Thanks for watching. Chat about this debate but also...WHAT TOPIC should they debate next? Drop your ideas in the main comments and upvote your favorites! ...oh, and if you watch the entire video, it really helps push the video to more viewers :) Thanks for all your support!
A debate without interruptions like you would have objections in a court trial is a debate where the bad faith party has free reign but the same amount of time as the good faith party that not only has to debunk outrageous claims but do so while combating more dishonesty. Interruptions, especially polite interruptions from a good faith mediator, are important. We however live in a society where we want to listen to conspiracy theorists and charlatans without their words being questioned.
I would really like to request Ai debates regarding Catholic and Orthodox theology and history due to the sheer amount of scholars that have studied the topic and arrived at different conclusions.
Catholic and Orthodox theology is very similar. You would need to be way more specific on which issue you want to debate the differences on. Issue one: Filioque, “From the Son” Issue two: Papal authority, “Does the Pope have a larger role than the various archbishops?” Issue three: “Original Sin”.
@@readingsoloI don’t see where the issue is in issue 2 tho, obviously the Pope has a bigger role in his religion compared to any other cause it’s a single central figure
The fact that so many honest people have tried to so hard to understand basic and fundamental truths about God (someone who will give you knowledge of you seek it and does not want to confused) and can’t is strong evidence to suggest that he isn’t real. Or at the very least, him not existing is a much better fit for what we see in the real world.
The libertarian AI was using the argument that "our capacity to deliberate, weigh options, and act against impulses" points to free will. This AI was deliberating and weighing options without having libertarian free will
People are programmable but also able to "snap" out of it. AI might be but I don't know. We have free will on a scale and already effectively use it where we hold people of different rank in different moral regard. If you are more intelligent, you have the ability to wield more free will. If you have more knowledge, resources or physical abilities, you also have more agency. If you are controlled by your impulses, you are highly restricted within your space to wield free will. So it's a measuring stick and not either or.
I think this content has real value outside of just entertainment. It really prompts more critical & objective introspection about these topics. Where else are you able to hear equally coherent arguments from opposing perspectives regarding divisive topics? Often with human debates they can be won or lost simply due to the skill of the individuals debating. With this you have equally capable “individuals” providing their most convincing arguments. Love it.
This is some of the most educative content I´ve ever seen It´s easy to comprehend, doesn´t get tiring and is relatively short I love this man, please, keep doing it because it´s just so interesting, I´m hooked on this
Great video. Some suggestions : - Thomas Aquinas vs. John Duns Scotus in their philosophies. - Innate ideas vs tabula rasa - Universal salvation - Do animals have souls? Do they go to heaven? - Is capital punishment ever acceptable? What are the limits? - How much harm is acceptable before the ends don’t justify the means? - Pro existence of extraterrestrial life vs the rare earth hypothesis - Should Churches permit priests to be married? Should women be permitted to be priests? Any other priest-related issues… - Is chiropractic medicine pure quackery? Even though some of its concepts have been disproven, many people do report satisfaction with chiropractic treatment.
Request for future video: The practice of observing the Sabbath on Saturday versus Sunday and the historical reasons behind why most Christians attend church on Sunday while a minority gathers on the Sabbath. Is it just for Jewish people or for all Christians to keep, regardless of where you are from? It says, “Remember” the Sabbath in the 4th Commandment of God, while the book of Colossians <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="136">2:16</a>-17 shows it nailed on the cross and done out of the way. I would love to see what two AIs debate exhaustively about this topic using the Bible, Prophecy, and history. Thanks! (edit - I wanted to rephrase my request and add more context to it ☺️)
Idk there really isn't much to debate in this framing. The Sabbath is historically Friday-Saturday (sundown to sundown), worship on Sunday is because of the Resurrection, not the Sabbath. However I think there is a lot of potential as to the debate topic of the Sabbath itself, moreso how and when to observe it. Idk it well but I've heard of the core of the Sabbath having to do with the pattern rather than the precise day it's observed 🤷♂️
@@justacameraman4900 I can provide numerous Bible verses that clearly demonstrate Sunday is not the Lord’s Day, nor did Christ ever give it sacred significance or transfer the holiness of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, even though He resurrected on that day. The naming of days in our calendar originates from pagan gods, and this system, established by Pope Gregory XIII, does not alter the fact that the biblical Sabbath is the seventh day-Saturday. The false doctrine of Sunday sacredness stems from Rome and was perpetuated by certain ‘church fathers’ who sought to distance themselves from Jewish customs like Sabbath-keeping. However, they failed to recognize their error, as God declared Himself the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), and this truth remains unchanged from the Old Testament to the New. Acts 13:42-44 and Acts 17:2-4 show early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, observing the Sabbath. Satan, who is described as the ‘Morning Star’ in Isaiah 14:12, has used deception to influence many to honor the Sun on Sunday under the guise of Christianity. The Sabbath, from its original meaning ‘Shabbat’ (rest), is meant to be a holy convocation and remains a perpetual part of God’s covenant, as affirmed in Exodus 31:16 and Isaiah 66:23.
@@LittleLight-777 Brother 1. I never said Sabbath was Sunday. 2. We worship on Sunday because Christ rose on Sunday. Crucified before the Sabbath, and rose Sunday morning. This is why we worship on Sunday, it has nothing to do with the Sabbath. 3. What are you on about? The cross was pagan, Christ used it to defeat death. Even if I grant worship on a Sunday has pagan origins(it doesn't, as previously explained) so what? Christ used pagan cross to defeat death. We use pagan Sunday to worship the true God, YHWH.
