on relevant data, then I don't have free will". My decision is still scientific though.
@ohedd If that decision was not chosen freely and based on relevant data, then it was predetermined by some factor or factors other than the relevant data, and was therefore unscientific.
@1GodOnlyOne If theories are scientific or not has nothing to do with wethear free will exists or not. If free will did exist, unscientific choices would still be made.
My decision is based on logic reasoning, but as with everything else we are all subject to our own memory database which of course is inevitable.
The brain is not completely inactive. If it was, our heart and lungs would stop. But you are saying our consiousness is active even when we die?
@ohedd If your decision was influenced by anything besides the relevant data (which you admitted), then your decision was an unscientific one, and it must be rejected on that basis. Therefore, free will certainly exists.
Modern science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. Still, the consciousness gains an impression, independent of brain activity, of how long dreamless sleep lasts.
This proves that consciousness is independent of brain activity.
@1GodOnlyOne I'm pretty sure I made it clear my decision is a logical conclusion based on the principles of causality. And even if my philosophy isn't perfected, I do identify with determinism, which is. And when you say free will exists because you think my theory is unscientific, it's like saying Newton is correct just because Einstein was proven wrong...
@ohedd There are only two choices: either determinism (the belief that free will doesn't exist) is correct, or free will exists.
Because your decision that determinism is correct is clearly unscientific (predetermined by factors other than the relevant data). it must be rejected.
The only other alternative is that free will does exist -- there's no middle ground between existing and not existing.
@1GodOnlyOne So if you presented your theory on free will and it wasn't scientific either, does that mean neither free will or determinism exists? Hmm..
Oh so you refer to that sentence! Other factors might be how I see things, hear things, sense things and so on. We all see everything through different perspectives. That doesn't mean a theory isn't scientific. For me and you to prove our theories are scientific, we need to compile a whole book. Instead we use references.
@ohedd The existence of free will is scientifically concluded -- I did indeed use free will to make the decision, based on the relevant data, whereas your decision was tainted by factors other than the relevant data, as you admitted.
If your decision was predetermined, then it was influenced by factors other than the relevant data, and was therefore unscientific.
@1GodOnlyOne Your argumentation is invalid. Let's pretend "my" philosophy wasn't scientific, that doesn't conclude yours as being true. You simply say that because I possess a memory database and that I possess knowledge that I use when reasoning, my conclusion is unscientific. I'm pretty sure you do too.
You also say: If determinism prevails, then factors other than the relevant data has formed what we percieve, making it unscientific. That is a circle argument, which is invalid.
I'm not pretending anything -- I proved conclusively that your decision to believe in determinism is unscientific. Because it is unscientific, it must be rejected.
Because it is rejected as false, then the only other alternative is its opposite, that free will does indeed exist.
@1GodOnlyOne Ok listen. You can't say I am not scientific because I believe we use memories and previously acquired knowledge to draw conclusions. All you can do is to take my evidence under consideration, such as references to different scientific theories.
Furthermore, you can't use the exclusion method as proof of your own theory just because you think the "opposite" theory is invalid. You haven't provided sufficient proof of the existence of free will either..
@1GodOnlyOne Modern science has not determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep, because if it was our lungs and our heart would stop. When the brain is completely inactive you are in big trouble. You are brain dead which is an irreversible condition.
I see no reason why you would draw the conclusion of free will existing. There is no reason why it would. I feel you are looking for a scientific explainations to support your religious beliefs.
@ohedd Yes, science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep.
I have no religious beliefs.
Again, the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep, and yet the consciousness receives a definite impression of how long dreamless sleep lasts. That impression cannot be caused by the brain. Therefore, consciousness is independent of the brain.
@1GodOnlyOne Why do you keep saying that "science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep"? Don't we breath? Doesn't our heart beat? Don't we wake up if we percieve sensory input? And as we aren't irreversibly brain dead, our brain must be active.
@ohedd I keep saying it because it's still a fact as time passes:
Science has conclusively determined that the brain (I am not referring to the lungs) is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. We do not breathe with our brains, we breathe with our lungs.
The consciousness receives an impression of how long dreamless sleep lasts, even though the brain is completely inactive, so consciousness is clearly independent of brain activity.
@1GodOnlyOne I understand what you are saying, and it would be a possibility if it was true that the brain is shut down during dreamless sleep. But it isn't. The brainstem provides lung and heart function. If you destroy a person's brainstem he will not be able to breath on his own and his heart will not beat. The lungs don't breath by themselves. I can logially dismiss your dreamless sleep theory, but then again I have access to my memory, making my statement invalid and yours true
@1GodOnlyOne "...but then again I have access to my memory, making my statement invalid and yours true" your quotation was invalid. It was irony. Every human being possesses the ability to memorize which, according to your logic, would automatically dismiss your statements. Now that both of us are unscientific, if your logic prevails neither free will or determinism exists. That doesn't hold up, so conclusively your logic of dismissing theories are not scientific.
@1GodOnlyOne No, modern science hasn't determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. If it was, we would be irreversibly brain dead and unable to breath on our own. I am amazed you don't even take the fact under consideration.
Why do you ignore evidence? Why do you conclude my theory as being unscientific just because I possess the ability to memorize, but not your own theory? There are so many pieces missing in your puzzle, so why bother defending it?
@ohedd What exactly is your theory? I noticed that you were using some of the same arguments that I tend to use against critics of my theory! I too have problems with people who just dont want to see the evidence for what it is.
