Free will & Freedom

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm

The link give an indepth view on most of the debate about free will and freedom.

Also, note that I am drunk in this video, so if you find my English extra funny, or perhaps my tone its... oh, forget about it, its just me! :)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• freedom
• free
• will
• philosophy
• gnosticatheist
• determinism

[VerrKojo]

Sigh religion should not be mix with youtube!

[GnosticAtheist]

@VerrKojo uh...

[PawnBACM]

great vid; awesome links. I still don't see the libertarian issue as cut and dried, because I see freedom as more unlikely than free will. Individually, in a vacuum; perhaps. Societally, it's barely plausible.

[silversnakeseven]

We deceive ourselves. He means deception in the sense of paradox: that which appears real but upon examination cannot be true, not in the active sense regarding intensional misconstruing of information towards another.

[Re3volution]

"Oh Brave New World, in which such people live in it!"

Sup...I am with you that free will is only an illusion since environment and your physical properties completely determine your behavior. And if a MASTER were to control this 2 variables, you would have no free will left. Considering that the world is run by satanic worshipers, this is really bad news for us. Instead of free-will it should be called guiding-will since it is moved according to the RANDOM choices you make.

[GnosticAtheist]

I don't think we ever should loose that illusion. Just like free will; I enjoy the feeling of choice. But, I suspect most animals do not have the "I" funtionality, yet they feel and think (and as such I became a vegan, but that is another story) and in my book that is the prime abilities that I use to understand life. Well, that and a central nervous system.

To your question; No, not really. Not outside of neuroscience anyway.

[Bladdacker]

side question, Do you ever think we could we do without reference to the I, when we try to comprehend are everyday-life? when we are confronted with the other, we suppose some unit in that person, his personality, his past, etc..., or do you think this folk-psychology of the intentional I we work with when we are confronted with the world outside scientific inquiry is something we maybe never can lose. Do you think its possible, and if not its maybe a nessecary thing to give value to our lifes.

[GnosticAtheist]

No, you do not seem confused.

What I am saying is that words like "free will", "I feel pain" and "I think therefore I am" simply is the machine clocking along, making ways to express needed information to other systems. It does not seem to be anything special about it; consciousness I mean. It is a word we use to explain what we call self experience and data storage of that experience. There does not seem to be anything that needs further explaination, as I see it.

[Bladdacker]

sorry your response sounded somewhat confusing. What do you mean with "it could work without", cause it doesnt work without. We do have this feeling, why arent we all just philosophical zombies. I always have the feeling that scientific reductionism on the condition humaine, leaves something out. i want the missing link between "what is it to be me" and the third person perspective science works with. it looks like an unbridgeable gap. Maybe i am just confused by the whole subject :D.

[GnosticAtheist]

Obviously it could work without "counciousness". The problem is that I question what coinciousness really is, and I fail to see the grandness of my experience. When we remove the illusionary concepts of the ID, the "I", the "me"; we are left with a system that calculates and reacts to stimula, and that is all we are right now. The feeling of "I" is nothing more then a method to deal with both calculation and response.

Or, not.