Daniel Dennett - Philosophy of Free Will 

Suppose there is a god that fated everything to turn out according to a predetermined plan. What better way to do that, than by creating a world with deterministic physical processes such that the outcome would inevitably be according to that plan? So a deterministic universe is entirely consistent with theological predeterminism.

@@simonhibbs887 Logically possible, but I don't believe it. What would your life be like if you actually fully believed that everything is predetermined? Most people including myself will never believe that everything has been predetermined.

@@Resmith18SRThats fair enough, but it’s a fact that determinism is not exclusively an atheist or even physicalist position. It’s mainstream theology in Islam for example. Paul writes about predestination. What would life be like? What would it be like if our personal mental processes, our preferences, desires, fears, experiences, skills and other mental faculties that make us who we are were not reliable persistent features, and did not determine our choices. I do believe we have the capacity for change, that goes along with being changeable physical beings. Nevertheless for us to change from one state to another, we must have a state at any given time.

@@simonhibbs887 We make choices in life and we believe that most of our actions we could have done otherwise and therefore we are responsible for our behavior. Of course we have a capacity for change and most of us feel that the belief we can change is what makes our lives meaningful.

That's your problem... it's all emotions with people like you. Determined and predetermined are the same but you try to save your psyche with mental gymnastics and false dichotomies.

The physicalist argument is that culture is the result of bottom-up causation, so can't be considered an indeterminate input.

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, I can see that. Relates to "emergence" with the physicalist narrative in systems theory, which I've always regarded as problematic because of entropy.

@@TheTroofSayerThe second law of thermodynamics is deterministic, and the evolution of the entropy of a system is described deterministically.

It's a block universe, whatcha gonna do?

They came close but copped out with the last episode.

imagine getting your philosophy from tv

We don't have free will, but it feels like we do. Ergo we don't have a choice as humans that we experience guilt or pride. We feel like we make mistakes. Take away the humanness of feeling free will, and you basically loose all emotions and feel forced to do everything. You wouldn't believe in mistakes or feel like you can and have done anything wrong. So blaming someone or praising them wouldn't exist.

Neither are free

@@gooner173 what do you mean?

​@@gooner173indeed. A penny for your thoughts.

I don’t think Dennett and Sapolsky materially differ on what determinism means. That is, they both agree what current physics has to say, and they agree on how that affects their thinking on how humans make decisions. The only real difference between hard determinists and compatibilist is in their preferred terminology. Hard determinists give the term ‘free will’ to the libertarian free will people, they don’t contest the definition and say we don’t have it. Compatibilists like Dennett aren’t willing to do that, they want the term free will to express something that both hard determinists and Compatibilists agree exists, which is individual autonomy of action. They want free will to have a definition they think is coherent, and not stand for something they don’t think exists. On the relationship of determinism to physics, technically it’s not necessarily linked to current physics. In theory you could be a dualist and a determinist, and many panpsychists are determinists. It just means you think outcomes in the world, including human decisions, are the result of prior conditions. Quantum mechanics counts because it describes evolutions of the wave function of physical states, and the wave function evolves deterministically. We do observe stochastic distributions of measurements, but they still conform to the wave function distribution. This isn’t contended by libertarian free will philosophers because firstly the apparent randomness in QM may be illusory if e.g. superdeterminism is true, and anyway they think choices are neither an inevitable result of prior conditions, nor random.

" I didn't like it so I went to therapy" ..well thats free will ...

@@francesco5581Is going to therapy free will? I was a therapist's dream and made a great deal of progress however, as hard as I worked for 50 years in therapy and other groups, I was not able to get to the unconscious where the core problems were. So for 50 years I have attracted narcissists, alcoholics and drug addicts and it inevitably destroyed my life. So where it counts, I did not have free will. The behavioral work that most therapists do is fine for bandaid therapy or where you have tools to help socially but doesn't cure the problem. Most people don't want to go deeper than the behavioral anyway because the work is too hard.

@@francesco5581 Consciously it does feel like free will. Now it is clear to me that the conscious mind is basically an illusion while the unconscious mind rules what we do. It really isn't even that hard to figure that out. The mind is much more complicated than we are led to believe by our conscious mind.