@HedgehogRebellion When faced with the decision if you want coffee or tea, this decision is based on past experience, instincts, knowledge, what you crave, and your decision making abilities. You like coffee more, but tea is cheaper and doesn't make your teeth yellow. You crave caffeine but you know it's a bad habbit for you, but there's this hot girl by the coffee machine and you decide you need a reason to go talk to her.. Your decision: Coffee. Choice is based on causality
Again: During dreamless sleep, the brain and mind are completely inactive.
Yet, when we wake from dreamless sleep, there is a definite impression of how long we slept.
Since the brain was completely inactive during dreamless sleep (as science has determined conclusively), the brain could not have contributed to that conscious impression.
Therefore, consciousness is independent of the brain.
I chose to stop watching this video halfway through. Or did my DNA tell me? Lol ur a joke comparing us to a stalk of wheat. Yes, we have DNA like wheat and grow from a seed or fetus. But I'm pretty sure wheat doesn't have a brain buddy and we do. In you comprising this video and theory of free will you are choosing to, and are using your brain to scheme your opinion on the topic. Did you have to? No, but you did. As for the
Choice of environment = free will... But the environmemt we choose depends on our experiences. Nazis will ask for a nazi upbringing, no choice there.
jakegamesnake 1 day ago
Determinists can't be lazy, determinism won't allow it.
jakegamesnake 1 day ago
So if everything is predetermined, what the fucks the purpose of me being here?!
dashy654 4 days ago
I dont get it you fuckign fuck ill give you free will if you suck my willy
JoeCrabbs 2 weeks ago
@JoeCrabbs nutshot
reynolds7597 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
isnt this like wet willy
reynolds7597 2 weeks ago
@reynolds7597 yeah it is, I cant believe you caught that
xxLTVxx 2 weeks ago
i think free will is an impossible task i mean, how can you consciously create a thought? Thoughts have to just simply arise from another source, which is our subconscious. We have no control over our sunconscious and here is where our actions, thoughts, and feelings are determined. Our consciousness recieves these later and there are many experiments that show that the brain has already determined the decision that the person later carries out. Free will is an illusion
MrHitchslap 2 weeks ago 2
How could you be able to choice environment if everthing is Predetermined?
depenz 2 weeks ago 2
@depenz Exactly.He hasn't thought this through has he?
henryporter101 2 weeks ago
Interesting. A small note for you guys, there's this game, well, you can't really call it that, about free will and predetermination. It's called "The Stanley Parable". I literally cannot explain what it is about, you just have to play it. It leaves you thinking for a few days or weeks about free will. It is beautiful, even though the only thing you do is walk around.
KarikoEmpire34 2 weeks ago
i am typing this because im told to by nature entirely, if i weren't to type this comment i would be going against what i REALLY want to do, i would only be trying to spite the idea of pre-determinism, but if i did that then it would still not be my choice, it would be because out of ignorance; ignorance is a personality trait, personality is determined by genes and environmental factors such as other people who are in turn controlled by their genes and the people around them... its a mind fuck
view1210 3 weeks ago
What you see as choice I simply see as cause-and-effect. When we choose we select between options and pick the one that suits us best.
But why does it suit us better than thr other options?
Bcuz it fits our personality and value system better.
Why i our personality the way it is?
Bcuz our DNA defined brain went thru the life experinces we went thru.
SO its not REALLY a choice.
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
Anyone that has read "The Selfish Gene"
Thumbs up on this post
And thumbs down on this video.
And if you need a new perspective on life read that book and try to understand its concepts after many mushrooms/dmt/acid trips later.
upintheskyler 4 weeks ago
There is no free will. Dont misguide these poor religious folks. A lot of pondering is ahead of them.. and eventually they will become sane.
MarkoKraguljac 4 weeks ago
This video is wrong, our free will over choice of environment is non-existent.
We have genetic attributes in our bodies mentally and/or physically that pre-determine what kind of environment we will thrive most successfully in and groove/fit in the best.
In short; we don't have a choice over deciding whether we like one place over another, we are actually deciding what place will fit our needs/want the best. We are a horse and our cowboy on the saddle is our body determining our actions.
upintheskyler 1 month ago 6
@upintheskyler your thinking on a physical realm think culmination of consciousness and equalibrium in matter to antimatter. And that very concept + and - on our levels of space(our d3) and time being all matter encompassing field or dimension. think that on a dimension that is like our dna of conciousness and the pond of could be
eyestepback 1 month ago
@upintheskyler Just to ammend your analysis a little I would have to say that whether the environment we choose winds up suiting us after all is an interesting but not decisive point. We chose our environment bcuz...like any other choice...it suits our values which make up our personality which is in our cortex which is wired by DNA which is luck...phew! Anyhoo...I like your analysis...I just wanted to tweak it a little. Cheers!
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
@upintheskyler Exactly. But saying all that at once to people heavily conditioned with lies would be detrimental. Let them first ponder on "having somewhat less of free will" for start :D
MarkoKraguljac 4 weeks ago
@upintheskyler yup
view1210 3 weeks ago
@upintheskyler agreed, there is no choice at all.
LiberatedMind1 4 days ago
Do we have a choice whether we have free will? No! Therefore it could be said we don't have free will.
tompower21 1 month ago
If everything was predestined as was my typing this stuff right now and other people reacting to this post which may cause many to believe that all this is nothing but a joke made by destiny and that free will is a lie, then here's a simple answer:
If you were predestined to be moron, would you act like one right now?
If someone says free will is an illusion, how does he know?