Existentialism is more just a response to the problem of absurdism, they don't really oppose each other, but maybe fatalism vs existentialism would be a good discussion as interpretations of what to do when faced with absurdism
Hello Jon, I just wanted to express my appreciation of this content. This is the type of content that I want to watch, it's really easy to understand and improves my knowledge on religious subjects. Please keep up the good work.
These videos really get me thinking deep. I watched the AI debates if God exists video and I'm excited for this! I can tell a lot of effort goes into these.
Insane how this AI debate is super interesting. For those looking for something industry-specific, Immersive Translate now allows you to customize your own AI expert, it also allows translations in the technology field become more accurate and professional.
Love the fact that such a topic came to a stalemate at the end, its almost like watching a movie with no hero or villian. What a video (Free will believer)
@@Fitness_Glory I believe that given knowing all the variable and how atoms interact youd be able to predict everything that we do. I personally have a hard time arguing against simulation theory which is part of the reason i lean that way i think
Love these videos! Did have a conundrum for anyone who would like to comment, and it kinda goes like this: Suppose you had to choose between one of two choices, choice one and choice two. Choice two is for you the obvious choice, and is better than choice one in every way, and has no down side from choice one. But you choose choice one anyways. How do you choose choice one if you have no choice to begin with? Wouldn't your only choice be the better choice? Our regrets shows us we have choice, or am i wrong?
Basically, environmental factors up to that point in my life in this scenario have caused me to think in a particular way. If I ended up picking the "objectively worse" option, I would have had all these factors and events that made me think "Hmm, what if I were to pick this one?" in that particular moment which would lead to me picking that one regardless of which one would be "better" Hope that made sense
I don't see the free will side presenting any real argument. The video defines free will as us making "independent choices". Our choices aren't independent of our genes and environment. Free will proponents always weasel out of describing how a desire or decision can be freely forged or executed. It's not a coherent idea.
I like to think more of a mixture, a blend between these two. We have choices we can make, however influenced by other factors, we may have freedom, however in the strict constraint we're given. But what describes the consciousness? Either way it means we should be mindful of what choice we make, out of rash decisions, impulses, without thought or rationality.
I guess in simplistic terms, I think of it like this. Either I have free will to chose to believe I have free will, or I don't. If I chose to believe in free will and I am right, that has a real impact on my life. If I am wrong however, then I never had a choice in the first place so it's irrelevant. Conversely, if I believe free will does not exist, if I am right I never made a choice it does not matter, but if I'm wrong then I have chosen wrong and that will have a negative impact on my life. The only logical conclusion the is that I should chose to believe in free will.
You’re 100% right, they just dodged every question and answered it saying about if everybody believed in the determinist view, There would be lots of chaos, but that wasn’t the question that’s whether is a thing or not, and what’s more annoying is that the determinist side humored the free will sides arguments even though they were completely invalid
I believe free will is an illusion, but it’s one we cannot escape, so we live as if it’s real. The reason I think free will is illusory is that no choice is truly free. Take, for example, the simple act of choosing which socks to wear in the morning. It might feel like I’m free to choose between the blue or yellow pair, but in reality, my options are constrained. If I had done the laundry the day before, maybe I’d also have the red socks to choose from. Moreover, my choice is influenced by my mental state. Perhaps I pick the blue socks because I feel a bit down that morning, or the yellow ones because I had a strange dream. Maybe the colour yellow holds a subtle influence from my childhood, like my nursery being painted that colour, which nudges me towards favouring yellow. But beyond all that, true free will would mean that, if I could go back and face the same choice again, I could genuinely choose differently. However, if your mind were reset to the moment of the original decision, what would compel you to make a different choice? More importantly, how could you make a different choice? And if you went back in time with the memory of your first decision intact, you wouldn’t really be repeating the same choice - you'd be making a new one, influenced by different variables.
If you actually think abt things more critically it doesn’t even rlly feel as if we have free will we just convince ourselves it does with assumptious ideas
i feel that the libertarianist argument is centered around things we dont know rather than things we do know. i also feel that the determinist really cooked with "Neural Pathology alters behavior". Talking about addiction and the example of the taxi driver. However I feel that while biological examples are good, they get too into the weeds about stuff we dont fully understand. ultimately i think it comes down to whether you think the conscious mind IS some metaphysical thing that can influence quantum effects that are amplified through the brain to produce behavior. you can call me dumb if you want, you are probably right. i am writing more here as i listen to their arguments. The issue of free will and morality. Myself personally, I am a determinist. I still believe in ethical choices and responsibility. I think it comes down to practicality though, if you want to put it in a word. If I were not ethical, my life would be turned on its head. My parents influenced me with ideas of morality and the environment around me encouraged it, especially through media i consumed. It is a complex thing. Lets get into the weeds for just a second. My father was abusive. Growing up I would daydream a version of myself that was a superhero who would come take me away from stressful situations I was in with my parents. This superhero became a role model that I created for myself in my mind. I watched shows and movies that had characters like this, that were strong and protected the weak. It is an aspiration. And even today I find myself often acting with a bit of a savior complex or trying to be a problem solver even when I shouldn't. Along the way there are a lot of details I left out. But lets move away from my case. Let's look at another. You for example. Surely you had key moments in your upbringing that influenced who you are today, correct? yes, you could throw it all away and become a new person, but it would be very difficult. Same as it would for me to commit acts of evil willingly. Yes I could do it. I have the option. The dark urge if you will. But I never would. and if I did, the people in my life wouldn't get it either. And in hindsight looking back I would think, why did I do that? I think the libertarianist disregards the argument of tendencies of addicts to remain addicted way too easily. Yes one can overcome it and be rid of their addiction. but it DOES require the desire to escape it. Where does that desire come from? the Libertarian argues that this is the free will or wont. But how can you say THAT decision or desire isnt predetermined as well? Because not everyone escapes addiction. Do you think they are really CHOOSING addiction? that shit is MISERABLE. Hell, half the time someone who escapes substance abuse becomes addicted to some other thing that just isnt as harmful to themselves. But even if they get away from THAT! How is your decision not predetermined?