@@francesco5581 You would think that was free will but the conscious mind is merely an illusion. The unconscious mind is what drives who we are and what we do. It is uncanny and easily proved. I did 50 years of therapy and groups on and off and the major core issues that I was unable to reach until now, were what determined my fate. It is actually very disappointing that I couldn't change my fate.

@@sallydr or you didnt had the strength to change it ...

Consciousness and volition are complex behaviours, so I don’t think it’s feasible to define an exact cutoff in when someone is able to weigh options rationally and is not able to do so. From a practical pointing view medically and socially we perform various tests to evaluate a persons capacity to make practical decisions enabling them to function independently or safely in society. If someone fails these tests that doesn’t necessarily mean they are completely incapable of rationality at all.

The whole.

It's tragic people do completely agree with you when it pertains to schizophrenia. He suddenly received voices, like anyone could overcome. The voices told him that he couldn't trust anybody and it he undertook an action. People wouldn't blame him, they wouldn't mention responsibility and blame. And if people are of the opinion he was the victim of what happened to him, it's strange how can be completely believers in free will, but suddenly realise there are exceptions. In the theory of evolution somehow suddenly "humans" received free will apparently, without a useful reason for survival. Cause the same people think a bee doesn't have the free will to make honey.

Who we are is shaped by external factors, nevertheless we are this person. Whether we are created by an act of god, or the processes of physics, we are not self created beings. When we act, no external factor is there performing the action. We are there, and we act.

Well, external factors are performing the action in the sense that our actions are direct consequences of them. I don't know what you're saying here, are you agreeing or disagreeing?@@simonhibbs887

Well, the external factors are present when we act, in the sense that our actions are a direct consequence of them. I don't know what you're saying here, are you agreeing or disagreeing?@@simonhibbs887

If you choose to perform an action, you do so because of thoughts you had, and that thought was ultimately determined by external factors.

Keep looking in to Dennett. So many people are confused by some basic intuitions. He's getting under those intuitions to show why they are untenable or lead to common errors. He's right 🙂

It’s the view that later physical states are determined by prior physical states, following the laws of physics and that includes human decisions and actions. Quantum mechanics counts, because later evolutions of the wave function are determined by past states of the wave function, determining the distribution of measurements. Libertarian free will says that human choices are neither determined by prior causes, nor random.

For free will to exist we have to believe that our conscious thoughts are complete reality. The conscious mind is mostly an illusion and the unconscious mind is what is really makes the decisions.

How can you have an infinite number of decisions, with a finite number of atoms?

​@@dr_shrinker It's Euclid's "The whole is greater than the part". If a set A is a subset of B (every element of A also exists in B, but B has additional elements), then it seems like A should be smaller than B, as you alluded. For example, the set of even numbers E = {0, 2, 4, 6, …} is a subset of the natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, …}, so it seems like the set E would be half the size of N. But in fact, the sets are the same size because each number n in E can be assigned to exactly one number in N (0 → 0, 2 → 1, 4 → 2, …, n → n/2, …), this is true even in applied math and computing, not merely theory. Because any set X that has the same size as N is considered cardinal or "countable" (denoted N_0), for every cardinal N_n, there is a next larger cardinal N_n+1. However, the set of real numbers R is only as large as the power set of N. Therefore, an infinite number of values can be applied in a finite system of values. Layman's example: Imagine every atom in a finite universe had a numeric id written on it, and you were asked to decide what your favorite number is. The chances that you would pick a number that's written on an atom somewhere in the universe is very high, because there are so many atoms, each one having a unique number. However, you could still imagine numbers that aren't written on any atom, no matter how many there are. So you aren't limited by the number of atoms in the universe, whatever that number is, you can always imagine that number + 1, ad infinitum. There's an infinite number of decisions you could make about what your favorite number is.

Enabled by physics.

@@simonhibbs887 if you want to look at it that way, sure. You're optimism is commendable...I just wish I could fly.

How is whether our choices hindered or enabled by material determinants make our moral decisions and choices less real or relevant? Are you denying that there is such a thing as morality, ethics, or a reason to not believe that you are morally responsible for your behavior?