If free will doesn't exist, shouldn't God answer before US for the things "we" did? I mean, we didn't choose...HE did...
supereldinho 1 month ago
@supereldinho NOW YOUR GETTING IT! Our Creator imbued us with His faults as well as his virtues. Cause-and-effect! Free WIll was INVENTED by St. Augustine in 380AD to get God off the hook for creating evil. It was a popular misconception, but a misconception just the same. How can we choose who we will be when the thing that does the choosing (our brain)has already been wired by our DNA and then altered by life circumstances we did not choose? Its not free from the things that define it.
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion Well we didn't choose what we are(gender, race and genetic flaws), but we are responsible for the things we knowingly do, right? And about the whole "fate" issue, I think people are subconsciosly drawn to it because in doing things they think would prevent it, they unknowingly trigger events that lead to the outcome they tried to avoid. Hence, we begin to doubt out free will. God knows everything we did and will do. But he never tells us what that might be.
supereldinho 4 weeks ago
@supereldinho Our decisions reflect our identity...our nature, right? And our nature (sex, race, genetic flaws, place we were born, what time period we were born in, our parents social economic status) is not OUR CHOICE.
So who is really responsible. Sure we have to lock criminals up, but it\s not our place to condemn thier souls while we jail their bodies/
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion Well people lock others up because they think they would harm society. While in fact human civilisation is only progressing towards self-destruction. And many often doubt God's existence because there's too much evil in this world, misinterpreting the fact that all those people chose to be evil, because doing evil things is always easier than doing good ones. People care more about their own profit than common wealth. But, it's mostly due to human greed.
supereldinho 3 weeks ago
uh, semen (or rather, DNA itself) doesn't contain "knowledge". everyone is born stupid until we undergo a process of learning, called life. The "subconscious tendencies" may also be learned in culture. There is a LOT that geneticists still DON"T know. This is a very disappointing video.
It's full of assertions and ZERO evidence.
hardinmichael1981 1 month ago
(...) In other words, by the time you are finally aware of what you just did, you are already - unconsciously - doing something else.
nielzdg 1 month ago
(...) bodily impulses to make you aware (concious) of your actions. Now, here comes the paradox that kills the thought of "free will": while your brain is still busy processing the environmental impulses and the bodily impulses from your last actions - which were a response to those environmental impulses -, your brain is already planning and performing new actions to follow up your previous actions, actions of which your are not yet aware. (...)
nielzdg 1 month ago
Your actions are determined by your senses, and your senses take a certain time to be processed by your brain. Environmental impulses are picked up by your senses, and some of these impulses might be perceived by your brain as problems. Your brain will make your body perform one or more actions to fix these "problems". Your senses pick up the impulses of your actions in the form of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting and smelling what you just did. Your brain will be busy processing those (...)
nielzdg 1 month ago
Everyone who engages in this debate is miles behind me because of the way I deal with this problem. It's not that free will does not exsist; rather that the use of the term "free will" is false. "Free will" will never have any meaning to anyone with a basic and honest grasp of the linguistics here. The use of the term "free will" will actually undermine the will-power of the speaker/thinker. "Strength of will" is the only way these abstract ideas should be dealt with in the mind/language.
blacknganga 1 month ago
I finally found my free will. I'm going to Prague
MistaFrz 1 month ago
I believe the prase nothing is tru everything is permitted doesn't allow us to be free it allows us to be wise being wise means we have judgement,reason,perception having wisdom allows us to have freedom
benthelegion 1 month ago
No one has free will.
Only can have "luck" - pre-written.
Everything is predefined !
freeman967 1 month ago
Astrology says you do select your parents. I think its true.
TRUTHBETOLD10 1 month ago
Luck-->DNA-->Brain-->Personality-->Values-->Decisions-->Life Circumstances
So much for Free Will.
Our decision to put ourselves in an advantageous postition is itself simply another decision.
This video is flawed init's logic, and should probably be removed, or at least redone in such a way as to address my chain of reasoning. But we know that won't happen bcuz I am correct.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago 4
If free will does not exist, which I believe, how can we choose a specifiek environment?
The choise itself is not free will.
tuintje60 1 month ago
If everything is predetermined than what was first determination?
xPray2die2dayx 1 month ago
Product of our ancestors
And mad scientists have been messing with are DNA for years
465160 1 month ago
All good except the last part
wisebbq1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universe with free will is "equivalent" to a universe without free will. This knowledge is going viral. I can explain this view and trace is back to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Please take a look at my developments.
To find my main page search FaceBook for "Mathematics and Conjectural Reasoning for Math & Physics".
HeliumXenonKrypton 1 month ago
Could your info on DNA be outdated? What about the frog embryo that was born a salamander due to the laser light that shone on it after passing thru the salamander embryo? DNA can be changed.
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod i know what you are talking about. i have seen no evidence to suggest that the supposed "peter garaiev" did any such experience. but you are right about one thing, dna does change. it doesnt make a difference to the argument against free will though.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong
I don't know. The jury is still out for me on free will. We're all talking largely at cross purposes, since no one bothers to define the "I" involved - which changes everything. Unless we have that pinned down - which may be impossible - it's just so much talk. Conscious mind occupies about 7% of the mind. That's what most people speak from - & it isn't even all of their own mind, much less the whole of their self. It's a wonder we ever figure anything out =D
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod i disagree with a few things you said. i think we do speak from the subconscious mind a lot of the time. we dont sit there and consciously think about and word what we are going to say before we say it. idk about you but for me, this comment is coming mostly just like a reflex, a reaction. just like how normal conversation goes. i dont think free will exists at all. but i think we can both agree that even if it does exist, that we have very little free will.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong
Well, I guess it's not so much that I disagree with you, but that I don't understand where you're coming from. I'll check your page for anything you've uploaded that might show your views in some depth
Meanwhile, when I write or speak I do share my heart & what I really mean (mostly, of course). I suspect we just have far different perspectives on things. To me, free will and choice are critical components of my life. Sure, their range is somewhat narrow.