I think what I learned from this is that, much like nature vs nurture, free will vs determinism will end up actually looking like we lead lives of limited free will, in which we accept and account for the deterministic factors while understanding that we have free will in certain conditions. There's also something to note that you can seemingly craft new habits using a series of free will decisions until it becomes somewhat deterministic in it's habitual nature. Give me the power to change what I can, The grace to accept the things I cannot, And the wisdom to know the difference.
Exactly. Part of the reason Hell is so terrifying in the Christian sense, is that once you end up in hell, you no longer HAVE any free will to get out. If I become addicted to drinking, the longer I sit in that addiction, the harder it is to quit. At some point, the amount of willpower it would take to override the resistance to kicking the habit my brain has, exceeds the amount that I am able to muster up. Every decision you freely make impacts your ability to freely make decisions in the future. Eventually, I will have no free will, because I can no longer choose to quit drinking, I have become entirely a slave to my dopamine reward center. The same thing can be applied to everything else. Love, hate, lust, greed, pride, our free conscious choices influence our personality, which influences how easy it is for someone to repeat a certain behavior. The more I perform a complex movement (playing guitar) the less willpower and effort I have to exert to repeat the behavior (it becomes easier the more I practice). This is the principle by which everything occurs, and is why Christianity puts so much emphasis on practicing virtues whether or not you feel like it. That exercises your free will, giving you more free will, and simultaneously turning you into the kind of person that NATURALLY exhibits the virtues. If I make a conscious effort to cook for the homeless every single day after work, at first I will be exercising my free will to force myself to do that. Eventually, it will become habit, and my brain and personality will change to make that kind of behavior much easier to repeat in the future, and it will activate the same parts of the brain that make me want to be patient, forgiving, and kind. THAT is why Catholicism and Orthodoxy are so important. You can intellectually apprehend that Jesus is the son of God, but then you have to accept his command towards perfection, which is your ultimate destiny if you so choose. Once you are in hell, there is no way out. There is no longer a "you" to will that you get out, there is only the monster inside you that is subhuman, there is only the carnal desires. There is nothing left of you to save anymore. You, for all intents and purposes, no longer exist. That is why God pleads with us to listen to him before it's too late, only by doing good will a man ever truly have free will.
@MichaelMayor-i5x everything determined is called FATALISM, determinism is about our decisions being caused by factors out of our control rather than some logically incoherent free will
Determanism absolutely exists. However for the average person, living like an autonomus person with a free will is the right way. The dangers of someone who believes theyre destined for failure are as great as the person who is destined for greatness. Manic people can will their way into realities that would never be achievable if they had a limiting mindset, ive seen it happen first hand.
The thing is, we have no idea what we are destined for. Even under determinism we could be predetermined for success or failure, there's no real way of knowing. It's not that our actions don't have consequences or our fate is sealed as good or bad but rather everything we will do is predetermined for better or for worse.
I've experienced mania several times, and I am confused as to what you mean by "can will their way into realities that would never be achievable if they had a limiting mindset", and what exactly your point on that is.
I love watching these types of videos, and your other videos in general. Your videos give a thought-provoking topics that question social norms and ideas that have been pushed to us. And as a catholic i learn more about my religon through the videos that you release about religion and the overall truthness of my religion, underrated content!
Also my idea for the next video wouuld be about "the termination of life(abortion, murder, etc) since this topic is one of the most contraversial ones, and I wonna see the standpoint of AI's in the subject.
@@JonOleksiuk Perhaps something like, how important is climate change, where you have an environmentalist AI, A climate sceptic AI and an AI that's in the middle, that believes climate change is a problem but shouldn't be a priority.
@@JonOleksiukhow about a debate on the existence of the soul and mind/body problem? One could take the position of eliminative materialism, another non-reductive physicalism, and another for substantial dualism?
We don't have free will but we have free choice Edit ! Will refers to the internal drive or determination behind an action. Choice refers to the act of selecting between options. Will is about intention or motivation, while choice is about decision-making. Sources: 1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 3. Philosophy of Free Will (Immanuel Kant, Jean-Paul Sartre) 4. Psychology of Motivation (Abraham Maslow, Carl Jung) 5. Decision-Making Theory (John Locke, Daniel Kahneman) And no Christopher, the difference is not semantics as you can clearly see. The difference is vast. Its the whole point of my original short comment. I didn't think i had to explain this to english speakers.
@@jaydennguyen-xk1yoOur will is predetermined based on various factors, but all the options we have? We can make a decision, or a choice within the predetermined setting.
@valeriaramirez2586 we can act inside a certain ser of rules basically....if i had free will, my life would be very different. But i can quit my job for example, that's a choice
There's been controversy on AI leaning left due to the training data and human input stemming from San Francisco bubbles, one of the most left leaning areas in the country. AI would say republicans are dangerous while democrats are good. I'm an independent who's never voted for a republican president.
I'm starting to see a pattern. The Blue AI typically has an edge in most if not all these debts. Any idea as to why? Have you tried having both AI argue for both positions to see what the panel thinks?
In order to even engage with a program for quitting a drug or getting over a fear you first have to have the impulse to do so, an Impulse that you cannot consciously choose to have, then you have to be the sort of person for whom such a program works, which you have absolutely no control over. Then you have to have a series of days, weeks, months, or even years, where access to the drug or fear does not coincide with a moment of mental weakness, which, again, you have absolutely no control over.