​@@Resmith18SR I make no claims about morality. I will ask this.... Is it the dog's fault if it is rabid? And, what do we do to rabid dogs? -- we deal with the threat.

@@dr_shrinker You're comparing a dog with a human being? Dogs are not moral beings and can't be blamed for anything they do. Of course humans in order to stop the spread of rabies or any other serious infectious disease put a stop to it.

It took me a while to get my head around the concept of dialectic, and I'd be presumptuous to say I fully understand it now. It is fascinating. How do competing forces dynamically interact in order to reach a conclusion? It's like a 19th century philosophical approach to the similar sorts of problems addressed on the one hand by economics or social simulations, and on the other hand by computational heuristics. I don't mean any of this in a critical sense, in many ways it was far ahead of it's time and pre-figured these other concepts.

You have already rightly stated why we need a system to keep people from harming each other. Subtract your wish to label people as good or bad and you have a justice system that deals with the reality of people, as Schopenhauer Said being able to do what they want, but not being able to choose what they want.

Not your choice. Your nature won’t allow you to sit listen uncomfortably and not tear your flesh off.

Because you can't handle the truth. Really pathetic.

😂

Yet you comment on one of his videos. You’re not free of anything.

@@dr_shrinker Actually, I do not WATCH any Dennett videos. In the distant past, I have. But no longer. AH FREEDOM! Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

having a "vested interest" isnt already a sign of free will ?

That makes no sense. Free will doesn’t exist in my opinion. But we as humans feel we have free will, and ironically, we didn’t choose to feel like we have free will. So if I go outside and kill someone, I could later say, well it was already set. But I have no access to the book of the future, so I’m gonna try and date a nice girl, even if a fictional book already says she’ll dump me after a month.

@francesco5581 Well, seems like it could be determined. Interesting point. I'll have to think about it.

Your opinion may largely go unappreciated on this platform, but it is my humble opinion that you captured the essence of the issue very succinctly.. We disagree in a couple of areas, BUT your simplistic yet accurate encapsulation of the issues is spot on.. I think it is nearly certain that "free will" EXISTS and is easily argued with fewer unsupported assumptions.. The flaws of DETERMINISM seem to get clearer as scientific insights evolve.. All one person's opinion, but not extended without the ability to argue its validity..

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...

I would simply say. We don't have free will, but were "programmed" and created with evolution to feel like we're free. So ironically, we don't have a choice to feel like we have free will. The same as we don't choose to feel guilt after doing something we deem as bad. Or proud when you accomplished something. So we, funny enough, don't have a choice. Keep living as someone that feels like they make choices. So I believe it's pointless to debate on the meaning of determinism or the definition off free will. If people do believe in the theory of evolution, it would be more harmful for survival if an animal could go against that. Like a bird deciding, you no what forget those wings, don't want them.

@@SOSULLI Agree. I am simply saying is that we are not Laplace daemon to know every micro state of our brain and micro-history of our own to be able to track down why we made a decision. Also we have to take decisions (with that partial information) quickly to be able to actually function in the world. Also just to make a decision there is no need to analyze at atomic level how we are making that decision deterministically. It is sufficient to know at the level of our memory, abilities, desires and goals why we made the decision we made. The true issue of libertarian freewill is not important at the time of making decisions in time in real time. But it is important to determine the responsibility. And for all pragmatic purposes the "responsibility" attribution is at a similar social level of our memory, abilities, desires and goals and legal systems etc, it is OK to hold a "normal" person to hold responsible for their action. And we do have the "insanity defense" or "crime of passion" mechanisms in our legal system to evaluate if the responsibility can in fact be attributed to a particular individual. A "normal" person is the one who will themselves say they can and should be held responsible for their actions.

I will argue. You cannot have freedom of choice in a material world. It violates the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. In order for the material (future) world to be affected, it can only be affected by material things. For a person's will to affect the future events of the material world, will must be physical. If will power is physical, it is determined according to the laws of General Relativity. If freewill exists, it would mean that "immaterial" things could affect future "material" events. That is impossible as you cannot have energy (work) from non-energy sources. That violates the laws of conservation. Energy-work from nothing. Ghosts and spirits cannot move Ouija Boards. OR I could just ask you to get a root canal without numbing, tell you to remain motionless and think happy thoughts..... and see how long it took before you yelled and jumped out of your seat.

