Why Free Will Doesn't Exist - YouTube

[stvdv]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

IF humans have free will, then they can choose to become not-gay too, right?
The church I once visited claimed "We can pray the gay away"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not trying to prove a truth so how do you see this being applied?



What meta-standards do you think are involved here?

When you decide between A and B, where does the standard you use to decide with come from?

As for truth, when you are deciding what to do or not to do otherwise, what you end up doing is functionally the truth to you.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No, because we can imagine any scenario. We can manipulate time, facts, reality. This is all an internal process with no necessary connection to anything external. What we choose to imagine is entirely in our control.

Our subconscious mind is somewhat predictable. We can use this to manipulate it. As I said, this usually slips past our conscious awareness unnoticed. However as you become an observer, you can begin to see what stimulus creates what desires. You can begin to learn how to use our ability to create infinite realities to program our unconscious desires. You replace external stimulus with internal stimulus.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think what we choose to imagine is entirely in our control. In fact, when I observe thoughts in my subconscious, I find that they often pop up with me having no control of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think what we choose to imagine is entirely in our control. In fact, when I observe thoughts in my subconscious, I find that they often pop up with me having no control of them.

It is a description of meta-cognition. So people believe it is free-will. It is not. It is just different behavior than non meta-cognition.

 

[stvdv]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

Thank you for sharing this video. Normally I don't watch 13min long ones on RF, but glad I checked it.

I like this guy. He is very easy to follow and very clear.
And he made it very easy and clear to me

Free Will does exist

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for sharing this video. Normally I don't watch 13min long ones on RF, but glad I checked it.

I like this guy. He is very easy to follow and very clear.
And he made it very easy and clear to me

Free Will does exist

Yes, as an illusion that works. But it is still an illusion.

 

[Nakosis]

When you decide between A and B, where does the standard you use to decide with come from?

Depends. Sometimes from a cultural standard. Sometimes from a subconscious standard that I am not paying attention to. Sometimes from a standard that I make up.

As for truth, when you are deciding what to do or not to do otherwise, what you end up doing is functionally the truth to you.

Ok, but I don't understand how Agrippa's trilemma applies.

 

[stvdv]

Free Will does exist

Yes, as an illusion that works. But it is still an illusion.

neti

 

[Nakosis]

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think what we choose to imagine is entirely in our control. In fact, when I observe thoughts in my subconscious, I find that they often pop up with me having no control of them.

It takes practice. To both observe your subconscious actions and control your thoughts.

I find meditation helps with this. To take consciousness out of the equation and observe the subconscious mind at work. To put a distance between "yourself" and your subconscious desires.

 

[Nakosis]

Thank you for sharing this video. Normally I don't watch 13min long ones on RF, but glad I checked it.

I like this guy. He is very easy to follow and very clear.
And he made it very easy and clear to me

Free Will does exist

IMO, free will rarely exists. Though I think as humanity develops its mental prowess, it will become more common.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends. Sometimes from a cultural standard. Sometimes from a subconscious standard that I am not paying attention to. Sometimes from a standard that I make up.




Ok, but I don't understand how Agrippa's trilemma applies.

Here it is: When you decide with reasoning as per free will, when you check reason, it is not free. It ends up being a dogmatic belief - that is the want in the video.
It connects to that end standard for choosing between A and B, ends up being a want in favor of one of them and thus against the other.
Here it is for wants as measurement:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

When you then check how measurement works, you end with the fact that it connects to this debate and how reasoning works.

All of this can be done without science and with philosophy just as in the video.
You are not observing thinking and free will. You are checking how it works and if it has limits. Just as mobility is limited, so is thinking and in the end, thinking is limited by being the result of something else. Genes and neurology.

So now ask this - how can something which can't be observed to have free will, genes and neurology, cause free will, which in effect is un-caused? Free will is causation ex nihilo.

 

[stvdv]

IMO, free will rarely exists.

IMO "Free Will" exists, but most people got stuck in "Free Wants (as in desires)". So, I agree with you here.

Though I think as humanity develops its mental prowess, it will become more common.

I would call it "Develop Spiritual" or "Controls the mind"

 

[Nakosis]

Here it is: When you decide with reasoning as per free will, when you check reason, it is not free. It ends up being a dogmatic belief - that is the want in the video.
It connects to that end standard for choosing between A and B, ends up being a want in favor of one of them and thus against the other.
Here it is for wants as measurement:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

When you then check how measurement works, you end with the fact that it connects to this debate and how reasoning works.

All of this can be done without science and with philosophy just as in the video.
You are not observing thinking and free will. You are checking how it works and if it has limits. Just as mobility is limited, so is thinking and in the end, thinking is limited by being the result of something else. Genes and neurology.

So I'll agree that is the way it usually works. I don't agree that is the way it always works.

So now ask this - how can something which can't be observed to have free will, genes and neurology, cause free will, which in effect is un-caused? Free will is causation ex nihilo.

I don't know what gives us the ability to imagine. I only know we have it.

Free will, IMO, is not related to an uncaused caused. Free will comes from the ability to alter cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So I'll agree that is the way it usually works. I don't agree that is the way it always works.



I don't know what gives us the ability to imagine. I only know we have it.

Free will, IMO, is not related to an uncaused caused. Free will comes from the ability to alter cause.

And that ability is not free will. It is just a different way some people use their brains.
Here is an example related to what you say:
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development | Education, Society, & the K-12 Learner.

Stage 5 requires what you describe. Stage 6 is properly not possible.

 

[Nakosis]

And that ability is not free will. It is just a different way some people use their brains.
Here is an example related to what you say:
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development | Education, Society, & the K-12 Learner.

Stage 5 requires what you describe. Stage 6 is properly not possible.

Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

Nobody operates consistently on that level. That doesn't mean they never do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

Nobody operates consistently on that level. That doesn't mean they never do.

Connect to the debate we are having and your use of meta-cognition. It "feels" free, but it is not. It is just that you use your brain in manner, that not all humans do. That doesn't mean it is free.

 

[Willamena]

2. Actions done because we are forced are clearly not free by definition, and actions done because we want to do them are not free either, because we don't choose our wants.

Our wants determine our choices, but we are not distinct from our wants or our choices. Free will, according to most dictionaries, is acting "without the constraint of necessity or fate." In other words, acting of our own accord, which is what acting according to our wants (and other capacities) is.

 

[Nakosis]

Connect to the debate we are having and your use of meta-cognition. It "feels" free, but it is not. It is just that you use your brain in manner, that not all humans do. That doesn't mean it is free.

So you disagree with Kohlberg that stage six exists. I suppose this is your meta-standard.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Weren't you free to watch the video? And free to post your opinion? Sounds like free will to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you disagree with Kohlberg that stage six exists. I suppose this is your meta-standard.

Bingo. I can understand stage 6 and I can "glimse" it, but I can't keep it. And when I check it is not universal, it is still subjective.