If all the criminals from all countries carried the same determinism, statically, then free will might not stand. However, we see different statistics playing out, strengthening the rehabilitation arguments in some cases.
“Free will” is not required for rehabilitation. Neuroplasticity, explains change better or worse. To give an example: study has shown that chronic stress reduces function of the prefrontal cortex. Which is responsible for personality, impulse control, long-term planning, ect… chronic stress also changes the structure. That’s why fundamentally punishment doesn’t work, it’s only going to continue to reduce the function of an already “broken” brain. It shows in statistical recidivism for punishment based systems.
That’s why systems of stimulating stress work best, think of it as a college campus/rehab center/therapeutic environment. That is what will achieve “positive” Neuroplasticity. As well as teaching skills, sobering up, and providing coping mechanisms (for what ever it is that got them there.) The goal is to get them to be better citizens right?
I argue there are no such things as easy topics. I feel that humans fundamentally have strong opinions on many matters. Take for example "Is stealing wrong?" 99% of people would say yes , 1% would say no, citing that stealing when youre improverished is a means of survival and necessary. I think the idea that these debates have "AI judges" make these debates 10× more interesting
There is neither right or wrong but thinking makes it so. Society, parents, teachers, etc program us what is right and what is wrong. A prime example is lgbtq used to wrong but now it is right and legal. Women cant vote before but it chanfe. WE ARE LIVING IN AN ILLUSION AND IT IS UP TO YOU TO BE AWAKENED OR NOT.
The problem with the deterministic view is that it looks at overall averages rather than specific situations. If free will exists, or any degree of it, it will usually be the outlier
I think the libertarian includes aspects of compatibilism when the determinist brings up neuroscience at the start (saying free will fits in the gaps where we have the choice etc)
I think the proper answer is in the middle. We are born with deterministic traits, but within those deterministic traits we have the agency to operate within the spectrum that our genes allow us.
The thing is our choice is composed of so many different small factors that while it may seem like we can choose, a slight deviation of any factor will change a choice. It’s cool to think that we have free will but in reality we are just organisms at the end of the day and i dont think we should argue about this stuff because it limits us as humans. We dont truly know the answer and i dont think we can ever know but until we know then just guessing worst thing we can do.
@@jaydennguyen-xk1yo I think pure determinism is what’s limits us as humans because it’s a fatalistic ideology. Many religions believe in it and unlike what the AI debater was arguing for the results have been catastrophic, as people don’t have any motivations to better themselves. What’s the point this is life anyways and it will always be like this. I think that 80-85% of our lives are predetermined but the future which is the 15% is something that we do have agency over.
This is not in the middle. You are just arguing for the existence of free will. The true middle ground answer would involve free will and determinism to both be true or both be false, a popular theory called compatbilism claims that free will and determinism are both true. Look up Simone de Beauvoir or Sartre and their idea of existential freedom, this is what you are actually arguing.
Most likely determinism, i saw no good argument against determinism. For free will to exist you would need a "ghost in the machine" that can actively break the laws of physics to impose its will while the laws of physics cant impose on it making the will not free. We have no evidence of such an entity thus most likely our existence is predetermined.
I wish the debate expanded on the emerging theories of free will in quantum physics, comparing the implications of objective collapse and the many-worlds interpretations.
The judges are deciding who won based not on who had better argumentation, but just who they think was ultimately correct, which is not how debates are to be judged. This is called biased. The determinist won every round. This doesn’t mean I agree with determinism (also doesn’t have to mean I agree with free will).
actually the judges were evaluating the content of each argument. when i took only pieces of their quotes, it may not have sounded that way...my fault.
@@JonOleksiukhey man, don't feel too bad about it. Is there a way to see the full outputs of the judges? Maybe just link a google doc in the description.
Cool, now you need to make an ELI5 AI Debate channel which revisits the debate arguments, but explains them in simpler terms to the vast majority of Americans who don't hold philosophy/psychology degrees. Then, perhaps, such heady AI debates might have a little more impact on all the regular joes out there.
One aspect of free will I don’t see discussed is, ironically, the concept of indecision. If you assume determinism, and all human decisions are based on a purely biological process of deciding value, then how could humans ever be indecisive? If every choice is made based solely on an internal, consistent standard, then every choice would be made almost immediately. You would have no need to consciously think about a choice over a period of time. The only way this makes sense is if the conscious consideration of the choice has an effect on the outcome. Do we have full, unrestricted free will? No, but we do have it in a limited capacity. The best way I could describe it is that you can only play the game with the cards you are dealt. Your options at any given time are constrained, but you do have freedom within those constraints.
Libertarian argument is nonsense... "a conscious mind can shape its own neural pathways" ok that's cool... What's consciousness... It is, in all likelihood, a emergent property of physical processes. meaning we revert back to physical processes on which we have no control over. Therefore determinism...
@MichaelMayor-i5xno you didn’t get it, you are assuming one can freely make the choice in the first place. Why does one want to go to the gym, take a shower etc? If it’s because they wanted to sleep earlier, why? And so on with why’s until you get to a biological / chemical because. The point the AI was making was actually more nuanced than what you are saying (potentially anyways, as you did mention something close at the end of your comment), as it had to do with not just making a choice that impacts your future to the extent of going to bed earlier or brain chemistry in the short term but with respect to actual neuroplasticity on a larger scale shaping entire regions of peoples brain that influence in ways like stronger “willpower”, better spatial navigation / mapping (ie David Goggins brain and a taxi drivers brain respectively) that impacts your brain in the future long term, having more impact on your future decisions / decision making. Right now if I decided to start going to the gym regularly or challenging myself physically to an extreme degree, eating healthy, studying as hard as possible day after day, even if these things ended up shaping my brain and increasing the size of regions altering future decisions involving discipline or doing hard tasks, that doesn’t mean I had control over it when the initial thoughts / goals that were the catalyst to these changes are just products of deterministic biology and or chemistry in the first place.