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod
I don't let that (narrowness) bother me. When I take what I've got & work with that with integrity, other paths always open. It's a spiral that can be ridden upward or down - it's a choice
One of our greatest powers is attitude, which influences vision. We have control of that, if we choose - or we can merely react.
Anyway, if you see any good reason to continue, that's fine. It may serve no purpose - to 2 people seeing nothing better, here, than what they have ;)
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod well if you want to understand where im coming from i can explain. firstly, the universe is a deterministic system. free will cannot exist in such a system. some say that because there is chaos or randomness at quantum level, that therefore free will can exist. this is false though. the type of chaos at that level doesnt affect, at all, the deterministic system, nor does it cause chaotic things to happen on macro scale. chaos only exists at quantum level. so free will doesnt exist.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong my second argument is that in order for any type of "free will to exist" we must have control without constraint. there must be a decision making process that isnt restricted. this is impossible. who we are is determined by genetics and our environment. i dont see how an "i" can exist considering that its only determined by factors out of our control. and this is the only way it can be. its like proposing a square circle. the concept at its basis is flawed.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong
There's a difference between freedom and license - or anarchy. If you would only multiply by the number of people on earth your idea of "we must have control WITHOUT RESTRAINT" then you'll see it could never work. It could, perhaps, on higher dimensions - where souls were more perfected and one with Light - having both Love & respect for all life. On earth, as it is, it would only bring chaos
So, if that's your definition of free will, then we don't have it
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod well i dont believe in souls or "higher dimensions" in the way you mean so i really dont have a response to that except you would have to prove those exist. and secondly, i was using the philosophical definition of free will as defined in the standard encyclopedia of philosophy which you can look up.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong
Well, okay - thanks for sharing. Since I take your first proposition - that the universe is deterministic - to be inaccurate, nothing that follows will work for me.
TheseEyesGod 1 month ago
@TheseEyesGod but the universe is deterministic, demonstrably so.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
There is an undeniable human tendency to see ourselves as free and morally responsible beings. But there’s a problem. We also believe—most of us anyhow—that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters (what else could?). But we aren’t responsible for our environment, and we aren’t responsible for our heredity. So we aren’t responsible for our characters. But then how can we be responsible for acts that arise from our characters?
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
@FryderykFChopin that sounds like doestoyevskys argument in crime and punishment, like your nick btw lol
afertyus1000 1 month ago
@FryderykFChopin therefore criminals are not responsible for their actions
DaMostEnigmatic 1 month ago
@DaMostEnigmatic If our actions stem from our nature...and we cannot pick and choose our nature...then on a GRAND COSMIC scale they are not really responsible. But we have to lock them up bcuz we have a social responsibility and WE cant help it either that we want to be safe.
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
yeah - he's wrong - way too simplistic - how can you "choose your environment" with what he proposes? we can't 'choose' anything, because all our decisions have already been made by our brain before we realise that they have. whence why we have no free will.
tomlives 1 month ago
@tomlives why do you assume you and brain are separate entities? Our brain made that decision therefore we chose it, no?
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@tomlives
Exactly. Free will is an illusion in that it gives us choices. But our decisions are based in essence, on reason. For instance, just as a ball obeys the law of gravity, so too does a person follow his reasoning. If I ask a person to tell me ten random numbers, he will tell me the numbers that appear first in his mind, and such a sequence is based entirely on a series of predetermined and pre-created chemical reactions.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
thumbs up if you also heard "a seed of weed"
gianis666 1 month ago
That was pretty lame. That's not even what the question of free will is about. The question is way deeper. This guy says you have to choose your environment and that is the only free will that you have. The real question is whether you can choose your environment, or anything you do, or if every action and thought that you take is predetermined by the laws of nature.
seanattikus 2 months ago
@seanattikus I don't think you can choose your own environment becuase, at birth, no one can choose how we arrive in this world/environment.
3089280288 2 months ago
@3089280288 if i could choose my environment i would be in st lucia on a yacht with 50 topless supermodels lol
afertyus1000 1 month ago
If you say that "I can choose what to do", then that statement in itself would be caused by watching this video, and the cause of you watching this video is curiosity, and so on. Just because your line of thinking is complex does not mean that you have free will.
JohnSmith88823 2 months ago
@JohnSmith88823 this video did not cause me to say anything, I was already discussing these things in my mind before I ever watched that video. Are you saying this video somehow caused me to believe or not believe in free will? No, I already had my opinion on the subject.
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
Then there are reasons for why you think about free will, which are derived from other reasons, and so on.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 yes but that doesn't make it predetermined. I could write IN ALL CAPS or in all lower keys, I have free will, no? I'm not sure I understand ur position correctly. I see that you are saying that everything is meant to happen, everything is karma (not good-bad paradigm how many mistakenly think but cause and effect) but we still have free will. some people choose to ignore karma, some reconcile it. in my view free will is ability to do as we wish. whats ur view?
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal What's going to happen will happen. There is only one end result and the actions leading up to it are determined by those chemical reactions and such.
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper but i caused those chemical reactions, not some predetermined force!