Clearly it doesn't. We simply have and needed (due to evolution) feel like we are free in our choices. It wouldn't benefit survival if guilt wouldn't exist or pride and feeling forced to do everything. It's sounds like a nice fantasy, believing in free will. Like people that believe in God, it's nice to believe there is final justice. And there are simple rules to right and wrong. Adding to that, humans are unable to ever make a choice that isn't in their benefit first. So suicide is avoiding pain, saving someone could either be pride or predicting how you would feel if you could have saved someone but didn't. And if altruism doesn't exist, free will doesn't either.

Don’t be shy, I’d love to hear it. Always up for a friendly debate.

It's clearly way more complicated that humans have tended to presume.

@simonhibbs887 Sorry, I have been distracted.. I will TRY to address some of the challenges within this thread.. I realize it has become trendy to accept "no freewill" as a description of animals INTERACTING with their environment.. This idea defys naturalism right off the bat for reasons that consideration can reveal... Even some luminaries IN SCIENCE have associated themselves with these odd ideas that clearly exist outside th purview of the scientific method of information analysis.. If such unbridled beliefs WERE true, they would negate even falsify Darwins origin of species and many other established theories that we have ACTUAL evidence for.. Often, these philosophical ideas like no free will, seek grounding and legitimacy by invoking questionable associations to science.. like THIS physical law or that one forbids free will.. . Uhhh, no, they dont. That is an unfounded assumption.. On the other hand, perhaps someone on the thread CAN enlighten me about how such claims CAN be tested for veracity? If there are no takers, then one is merely promoting their preferred "FLAVOR" of philosophy, but not science..

Robert is more well-read than pretty much any guest he has on.

@@stellarwind1946 to be fair he asks them impossible questions. but they fall for it. they "answer" them. to me it never seems to answer the question at hand.

I had a similar reaction. I was following Dennett while he was discussing determinism, but when he talks about free will I don't understand him.

I wonder if this quote from Quine is relevant. Dennett was a student of his. “We are free to do what we choose. Whether or not our decisions are then in turn determined by underlying causes is out of the question! These are fictitious attacks on the sentence of the excluded middle.”

Thank you for your response. I guess it's helpful but it makes me think that Dennett's definition of free will is simply the appearance of free will while acknowledging the underlying truth that everything is determined. In other words, we are all just machines carrying out our programming but if we ignore the underlying causes, then our decisions have the appearance of free will and we should just be happy to call those decisions free will even though we understand that they are actually predetermined. @@orthostice

@@FR-kb1fc What specifically don't you understand? We base our entire legal system on the belief that people are responsible for their choices in life. I believe we are correct in holding people responsible for their behavior. We assign different degrees of responsibility to children, the mentally ill and disabled for example. Fully justified.

He's asserting the coherence of determinism by defining free will.

@@simonhibbs887 I suspect you think you are being clever with the oh so powerful "Nuh uh" rebuttal. Perhaps next time you can try the famous "Nanner nanner boo boo stick your head in doo doo" or the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.

@@PhokenKuul Sure.

@@simonhibbs887another clever retort. touche'. you're a real Master Debater.

Because they are not truly identical. Their genes are the same, but when their cells split the rest of the cellular structures are arbitrarily divided between them, and the processes of cell division will progress independently from then on, so their low level cellular structures will vary. When the brain forms its neural pathways at the local cellular level, they are established largely randomly, so their neural micro-architecture will be very different as well. Also even if they live together, they will still have somewhat different experiences through life. One sits to the left and the other to the right, they have different bedrooms or sleep in different positons, one reads some books in a different order to the other, one went on a walk in the woods and met someone and had a conversation with them, while the other stayed at home, etc.

@@simonhibbs887 if there are two person that the whole structures 100% identical, will they still 2 non identical conciousness self. If we slap A, then B will not getting angry, B will think it is him not me.

@@User-xyxklyntrw That is correct, because they are independent physical systems. If I have two absolutely identical apples and cut one of them in half, the other one doesn't fall into two pieces at the same time.

because the universe sculpts them differently.