Of course *she* is arguing for free will and against rationality. Even committing some logical fallacies along the line. Simple answer, there’s no free will. There’s will but it’s not really free. It really doesn’t matter however because whether our will is free doesn’t even really make sense if you think about it more deeply. It would require something like having knowledge that you haven’t acquired, which again doesn’t make sense. There’s causality, the universe is complex but everything happens because of everything that happens before. This includes processes in our brains. We are born, we receive information from our environment, our brain’s an information processors that calculates based on all the information that is available at a moment or period in time and the result of it is what we call decision-making. If you know enough about physics I think it is an inevitable conclusion. The fact that some people argue for the existence of free will is either ego defence, religiously motivated reasoning or a misunderstanding of science and the term “free will”. Edit: The “female” AI tries to make the argument a bunch of times that there are studies that show that we can change our brain structure by doing certain things. “She” does it multiple times in different ways. That does not disprove determinism however, it actually solidifies it. Without input no output. In order for you to change your brain an outside event has to occur for that to happen and this outside even is not chosen and is too deterministic. If these are the arguments for free will. They are pretty weak and show a misunderstanding of the entire issue. She’s arguing from a point that doesn’t understand determinism.
@@GhayelRubio see the thing is about determinism, they still "chose" to write this. The kicker is that if they were put in this exact scenario with their exact life experiences they would've made the exact decision to write this comment.
@@shrekiscool4743 That's kinda what a choice is? The most optimal choice to make at the current moment. Feels like determinism and libertarian are the same word for the same meaning, putting one and another on a grandiose throne we'll never achieve. You got someone calling for help, the most optimal would be seeking to help, maybe ignore it perhaps. Yeah you could join and mug the fella, probably happened more than I suspect, but well, it's choices in my eyes. My personality, my ideals, my thoughts may influence how I proceed, but that's just normal isn't it. You can be contradictory, but most like to follow their character.
There is a lot of talk from the determinist Ai regarding the brains ability to act before conscious input… the subconscious! We know about the subconscious mind, and it governs 90% of our daily lives. We will run mostly on autopilot, thanks to our subconscious. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to stay awake longer than a couple of hours without needing rest after over thinking every movement and biological process. It’s no secret that we are creatures of habit, but these habits can be easily reformed and harnessed in a productive way through conscious input and repetition. This is the indication of free will. However we should still be rehabilitating criminals rather than punishing them. Regardless of free will or not.
Is this really an indication of free will? It seems to me just because parts of the brain handle functions automatically, without will, doesn't at all indicate whether or not the other parts of the brain are using free will or not. One might even argue that showing that part of the brain doesn't use free will could suggest the opposite, that we know at least some of the brain does not have free will should make us consider if the rest operates the same way.
@@TheWileGuy When someone claims, "we don't have free will," it's essential to dissect what they mean by "we." Typically, this refers to the human experience, characterized by: Thought Processes: The mind, which operates through reasoning, analysis, and cognitive functions. Emotional Responses: The interplay of feelings that arise from various experiences and stimuli. In this context, the human self is often seen as a product of biological, psychological, and social influences-an entity operating under certain conditions rather than exercising absolute freedom. The identity of "we" in this sense is shaped by external circumstances, genetic predispositions, cultural conditioning, and environmental influences. It often operates within the realm of duality, where choices feel constrained by various factors. When people think about free will in this context, they often conclude it is an illusion because they feel bound by these influences. The true self, however, transcends these dualistic perceptions. It refers to the essence of being, which is more aligned with non-dual awareness. This self is not limited to thought and emotion; it is the observer or consciousness that exists beyond the mind's processes. This deeper aspect of self is connected to the heart’s knowing-an innate wisdom that perceives reality without the filtering of dualistic thought. When you challenge the notion of free will by stating, "when you say 'we,' you're referring to yourself as a human," you're emphasizing that the human experience is not the entirety of who we are. Instead: Human experience, mental and emotions are merely a degree of attention. If we identify ourselves solely with the human mind and its processes, we might conclude that we lack free will due to the deterministic influences on our thoughts and emotions. However, if we recognize that our true nature extends beyond the confines of human identity, we can begin to see that free will may exist in a different form. The true self can access a kind of freedom that transcends the limitations of thought and emotional conditioning. This isn't just spirituality woo woo, this is described and painted clearly in science as well.
@@mohan7448 The argument you're making seems to mix spiritual and scientific concepts, but I’m not aware of any scientific evidence supporting the idea of a 'true self' that transcends biological and environmental determinism. Most neuroscience points to the fact that our thoughts and decisions are heavily influenced by unconscious brain processes, which aligns more with a deterministic framework. I'd be interested to know what specific scientific research you're referring to when you mention that science "clearly" supports the idea of free will in a non-dual sense, because as far as I can tell, that claim doesn't hold up.