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal "You" didn't cause those reactions. The brain caused them because of other predetermining factors. You eat because your brain tells you you're hungry. The brain tells you this because if you don't eat you will die.
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper
I agree with you and I believe in determinism. However, a free will believer may argue that he has the choice not to eat. In response you that, you could argue that that person chose not to eat because of what you have said, which caused him to act otherwise to try to disprove you.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@KedViper why do you separae the brain from yourself, the brain is you! Hunger is a survival mode. I am in fact a fan of fasting, so I don't always eat when i'm hungry, sometimes I fast! I chose not to eat. Sometimes I eat, sometimes I don't. If I'm hungry I may or may not go to the store at that moment to get food. Choice, I will myself to go or not to go. Brain is Me, it's not separate.
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
You can exercise your illusion of free will, so to speak, but one of the factors which determine your actions derive from people telling you that you do not have free will. For instance, if I believed in a free will and somebody told me that I had no free will, depending on the circumstances, I could produce a series of movements which are unpredictable, but based on thought, which is also determined.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
Generally speaking, as we grow older, we become more intelligent, so if I were to talk to a new-born baby, his or her actions would be easily predictable since his or her brain is not as complex as someone much older. I could make a scary face and the baby would be scared. However, if I made a scary face to an adult, they would react in a different way depending on the circumstances.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 i so do not agree, I can't even predict my cat, less a baby. Babies have very interesting personalities, and If I make a scary face to a baby I know, he will just look at me funny, or smile, or ignore me. Babies are not able to practice free will just like they are not able to not breathe when they come out of the womb. And if you never done things truly randomly then you are not a right brain! I do random things quite often. Not all the time as it's not logical..
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 sometimes truly randomly I would start singing or look in the mirror and make funny faces, without having brain involved at all. I consider myself experienced in meditation, most of the time my brain is off and i just follow my intuition. I literally do not judge,, or think too much at all about events or people. I use my brain when I need to, my brain is a part of me. I don't understand your point of view. Your thoughts are determined but they arent predetermined
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 you caused those thoughts. they didnt cause you
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 when I write a song, I choose where the song is gonna go. I could choose A or B or C for the chorus, u see? some great musicians truly have god universal "god" playing through them and I get those moments sometimes too, but a lot of times I choose where song direction is going. I really don't understand the concept of not having a free will from your perspective, I wish I did though, just to see how you guys think. I do not separate my brain from me-my brain IS me
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
But when you write a song, and assuming that you have chosen to write a good song, you would likely choose notes which are pleasing or notes which you think are good. This is not free will, this is determinism with the illusion of free will. If you truly had free will, you'd violate some of the most rudimentary laws of physics and science at large.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 sometimes great music has dissonant chords or melodies to cause an uncomfortable feeling, to challenge a listener. So no, it's not predetermined that the chords will be nice and pleasant. You are saying true free will, will cause me to break law of physics. I will tell you right there this is where I do not understand, if nothing can brake the law of physics, or universal law, then by your definition free will just doesn't exist?
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 If free will doesn't exist, what does? I choose to cook my buckwheat with some garlic and onions, rather than with ginger, is that not a choice? In my book, that is fee will, ability to choose from given options. I can't brake the law of physics and make a banana appear cuz I don't have one! You are saying one of examples of free will is when you can make a banana appear out of nowhere? Then we are not talking about the same free will. I'm a human with choices
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
There are reasons for you deciding to choose something. One simply does not choose at random, no matter how random it may seem. Similarly, a rolling a dice is not random, in that the dice does not have free will. It depends on the circumstances, including the height from which it was rolled, the ground, and so on. If you linearly extrapolate this, you'll see the humans are the same, but we are more much complex because we are multi-cellular organisms.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 i dont see how free will could exist. i dont even think there is a coherent definition for "choice" or "free will". it just doesnt make sense.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@mishabaikal I'm just saying your brain is what's causing not some external force like a soul. If you (or anyone else) believe in that then that's a whole other argument. You can choose to not eat... for a while. But if you continue to not eat then you will die. If you did not reproduce beforehand then the trait that told you not to eat or the trait to not reproduce before will not be carried on. That does not mean necessarily that that trait will not appear again. If a human-
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper develops that trait DUE TO something, such as a mutation, then it will be there again.
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper hunger is a basic bodily need. Sometimes I do random things, what are those caused by? My brain is not involved at all most of the time, at all. I do not think anything most of the time, I like to keep my brain thought free to achieve higher states of consciousness, to stay away from clutter. Small questions don't bother me as much as big ones. I do not our definition of free will is the same. Perhaps you are right. I just wish it was explained better. I'm pretty open minded
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@KedViper so if it's not our will, whose will is it? God acting through us? Or demons? or some universal entities?
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal Well, there's no proof for any of those, so I don't think so. I don't think it's anyone's will. It's just a cause and affect. As far as any of that stuff goes, I honestly don't know. There's just actually not sufficient proof of free will, from what I've seen. I would not want this to discourage anyone, which I mean if you don't have free will then I guess it doesn't matter, but I just play along with it as if I did, so it's not really a downer for me anymore.
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper you "play along"? sorry dude :D I do not think we have the same definition of free will. If you mean free will as to do anything we want like a superbeing, then no I do not believe in that. I believe we have a choice between garlic and onion, good feeling or bad feeling, to stay home and get sick or to go out and be healthy. That to me is free will. What is free will to you?
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@KedViper Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints (wikipedia) But there are always constraints, so I guess I just do not have the same definition of free will. To me free will is simply a choice. Of course there will always be constraints, so I geuss there's no free will in a sense that there are always constraints.