But some 'Near Death Experience' revealed another kind of 'self conciousness' they said in same time they exist as personal self and also as the vast ocean of conciousness, kind of mind boggling isn't it

I think dennett using determinism and fatalism, as synonymous words. I think fatalism dismisses environmental influences on our actions (regardless of whether those actions are freely chosen)

No Dennett is not making that mistake. Most compatibilists, like Dennett, know that whether the universe is at bottom fully deterministic or probabalistic, is debated among physicists. However, the case he makes is that IF you accept the proposition it is fully deterministic, this provides no challenge against Free Will. Further, at the "macro" level we operate at, physical laws are reliable enough to be for all intents and purposes "deterministic" in terms of reliable physical behaviour, and this level of determinism is what you want in order to be a rational action able to take actions for the reasons you have for acting.

@@QuintEssential-sz2wn But are "the reasons you have for acting" determined or randomly generated? It matters to the discussion. If you can do what you want but what you want comes from machinations within a black box, basically, and arrives in your consciousness some small amount of time after it happened, there's no free will there.

@@thsc9119 As per what I wrote: our actions are taken as determined. As to your second part: the role of consciousness is still under heavy debate. You seem to have assumed one interpretation (presumably from Libet-type experiments) that is far from the only interpretation. There are all sorts of theories about the causal role consciousness can be playing, rather than being fully passive. It's not settled. But even IF we take consciousness to be when we become aware of our thinking, and even IF we become aware shortly after the process has occurred, how does that entail we have no free will? That is still "us" doing the reasoning. I'm aware of what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and the deliberations use exactly the logic required to understand out different options in the world and when we are "free" or not to take those actions.

@@QuintEssential-sz2wn '...even IF we become aware shortly after the process has occurred, how does that entail we have no free will? That is still "us" doing the reasoning. I'm aware of what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and the deliberations use exactly the logic required to understand out different options in the world and when we are "free" or not to take those actions.' If you can't explain how you did something or why, how then the little homunculus (you) in the black box made you do it. And you don't know what its orders will be before you get them. They're yours because you perform them, but you don't really know why you are doing them. That's not what I call freedom.

Add that to the list, didn't choose to get this random disease. Didn't choose to be attracted to women and I am of the opinion once you truly believe there is no God, you don't have the choice to believe with blind faith. Before people interpret that as, there are no atheists that turned religious. Something happened, without a choice (like suddenly experiencing a white light or hearing a voice) that simply leads them to believe.

@@SOSULLI And once you have blind faith, if you choose to build a following, you'll be the blind leading the blind.

Robert and CTT, i am assuming, because of their content and inquiries, they want to see people asking questions and inquiring such topics, as you do good, sir. You're the most professional and in form, genuine and not here for mere entertainment. Something tells me CTT appreciates this man.

@@S3RAVA3LM *"Something tells me CTT appreciates this man."* ... First, thank you very much! Same for you! Secondly, all that needs to happen is for ANYONE from CTT to chime in with a reply letting their "regulars" (their "SUBSCRIBERS") know whether it's their content filters acting up or it's RU-vid shadow-banning. It's very simple. The only time CTT chimes in is when someone donates money. *Conclusion:* They don't care! They upload a video and move on.

Thanks for the free advice

​@@SOSULLIif it's too good to be true, it probably isn't

I guess they find comfort in clinging to dogmatic worldviews plus it gives them the opportunity to claim intellectual superiority

Environment..biology ..no free will

@@gooner173 no. Mean people just comment more

Instead of just criticizing his philosophy, why don't you specifically address where he's incorrect if you believe he's incorrect?

We have zero free will because your will isn't a choice

no, if you make a conscious decision then is not compatible with determinism. Because you would imply that this decision was embedded already in the first state of the universe. As was "learning" or "being compatible". Also if free will exist you cant predict what an animal will do, if you can stop calling it free will.