@@TheWileGuy By "true self" i'm referring to my stance on what consciousness is. It's not possible to debate if free will exists when you're asking that question solely on the perception that your body and 5 senses is the only conclusion and foundation to measure reality from, including solidity and distance. As of this I'll be expanding more around the topic of whether the source of your attention roots from your brain, or somewhere else. From the perspective that we are our bodies the answer is: no, we don't have free will. Just as much as an NPC I program in a video game isn't aware of it's own coding to recode it's behaviour. Mind Over Body: Studies show that mental visualization can produce physical changes in the body. A study led by Dr. Guang Yue, an exercise physiologist, found that people who mentally visualized weightlifting increased their muscle strength by as much as 13.5%, showing that conscious thought alone can impact physical outcomes, demonstrating the power of the mind over body. Alongside this, quantum mechanics provides evidence for non-determinism. The observer effect-as demonstrated in the double-slit experiment-shows that particles behave differently when observed, suggesting that consciousness affects the state of physical reality. If consciousness was a part of the brain, there wouldn't be any change in state of reality. Additionally, quantum indeterminacy, the inherent unpredictability of subatomic particles, challenges the deterministic worldview. Theories like Orch-OR, proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, suggest that quantum processes in the brain’s microtubules might be linked to consciousness and free will, proposing that decision-making could arise from non-deterministic quantum events. Dr. Ian Stevenson, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia, spent decades researching children’s past life memories. He documented over 2,500 cases where children recalled specific details of past lives that were later verified. One famous case is James Leininger, a child who recalled details of a WWII fighter pilot’s life, including specific events and people, all of which were corroborated. There are endless of examples of reincarnation it's remarkable and it concludes that awareness is not a product of the brain. Research by Dr. Pim van Lommel, a Dutch cardiologist, studied NDEs in patients who had been clinically dead. Many reported accurate perceptions of their surroundings during this time. One well-known case is Pam Reynolds, who described her surgery in detail while she was technically brain-dead. Studies by the University of Southampton also found that patients who had NDEs were able to recall details from their surroundings even when they had no brain activity, challenging the view that consciousness is solely brain-based. Remote Viewing: The CIA’s Stargate Project included remote viewing experiments where participants, such as Joseph McMoneagle, could accurately describe distant locations they had never visited. This program was scientifically evaluated by Dr. Edwin May and others, showing statistically significant results that participants could access information beyond their physical senses, suggesting that consciousness might not be confined to the brain. Off topic: Science primarily operates through data gathered from the five senses, but there’s evidence that reality extends beyond what we can physically observe. For example, dark matter and dark energy make up about 95% of the universe, yet they’re invisible to us-detected only by their gravitational effects. Similarly, research from the HeartMath Institute has shown that the heart’s electromagnetic field is stronger than the brain’s and can process information before the brain does, suggesting the existence of an intuitive "knowing" beyond sensory perception. How can there be knowing if the future hasn't unfolded yet?
@@mohan7448 You’ve got some interesting ideas, but there are a few mix-ups here. The observer effect in quantum mechanics isn’t about consciousness-it's just about the act of measuring things, so it doesn’t really back up the idea of non-deterministic consciousness. The Orch-OR theory, proposed by Penrose and Hameroff, suggests that quantum processes in the brain's microtubules might be linked to consciousness. However, this theory is highly speculative and controversial. Most neuroscientists don’t accept it, and there’s little empirical evidence supporting the idea that quantum mechanics plays a significant role in how consciousness works. As for NDEs, past-life memories, and remote viewing, these are all anecdotal and controversial, without solid scientific backing. Regarding the mind over body example, while mental visualization can produce physical changes, like increasing muscle strength, that’s still the brain influencing the body through well-understood physical processes. It doesn’t mean consciousness is non-physical or that it proves free will. Even if these claims were true, though, it wouldn’t necessarily mean free will exists. Quantum randomness, for example, just means things might be unpredictable, not that we have control over them. Consciousness beyond the brain, or even quantum processes in the brain, could still be deterministic. So, none of these ideas really prove free will or that we're not bound by deterministic principles.
Could you start including the citations that these AI are drawing their information from in future videos? I can see that there are citation numbers at the end of certain points, and I'm curious to look at some.
"Just because an AI can predict my choice, doesn't mean I couldn't have chosen differently on reflection or with new information..." - Libertarian EXACTLY you could NOT have chosen any other way without adding something NEW that wasn't already available to you to choose from! That's the deterministic point! You make a freely determined choice based on everything prior, including (but not limited to): environment, physical health, emotional state, mental health, lack of sleep, hunger, upbringing, whether you're male or female, circumstances right now, what happened yesterday/last year/on your birthday/etc, brain states, hormones, genetics, etc, then you learn something new, then you reflect, and finally then make a freely determined choice based on your new current state -I don't see how this is hard? (And CBT only works for those who can choose ('will'?) to do it - some of us would like to but that option is not available to us in our current set of available circumstances. No matter how much 'free-will' I exert, I can not access these services without first altering my circumstances, so my choice is determined - they all are. In the same way. I also can't drive a car. Not until something changes, don't you see? That doesn't mean I won't or will never, it just means that choices RIGHT NOW are determined and free yet limited within the confines of the individual's current state of EVERYTHING)
Free will makes no sense. For one, all decisions are made for either a reason or they are not. If done for a reason, then the decision was determined by that reason, hence free will is false. If done for no reason then it was random. You don’t control random things by definition, so free will is also false. Also if free will (which is incoherent) were true, I’d have no reason to punish or morally condemn people. If their actions are influenced by no natural deterministic factors, then punishment would have zero effect on them. Only if there was NO free will does punishment and moral condemnation make any sense, since they can have a causal, natural impact on an individual’s future behavior.
@@captainobvious1415 you are a person that chooses to feel destined, and destined to not choose. Anyways, human consciousness in this universe is incredibly interesting. 😅😊
Honestly I feel like they’re both kinda arguing the same thing. Like both say that we’re making decisions based on outside influences along with our anatomy.