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal Yeah, that's how I'd pretty much define it. It's hard to define, but that pretty much sums it up.
KedViper 1 month ago
@KedViper yes i liked his talk on ancestors being in the sperm that caused all of us we are a product of our ancestors
afertyus1000 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
Just because we can't understand the complexities that the illusion of free will presents us doesn't mean that there is free will. You wrote in all caps because of chemical reactions that occurred in your brain, and there are prior causes of such reactions, which ultimately derive from a specific, universal point. If you truly have free will, you'd be able to control such reactions or act against the nervous system response, say for instance, the reaction of twitching.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@JohnSmith88823 I can slow down my heart rate with breathing exercises. I can meditate to So it is possible to control some bodily functions. Brain is not separate from me, I chose the brain to have this reaction! Why do you guys separate the brain as if it's some other entity, the brain is me! I chose to have that brain reaction. If I choose to randomly stick my head in a sink under cold water, I can do that, there will be no impulse to do that. Just my randomness. I thought it!
mishabaikal 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
But why did you think it?
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@mishabaikal
Just as a soccer ball obeys universal laws, so too do humans. The only substantial difference is that we are complex organisms and balls are not. Complex multi-cellular organisms can be conscious, and being conscious is just another degree of awareness. This is what gives us the illusion of free will. In relation to your example, I can choose to type differently, but the reason for me doing so would be to reply to your previous comment. Thus, I'd be affected by external factors.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
agreed
Blahblahbox1 2 months ago
This video is summarizing to much, you can't explains free will in a couple minutes.
10Secondcopper 2 months ago
This video is wrong. Consider being born in a prison. And I won't let you leave. You are my pet.
Great waste of time boys!
bbjohn73 2 months ago
Our choice of enviroment is also based on factors that we can't control... that means there is no free will.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Choice is dependent on free will. You have admitted choice in your above post, so you contradict your own belief that there could supposedly be no free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Choice isn't dependent on free will. Choice is a causal action.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Sure it's dependent on free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Why would it be? When faced with the decision if you want coffee or tea, this decision is based on past experience, instincts, knowledge, what you crave, and your decision making abilities. You like coffee more, but tea is cheaper and doesn't make your teeth yellow, you crave coffeine but you know it's a bad habbit you want to get rid of but there's this hot girl by the coffemachine and you decide you need a reason to go talk to her.. Your decision: Coffee.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd ...or tea, depending on my free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok, so there's one part of a person's decision making process that is reasonable, taking factual things into account and then there's free will... that isn't? I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. Nothing in our nature works that way - practically everything has a causal explaination - there are a few examples of randomness in quantum physics, ex. the path of electrons -. Do you have a reason to believe in free will in the first place? Free will is unimaginable to me...
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Our free will also has a cause. Just because it has a cause doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, only that which exists can have a cause.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Well, that last statement of yours is another matter of discussion, but let's pretend it is. So you mean our free will is caused by something, and once it's triggered it is completely random in its decisions? I mean our thoughts are signals going through the brain on a defined path and these signals are triggered by our impressions. We simply cannot govern the machinery of the brain - it just works the way it's designed to do.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth -- none of my posts mentioned the word "random."
Free will is not a function of the brain, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm interested to know what method you used to come to the decision that determinism is the correct worldview: Was it a scientific process? An intuitive one? An emotional "gut feeling?"
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I'm sorry, I didn't mean to change the essence of your point. It's just that if the thought process is to be on its own, it needs to be separated from the principles of causality, right? And when something's not causal, it's random.
Free will is not a function of the brain? Then what is it? A property of the brain, like gravity of mass? Surely it must have some kind of mechanic structure explaining it?
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd If the thought process is to be "on its own," then it needs to be separated from everything. However, the thought process does not need to be "on its own" for free will to exist.
Actually, There is no evidence that something not causal must be random. In fact, there is no evidence that anything "random" exists at all.
No, there is no mechanical structure involved in free will. It is a function of the consciousness, and consciousness is independent of brain function.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If free will and consciousness is not a mechanical structure, but something that just IS, then where might the connection between this abstract, and this materialistic world be? If it's not a mechanical structure, then why is it dependent of blood supply? Only a mechanical structure of the brain needs blood supply?
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd I didn't say that free will "just IS," I said that it has a cause. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. If you have trouble keeping up with what I actually say, rather than make up strawmen, you should scroll up -- it will be a lot easier for both of us that way.
What "abstract" are you asking about? There's nothing abstract about consciousness or about free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
ALL of your experiences are connected to consciousness, and ALL of your actions are determined by your free will.
Neither consciousness nor free will are dependent on blood supply. I find it very strange that you would even introduce such an irrelevant concept as blood into a philosophical discussion about consciousness and free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Consciousness is lost when you faint, isn't it? Which means it's dependent on blood. If it wasn't you'd still be reasoning and making decisions while you were unconscious or dead.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Your logic is flawed: Height is also lost when you faint, but height is not dependent on blood.
The brain and mind have been shown by science to be completely inactive during dreamless sleep -- they are in a state of rest, and are not functioning at all.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Yet, when one wakes up from dreamless sleep, one has a conscious impression of how long one was asleep. Since the brain and mind were completely inactive, they could not have contributed to that impression, and yet it is there in the consciousness.