I believe free will is impossible. In every sense it doesn’t make sense. From an evolutionary standpoint for instance. What people don’t understand is, we also didn’t choose for the feeling of free will. I feel like I made a right choice. You know why this makes sense? Guilt, the feeling of guilt. Or being proud. If someone can truly delete their humanness, don’t feel free, that would be the worst addition to lets say evolution. Wanting to procreate or feeling forced to have a child, thats a big downset.

@@francesco5581 explain how a non-physical thing can affect the physical world....otherwise, freewill is determined.

@@dr_shrinker every seconds non-physical things affect the world. No one have ever measured a thought or weighted an emotion. And yet are the most important things in existence.

@@francesco5581 no one except neurologists who use cyclic voltammetry (CV) including fast scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) for the electrochemical sensing of glutamate (Glu), acetylcholine (AChE), dopamine (DA), and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)). 😜

He is a determinist. He’s the compatibilist kind, that argues for a definition of free will that is equivalent to autonomy of action. He does not think that libertarian free will, the idea that free choices are unconstrained by prior conditions, is compatible with determinism.

@@simonhibbs887 i hope he's a philosopher and not a physicist.

@@jameshudson169 Definitely a philosopher, and one of the most prominent of the determinist kind.

@@simonhibbs887 i'm sure his mother is proud.

That makes no sense. If you “don’t want to do it” you won’t. There has never been anyone ever that did something they didn’t want to do. Your point was free will is evident when some can make a choice that seems wrong to others. If I choose to rob a store, you couldn’t say well he made the wrong choice. But if I needed quick food for my dying child, I would consider it the right choice. So words like wrong and right are useless in this discussion, just like mentioning we wanted to do something.

how do you know it is the wrong choice? can you go back in time and make the choice all over over again to compare the results?

@@SOSULLI My position is that the present moment that we experience is a state of potential in which we are free to choose our next action. My above comment refers to the situation where we feel ourselves wanting and choosing a certain action and yet we are free to choose otherwise, to choose against our own natural inclination.

@@dr_shrinker By “wrong choice” I mean a choice that is counter to what we actually want to choose. We live in a state of potential and are free to choose that which is counter to what we know we actually want to choose.

@@samjannotta8384 How about this, name me one situation as an example. Either personal or fictional where someone made a choice they actually didn't "want to choose". Perhaps you are confusing this with how a limited consciousness is aware of something. Like hurting someone, but you're like; I don't understand, I didn't want to hurt that person, but for some reason I did, I didn't want to hurt, honestly". Well apparently you did. In some cases this could be the reason someone goes to a psychologist to "investigate" why something inside of you wants something, why is there anger inside, you're nog aware of apparently. Your brain consists of so many "sectors" that require something. Like a lot of men honestly want to befriend a girl, but another primitive part of their brain "demands" you have sex with her.

You must be aware that nobody here is making such an argument, or has any intention of doing so. I’m pretty sure you’ve seen my argument for determinism as necessary for personal responsibility for example. It makes me wonder why, knowing this, that you would make that comment.

@@simonhibbs887 Ok, so like Dennett we are all compatibilists?

@@Resmith18SR Compatibilists and hard determinists only really differ in the terminology they prefer. I try to avoid the argument, or at least confusion by referring to free will in the libertarian sense as libertarian free will, and the kind of free will that we have under determinism as individual autonomy. I think those are reasonably unambiguous. It would be nice if we could all agree on a common terminology, but I suppose the compatibilists and libertarians will never agree to that.

You don’t believe in Jesus and his sacrifice?

@@SOSULLI I do have faith in Jesus... but you have to understand that Jesus did not write any bible nor use any book to preach faith... Imperfect Men, divinely inspired or not, wrote the books.... ...if you rely totally on the book written by men, then you subject yourself to be vulnerable to follow the imperfections of men... Pls DO NOT ignore your good conscience before swallowing any book..