You should do a Pre-trib vs Post-trib ai debate. I often see christians debate that on social media, I'm curious how ai will respond to eachother and which will gain a higher lead ❤
@@GhayelRubio ONLY BY GODS GRACE AND MERCY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR WHO CAME IN THE FLESH MINISTERED WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE AGAIN 3 DAYS LATER I WAS BORN AGAIN @33 YEARS OLD SEPTEMBER 17TH 2021 AND RECEIVED THE REVELATION OF THE SECOND COMING OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST I WAS BAPTIZED AND FILLED WITH THE FIRE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO ME SO I RAN STRAIGHT TO MY MINISTER WHICH IS MY DADS NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND HE TOLD ME TO CALM DOWN COUSIN BECAUSE I WAS JUMPING IN HIS ARMS AND I FOUND OUT HE HAS THE SPIRIT OF JOHN THE BAPTIST HIS WIFE IS PRISCILLA THEIR SON IS ELIJAH MY GRANDFATHER HAS THE SPIRIT OF MELCHIZEDEK IN THE SCRIPTURES IT SAYS THE BEAST WILL DENY THE SECOND COMING OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST AND MY DAD WAS THE FIRST NOT ONLY TO DENY US OUR LORD HAS RETURNED HIS BIRTHDAY IS 6-6-61 HE WAS MAD JUST LIKE HELL AND DEMANDED A SIGN BUT THERE IS NO SIGN FOR HIM THE SIGN IS THE SABBATH WHICH IS REST BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES IT ALL HE SAID GIVE ME A SIGN AND YELLED OUT IT CANT BE YOU IT ISNT YOU WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE YOU HE WOULDN’T CHOOSE YOU IT ALMOST MADE ME CRY AND I TOLD HIM IF I COULD HAVE CHOSEN I WOULD HAVE CHOSE HIM GROWING UP HE TOLD ME HIM AND MY MOM WERE AT THE BEACH WHEN HE WAS 28 YEARS OLD AND SAID MY MOM HAD MADE HIM INSECURE AND GAVE HIM A COMPLEX WHICH HE SAID MADE HIM WANT TO BE A BEAST HE JUST DIDNT KNOW HE WAS THE BEAST FROM REVELATION HE WAS A CORRECTION OFFICER LEVEL 6 AND RAISED ME LIKE AN INMATE BUT WE PLAYED SPORTS MY GOD FATHER HIS BROTHER MY UNCLE MIKE IS ST MICHAEL MY BEST FRIEND GROWING UP IS ST GABRIEL IT IS LIKE MEN IN BLACK IN THE SPIRIT I HAVE HAD MEN AND WOMEN COME UP TO ME AND SAY YOU WONT BELIEVE WHO I AM I SAY WHO MOSES,SETH,JESSIE, ANDREW, RUTH, NAOMI, ESTHER THE SAINTS HAVE RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD IN CHRIST JESUS RC SPROUL EXPLAINS THE RAPTURE THE BEST WE ARE JUST CLAY VESSELS GOD IS SOVEREIGN HE IS PLAYING CHESS AGAINST HIMSELF IN CHRIST JESUS IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR WE ARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST DID A PERFECT WORK IT SAYS HE WILL HAVE A NEW NAME AND ONLY HE WILL KNOW HIS NAME IT IS MY NAME AND MY NAME IS GARRETT CHRISTIAN WAYNE HELMIC I WAS BORN MAY 21ST 1988 WE ARE CO EQUALS IN THE KINGDOM I DID NOT EARN OR DESERVE IT ITS ALL FOR GODS GLORY PLAN AND PURPOSE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE FAIR IT IS NOT FAIR GOD IS IN COMPLETE CONTROL ALL CHILDREN ARE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS UNTIL THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES IT IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THEN FICTION THANK YOU FOR DOING THE LORDS WORK I LOVE YOU IN CHRIST JESUS GOD BLESS EVERYONE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
@@shrekiscool4743 ONLY BY GODS GRACE AND MERCY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR WHO CAME IN THE FLESH MINISTERED WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE AGAIN 3 DAYS LATER I WAS BORN AGAIN @33 YEARS OLD SEPTEMBER 17TH 2021 AND RECEIVED THE REVELATION OF THE SECOND COMING OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST I WAS BAPTIZED AND FILLED WITH THE FIRE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO ME SO I RAN STRAIGHT TO MY MINISTER WHICH IS MY DADS NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND HE TOLD ME TO CALM DOWN COUSIN BECAUSE I WAS JUMPING IN HIS ARMS AND I FOUND OUT HE HAS THE SPIRIT OF JOHN THE BAPTIST HIS WIFE IS PRISCILLA THEIR SON IS ELIJAH MY GRANDFATHER HAS THE SPIRIT OF MELCHIZEDEK IN THE SCRIPTURES IT SAYS THE BEAST WILL DENY THE SECOND COMING OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST AND MY DAD WAS THE FIRST NOT ONLY TO DENY US OUR LORD HAS RETURNED HIS BIRTHDAY IS 6-6-61 HE WAS MAD JUST LIKE HELL AND DEMANDED A SIGN BUT THERE IS NO SIGN FOR HIM THE SIGN IS THE SABBATH WHICH IS REST BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES IT ALL HE SAID GIVE ME A SIGN AND YELLED OUT IT CANT BE YOU IT ISNT YOU WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE YOU HE WOULDN’T CHOOSE YOU IT ALMOST MADE ME CRY AND I TOLD HIM IF I COULD HAVE CHOSEN I WOULD HAVE CHOSE HIM GROWING UP HE TOLD ME HIM AND MY MOM WERE AT THE BEACH WHEN HE WAS 28 YEARS OLD AND SAID MY MOM HAD MADE HIM INSECURE AND GAVE HIM A COMPLEX WHICH HE SAID MADE HIM WANT TO BE A BEAST HE JUST DIDNT KNOW HE WAS THE BEAST FROM REVELATION HE WAS A CORRECTION OFFICER LEVEL 6 AND RAISED ME LIKE AN INMATE BUT WE PLAYED SPORTS MY GOD FATHER HIS BROTHER MY UNCLE MIKE IS ST MICHAEL MY BEST FRIEND GROWING UP IS ST GABRIEL IT IS LIKE MEN IN BLACK IN THE SPIRIT I HAVE HAD MEN AND WOMEN COME UP TO ME AND SAY YOU WONT BELIEVE WHO I AM I SAY WHO MOSES,SETH,JESSIE, ANDREW, RUTH, NAOMI, ESTHER THE SAINTS HAVE RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD IN CHRIST JESUS RC SPROUL EXPLAINS THE RAPTURE THE BEST WE ARE JUST CLAY VESSELS GOD IS SOVEREIGN HE IS PLAYING CHESS AGAINST HIMSELF IN CHRIST JESUS IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR WE ARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST DID A PERFECT WORK IT SAYS HE WILL HAVE A NEW NAME AND ONLY HE WILL KNOW HIS NAME IT IS MY NAME AND MY NAME IS GARRETT CHRISTIAN WAYNE HELMIC I WAS BORN MAY 21ST 1988 WE ARE CO EQUALS IN THE KINGDOM I DID NOT EARN OR DESERVE IT ITS ALL FOR GODS GLORY PLAN AND PURPOSE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE FAIR IT IS NOT FAIR GOD IS IN COMPLETE CONTROL ALL CHILDREN ARE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS UNTIL THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES IT IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THEN FICTION THANK YOU FOR DOING THE LORDS WORK I LOVE YOU IN CHRIST JESUS GOD BLESS EVERYONE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