This leads to the conclusion that consciousness is independent of mental and brain functions.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne About randomness: The path of electrons are completely unpredictable. I say unpredictable because it's a formality. One can never say anything with certainty about quantum physics based on observations according to Heisenberg's uncertainty princple.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Unpredictability does not imply randomness. You are conflating two words that have vastly diferent meanings.
You have presented questionable evidence for the existence of something unpredictable, but I requested evidence for something else altogether.
I have no way of predicting the content of your next post, but it certainly won't be random. They are two different concepts.
There is no evidence that anything random exists anywhere.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok, that's just incorrect. /watch?v=qvDrOXygV0w&feature=related This is brainwave activity during sleep. We dream, we REM, we move our bodies while we sleep as if we were inside our dreams.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Do we dream during dreamless sleep? Food for thought.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@ohedd Again, I'm interested to know what method you used to come to the decision that determinism is the correct worldview: Was it a scientific process? An intuitive one? Just an unscientific, emotional "gut feeling?"
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne No it was not a gut feeling. Neither was it an intuitive feeling. It was a philosophical conclusion of my own based on the principles of causality.
"Consciousness" is a vague expression. It is, just as the term "free will" an abstract model. Therefore; "Free will is a function of the consciousness" is an invalid argument.
"Schrödinger's cat" and the principles of electrons having a completely unpredictible path is by some interprated as proof that random exists.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd There's nothing vague or abstract about consciousness -- everything that every human being and animal has ever experienced is connected to consciousness, including everything that you have experienced with your five senses, and everything that you have ever felt, studied, or concluded about the brain.
"Free will is a function of the consciousness" is not an argument at all -- it is a statement of fact. You are simply attempting to avoid a subject that you don't comprehend.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@ohedd "Schrödinger's cat" has long been debunked as failing to prove that anything random exists, and mere unpredictability is not randomness -- those are two vastly different concepts. Just because something is unpredictable does not mean that it's random.
There is no evidence anywhere that anything random exists.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne It was more of a logical conclusion based on the principles of causality. It was my own philosophical conclusion, and it is not a specific scientific theory I refer to. I do however base my argumentation on scientific grounds with references to the function of the brain for instance.
My use of the word "design" should not be confused with something that has been intentionally designed with a specific purpose in mind.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd So, after you studied all the data concerning causality that you deemed relevant to this issue, was:
1. your decision that determinism was correct freely chosen based on the relevant data, or was;
2. your decision that determinism was correct predetermined by some other factors, such as your personal history, etc?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne My brain's conclusion was that determinsim is probably correct, based on a number of factors but especially due to the fact that it fits into my general world view on other areas. It's a logical conclusion. It makes sense to me.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Was that decision freely chosen based on the relevant data, or was that decision predetermined by some factors other than the relevant data?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne It was a decision made based on relevant data and other factors.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd If you were able to freely choose between the two worldviews at that moment, after having studied all the relevant factors, based on the relevant data, then you clearly have free will.
If you were not free to choose between the two worldviews at that moment, and your decision was predetermined by factors other than the relevant data, then your decision was an unscientific one and must be rejected.
In either case, you clearly have free will.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I don't see how that is proof of free will. If I studied all the relevant factors based on the relevant data and made my decision, that only means my decision has better prospects of being true. That has nothing to do with free will.
Statement number two is correct too. A person who seeks to justify ones world view with science and not the other way around does not qualify as a scientist. I'm not looking to be a scientist, I just identify my philosophy with...
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd If that decision was chosen freely, based on the relevant data, then you have free will.
If it was not chosen freely and it was predetermined by something other than the relevant data, then it was an unscientific decision.
In either case, free will certainly exists.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne You started talking about sleep, I talked about death and unconsciousness. You don't reason when you're dead or unconscious, because reasoning is dependent on a mechanical structure that needs blood to work.
"If that decision was chosen freely based on relevant data, then you have free will" well yes? But if that decision wasn't chosen freely, but yet based on relevant data, then I don't have free will". My decision is still scientific though.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd If that decision was not chosen freely and based on relevant data, then it was predetermined by some factor or factors other than the relevant data, and was therefore unscientific.
In either case, free will certainly exists.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If theories are scientific or not has nothing to do with wethear free will exists or not. If free will did exist, unscientific choices would still be made.
My decision is based on logic reasoning, but as with everything else we are all subject to our own memory database which of course is inevitable.
The brain is not completely inactive. If it was, our heart and lungs would stop. But you are saying our consiousness is active even when we die?
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd If your decision was influenced by anything besides the relevant data (which you admitted), then your decision was an unscientific one, and it must be rejected on that basis. Therefore, free will certainly exists.
Modern science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. Still, the consciousness gains an impression, independent of brain activity, of how long dreamless sleep lasts.
This proves that consciousness is independent of brain activity.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I'm pretty sure I made it clear my decision is a logical conclusion based on the principles of causality. And even if my philosophy isn't perfected, I do identify with determinism, which is. And when you say free will exists because you think my theory is unscientific, it's like saying Newton is correct just because Einstein was proven wrong...
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd There are only two choices: either determinism (the belief that free will doesn't exist) is correct, or free will exists.
Because your decision that determinism is correct is clearly unscientific (predetermined by factors other than the relevant data). it must be rejected.
The only other alternative is that free will does exist -- there's no middle ground between existing and not existing.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne So if you presented your theory on free will and it wasn't scientific either, does that mean neither free will or determinism exists? Hmm..