@@evaadam3635 I'm an atheist. Just saying it's pretty difficult to believe in God or Jesus without believing in determinism or the absence of free will. If someone knows exactly what is going to happen in the future (eg someone here is going to betray me) then free will does not exist. We are simply programmed to feel like we have it. Like a Judas could have guilt or pride (if someone truly is able to experience life without the feeling of free will, feelings like guilt or pride are non-existent. And pertaining to God. the bible claiming "he" is omniscient. That means knowledge of past present future. So then I hear preached how he created us people with free will. The choice to live a good life and be rewarded or live unfaithful and be punished. So basically the premise is, God partially disabled himself, going from omniscient to completely non-omniscient. Basically pertaining to earth and knowledge God is a simple human. It is strange though, sending himself or Jesus or however it is preached, with a precise plan, exactly knowing how and when it will all turn out. But still believe you could be killed by a sword if some decided differently, or no one actually betrayed him. Making it that the whole plan of sacrificing himself wouldn't turn out.

@@SOSULLI God did not create free will. God the Holy Spirit split Himself into free souls just to have a free family to love and to be freely loved, this is why you have free will... only your physical vessel was created by God but not your soul who is His free split.. ...God knows what you had chosen to believe now because it is available info inside your mind.... but God does not know what your freewill will believe next because it is not available info yet and you are free to change your belief... ...the imperfections you read in the books about God, that have confused so many, were not written by God but written by imperfect men.. .. Many children were raised religious but turned atheists later after reading the imperfect book despite knowing the fact that the truth out there is independent from whatever imperfect men wrote in the book...

> “free to act on their beliefs” Acting on a belief is making a choice as a result of prior conditions, so under libertarian free will it is not a free choice. It’s in this area, where believers in libertarian free will nevertheless claim they have specific reasons for making their decisions, that their position falls apart. Is a decision made for reasons actually a choice? When determinists say this is what they mean by a choice, that a reasoning process caused the decision, libertarians will say no it’s not a choice. However they will still say they chose for reasons and still accept they are responsible for such choices.

Keep looking, or not, it’s up to you!

​@@AMindnamedAdam >"In other words, scientific materialism fails to address ANY of the fundamental questions. Nor does it have any language, vocabulary or technical means of addressing the fundamental questions." There's no such thing as 'scientific materialism'. There is science, which is a method for evaluating and reasoning about evidence, and there is materialism which is a philosophical interpretation of that evidence. Idealists, dualists, religious believers, etc can all be scientists and do science just fine, and bring different philosophical attitudes to the results. As it happens I'm a physicalist, but I make no special claims on science for that position. Physicalism (essentially the same thing as materialism these days) is just an interpretation of the causal order of phenomena. We observe various phenomena in the world such as the processes of physics and the experience of consciousness, and each of us comes to their own conclusions about these. Physicalists order causal processes so that physical causation underlies consciousness. Idealists orders them so that consciousness causes the phenomena we experience in the world. Dualists suggest there is an additional non-physical causal factor not yet identified which causes consciousness. None of these 'answer the fundamental questions'. None of them says why the phenomena they posit as fundamental exist. Physicalism can't explain why the physical universe exists, idealism can't explain the existence of consciousness itself, dualism doesn't explain where it's non-physical stuff came from. The main explanations for the existence of the universe come from theisms. They each claim their particular god, or version of god did it. The main criticism of that is that firstly there's no evidence for it, and secondly that it's not even an explanation because it doesn't explain where god came from. >"If the scientist agrees with that statement then he has acknowledged that truth is not grounded in experiment. " Many scientists are empiricists and don't make such claims anyway. Even some of the ones that are realists are also religious believers anyway. As an empiricists myself I think that scientific theories are just effective descriptions of what we observe, preferably highly precisely predictive mathematical descriptions. Truth doesn't even come into it.

@@AMindnamedAdamTalk about filibustering word salads

No, he's correct and there is such a thing as moral responsibility and if you don't believe there is then you're not only confused, but you're mistaken as well.

​​@@AMindnamedAdam Science works. That can't be denied by a rational mind. Anything beyond that is just a personal opinion. 300,000 gods and 100 billion people later we are still coming up with culturally convenient gods. Presenting the fiction of social and moral superiority.

Hee no worries buddy. You didn't choose to listen to him. More of a joke than pure sarcasm, as I do truly believe free will doesn't exist haha

​@@SOSULLIhee, no worries buddy, you did not choose to be a complete moron, it is just who you are😂

@@oioi9372 It does feel like I chose how to read though, must be a fallacy. Curious to see if you feel like you can choose how to learn how to read, lemme know.