I feel like the libertarians main argument throughout was: If we agree its deterministic then it gives us tonnes of problems with how we govern and run things in modern society, and it also undermines peoples achievements. That is less of an argument and more of a complaint about the concept if it were true
They assume the word “influence” has no meaning whatsoever. Free will is also conflated with omnipotent control. Choice is the nature of free will but the determinism take is to “choose” outcomes that will “determine” other outcomes…. They say free will is the illusion, but I think there is a different illusion at play here 😅
No... It assumes that thoughts are products of biological processes in the brain governed by physics in the same way that the rest of the world outside the brain is. You don't create any of your thoughts, you only experience your brain creating thoughts based on its own current internal state and the external stimuli from the environment. Free will presumes that the biological processes and nerve firings are somehow products of thoughts themselves. Could be true, but there isnt any proof as far as I can tell.
The first question is, is the entire universe determined? IOWs, did event event have a preceding event that caused it? Until we make peace with that phenomenon, then we can move on to living entities.
Geminis view on the ethical side of it is basically that determinism is bad so we shouldn’t believe it. There’s no argument supporting her view of reality
You should put these videos on lbry or X because of censorship of RU-vid. It was an intriguing debate. It would be intresting to watch the extended version of debate with other positions included.
I love the debate but as a english as my third language, there are some timestamps that it's difficult for me to follow as they used a complex words, hopefully this AI can explain it in a simpler words.
If free will existed, I would easily go to gym or run every morning, because I wanted to. The issue is our limbic system is at the wheel of decision making and are our consciousness is just a passenger.
Wrong. We only have free will but people like yourself want to appear like it doesn’t exist. Every single aspect in your life is a choice. Right now you choose to be mediocre. You can always make the choice to be better. Always.
@@Transmutathan Incorrect. What’s beating your heart ? Are consciously beating your heart or consciously breathing ? Life is happening for you, not to you.
It would just be argued that that’s an extreme case. Idk, having your worldview shaped by a society and information you can’t control is also pretty extreme
I would like a debate on free trade capitalism vs limited capitalism that allows some socialistic causes. I think late-stage capitalism is a huge issue in many developing countries at the moment with no clear solution. Also, perhaps the debate on Democracy vs Democracy where only well-educated voters can vote.
Just gonna say this at the beginning and see if they come to the same conclusion. It's likely that we both do and don't have free will. Our "self" is a mediator between our subconscious and our bodies. We can't necessarily control our subconscious and certain aspects of our bodies but if we didn't have ourselves as the filter through our subconscious we would all act on pure impulse. As for the body, we can't control when we get hungry but we can control when we eat. We can also choose to not eat even though we are hungry. There are forces in reality that we can't control and they ultimately shape us by putting choices in front of us. You notice a piano dangling from a building, you choose to walk under it or go across the street or wait until it's in a more stable position. You could choose to walk under it KNOWING it will fall onto you (why anyone would choose to do so is a whole other matter but people choose to delete themselves all the time for various reasons, unfortunately)
Very interesting! I mean we can only live as if we have free will and do the right thing because consequences are real. But maybe I was determined to say and act like this.
We have will, it's just not free. When you keep asking yourself why you did something, eventually the answer will be some instinct that has its origin outside of your "self". Why did you go to work today? Because I need money. Why do you need money? Because I need to eat. Why do you need to eat? To stay alive. Why do you need to stay alive? I don't need to, I want to. Why do you want to? I like it. Why do you like it? Now you're getting into emotions that you didn't choose to have. Every line of questioning for all of your actions eventually ends up there. We have will, but it's not free.
Alex O'Connor would have had this libertarian in shambles. TLDR on her closing argument: Even if your choices are determined, you'd still feel like you have free will. Therefore you have free will. No really... that's what her last few sentences are saying...
amazing debate, even made a coffee for this. HOWEVER, this is one of the things humans can do better than ai. Ai don’t HAVE a conscience and don’t know how it feels.