Oh so you refer to that sentence! Other factors might be how I see things, hear things, sense things and so on. We all see everything through different perspectives. That doesn't mean a theory isn't scientific. For me and you to prove our theories are scientific, we need to compile a whole book. Instead we use references.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd The existence of free will is scientifically concluded -- I did indeed use free will to make the decision, based on the relevant data, whereas your decision was tainted by factors other than the relevant data, as you admitted.
If your decision was predetermined, then it was influenced by factors other than the relevant data, and was therefore unscientific.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Your argumentation is invalid. Let's pretend "my" philosophy wasn't scientific, that doesn't conclude yours as being true. You simply say that because I possess a memory database and that I possess knowledge that I use when reasoning, my conclusion is unscientific. I'm pretty sure you do too.
You also say: If determinism prevails, then factors other than the relevant data has formed what we percieve, making it unscientific. That is a circle argument, which is invalid.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd This is not a contest between "mine" and "yours."
If free will exists, then determinism is false, and if determinism is true, then free will doesn't exist.
There is no third alternative to free will's existence or nonexistence -- it either does or it doesn't.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
I'm not pretending anything -- I proved conclusively that your decision to believe in determinism is unscientific. Because it is unscientific, it must be rejected.
Because it is rejected as false, then the only other alternative is its opposite, that free will does indeed exist.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok listen. You can't say I am not scientific because I believe we use memories and previously acquired knowledge to draw conclusions. All you can do is to take my evidence under consideration, such as references to different scientific theories.
Furthermore, you can't use the exclusion method as proof of your own theory just because you think the "opposite" theory is invalid. You haven't provided sufficient proof of the existence of free will either..
ohedd 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Modern science has not determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep, because if it was our lungs and our heart would stop. When the brain is completely inactive you are in big trouble. You are brain dead which is an irreversible condition.
I see no reason why you would draw the conclusion of free will existing. There is no reason why it would. I feel you are looking for a scientific explainations to support your religious beliefs.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Yes, science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep.
I have no religious beliefs.
Again, the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep, and yet the consciousness receives a definite impression of how long dreamless sleep lasts. That impression cannot be caused by the brain. Therefore, consciousness is independent of the brain.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Why do you keep saying that "science has determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep"? Don't we breath? Doesn't our heart beat? Don't we wake up if we percieve sensory input? And as we aren't irreversibly brain dead, our brain must be active.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd I keep saying it because it's still a fact as time passes:
Science has conclusively determined that the brain (I am not referring to the lungs) is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. We do not breathe with our brains, we breathe with our lungs.
The consciousness receives an impression of how long dreamless sleep lasts, even though the brain is completely inactive, so consciousness is clearly independent of brain activity.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I understand what you are saying, and it would be a possibility if it was true that the brain is shut down during dreamless sleep. But it isn't. The brainstem provides lung and heart function. If you destroy a person's brainstem he will not be able to breath on his own and his heart will not beat. The lungs don't breath by themselves. I can logially dismiss your dreamless sleep theory, but then again I have access to my memory, making my statement invalid and yours true
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd Modern science has determined conclusively that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep.
You have failed to provide evidence for any brain activity during dreamless sleep.
You wrote: "I have access to my memory, making my statement invalid and yours true."
Thank you for admitting that. On that note, I will leave you to think about how invalid your statement is, and why.
Goodbye!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne "...but then again I have access to my memory, making my statement invalid and yours true" your quotation was invalid. It was irony. Every human being possesses the ability to memorize which, according to your logic, would automatically dismiss your statements. Now that both of us are unscientific, if your logic prevails neither free will or determinism exists. That doesn't hold up, so conclusively your logic of dismissing theories are not scientific.
ohedd 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne No, modern science hasn't determined that the brain is completely inactive during dreamless sleep. If it was, we would be irreversibly brain dead and unable to breath on our own. I am amazed you don't even take the fact under consideration.
Why do you ignore evidence? Why do you conclude my theory as being unscientific just because I possess the ability to memorize, but not your own theory? There are so many pieces missing in your puzzle, so why bother defending it?
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd What exactly is your theory? I noticed that you were using some of the same arguments that I tend to use against critics of my theory! I too have problems with people who just dont want to see the evidence for what it is.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HedgehogRebellion When faced with the decision if you want coffee or tea, this decision is based on past experience, instincts, knowledge, what you crave, and your decision making abilities. You like coffee more, but tea is cheaper and doesn't make your teeth yellow. You crave caffeine but you know it's a bad habbit for you, but there's this hot girl by the coffee machine and you decide you need a reason to go talk to her.. Your decision: Coffee. Choice is based on causality
ohedd 1 month ago
@ohedd
Again: During dreamless sleep, the brain and mind are completely inactive.
Yet, when we wake from dreamless sleep, there is a definite impression of how long we slept.
Since the brain was completely inactive during dreamless sleep (as science has determined conclusively), the brain could not have contributed to that conscious impression.
Therefore, consciousness is independent of the brain.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If you split a brain in half, which half of the brain will the consciousness stick with (given the brain has no 'consciousness centra')?
ohedd 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne ...determinism, which is an accepted philosophical theory.
ohedd 2 months ago
@ohedd "We simply cannot govern the machinery of the brain - it just works the way it's designed to do."
So you advocate Intelligent Design Science?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
I chose to stop watching this video halfway through. Or did my DNA tell me? Lol ur a joke comparing us to a stalk of wheat. Yes, we have DNA like wheat and grow from a seed or fetus. But I'm pretty sure wheat doesn't have a brain buddy and we do. In you comprising this video and theory of free will you are choosing to, and are using your brain to scheme your opinion on the topic. Did you have to? No, but you did. As for the