As an agnostic, I am equally entertained when immaterialists talk in circles about their various imaginings.

Materialists love to ignore stuff they know is true, just so they can continue believing the world is essentially billiard balls, bouncing off each other. It keeps them in a job, you see… 🎱

@@hckytwn3192 Ignore what?

@@hckytwn3192 what true stuff do the ignore?

@@hckytwn3192 Yes, yes - anyone who doesn't think the same as you must be nasty and dishonest. Appears to be the central tenant of the Woke religion.

How do instincts play into the born with free will model?

I also sorta agree with this, it feels similar to the "many worlds interpretation" and compatable with it, or I'm just high

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Simply my opinion.

@@ReverendDr.Thomas You do have the freedom to doubt anything you want and that act of doubting is done by your use of your free will therefore the act of doubting makes free will " real "

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Without free will, this video has no meaning. Our comments mean nothing.

@@ReverendDr.Thomassir the only thing "UNDERWHELMING" here is your reading comprehension 🤣

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I seem to have power over your free will. 😜 Hit III

It doesn’t mean that it isn’t physical. It just means that the universe isn’t trying to make sense to us. We can’t draw a conclusion that it isn’t all physical just because our ape minds can’t comprehend what’s happening.

No free will for humans as well. The net of electric impulses occurs first and the perception of free will or thought comes after. At no point is the other way around. It's the same level of free will as the one your computer has.

yes he is

And me!

@@arletottens6349 *"If someone steals a candy bar from a convenience store, how long must they be sequestered from the public ?"* .... Shoplifting is usually considered a misdemeanor unless whatever is stolen is valued to the point that it becomes a felony. Misdemeanors usually don't require that the guilty be sequestered from society, but felonies often involve jail time. This has been a public service announcement.

With your definition in mind. How can that be a 'free' choice if you are bound by the rules of your morality?

I didn't notice it in past videos on this channel is why I ask. Same as why the last one had sound so off, but this one is fine with the sound.

when you decided to come here and write that ?

"I prefer" is your first problem here. Also if You don't believe in free will, you are now forced to accept the fact that your past choices are a reflection of who you are. Could give you a better motivation to change that. I quit smoking by reminding myself there is no frer will, if I break and get back to smoking this time, I have no good reason to not do it the next time I try to quit. Because it is a behavioral pattern, not an act of free will. There are genuine studies showing that those who don't believe in free will are better people.

Did you carefully weigh the arguments and do you think that you formed your conclusion based on the rationality of your choices? Or is everything you said simply predetermined by your own particular set of physical context, i.e., a nonrational process?

@@zgobermn6895 The latter description seems to more closely reflect what happened in my mind. My body heard the arguments, weighed them against other data and evidence I’ve received from hearing this topic debated and presented, and concluded that this guy never put any points on the board. And that reaction, and this reply, are both the result of trillions upon trillions of prior causes that are out of my control. Currently, the matter/energy that constitutes my body and from which my consciousness emerges, the “verb“ that is me, only existing in the moment, cannot help but be convinced that free will is an illusion. Additional information, evidence, data, and other prior causes could result in a different conviction. But in this moment, that seems highly unlikely. I don’t see how free will could exist, logically. But I (The collective of cooperating, specialized amoebae that is me) remain open to empirical evidence, as far as I can tell, when I self reflect. 😉

Funny because saying that something is wihy-washy, weak and empty is not an argument, just a baseless attack. Maybe try to give arguments as to why you think so next time lmao Also, O'Connor is a world leading specialist on the topic of free will, he wrote the plato stanford article on it, nothing less. So I think that it is more likely that it is your understanding which is wishy-washy, weak and empty xD

@@cultofscriabin9547 I don’t really have a counter argument because O’Connor never makes an argument for free will. He reframes the free will versus determinism dilemma multiple times, but never makes a case for free will. The closest he comes is around 5:25 where he says “… we have to suppose…” Which is another way of saying he’s going to ASSUME…” then he goes on to assert the POSSIBILITY that all the physical factors give rise to the capacity to make free will decisions, Without offering any evidence or theory as to how this happens or could happen. That’s not really an argument. At best, it is a hypothesis, but without any supporting mechanism for it to be possible and violate the cause-and-effect universe that we have plenty of evidence for. If you know of an actual free will argument within this video clip, let me know the timestamp and I will respond. I’ve watched three times and can’t find an actual case being made for free will. Just a lot of good descriptions of the free will versus determinism debate. Peace.

I've met drone people. Its a good quote, but some people (even non-disabled) are drones. Even when you try to put them on a new path they freak out a bit and go back on the same path without knowing why but knowing they HAVE NO CHOICE (irresistible impulse is the legal term).

Possibly. But could it also be possible that everything you've ever done was predetermined? Even up to the highest order, most abstract thought you ever had? Could it be true that since the universe began it was always going to have encoded in it me typing this sentence and you reading it?

@@saturdaysequalsyouth it is possible of course, even if I don’t think so. But in order to demonstrate that everything is predetermined you should create a theory and correlate abstract ideas with physical events. A word said and written in a book 2000 years ago (and over) is influencing events today, and this is not because of the atoms of the ink in the book, there are other laws, that you still can’t explain, that rule consciousness and decisions. Another issue is that, in order to go for determinism, you should also resolve the problem of quantistic indetermination, it could be the case that you and me are both wrong and everything is random and not determined. In the end I think that for now it’s simpler and more usefull to accept the evidence of our perception, that we have at least some limited form of free will.

@@4lumi Ostensibly, I support the idea of free will. But I really only support the idea of free will because it justifies my feeling of entitlement.

Are you really free to doubt, or do you just doubt?

@@user-tf2wd1eh3g Since doubting usually comes after you've thought something through doubting is you making a determination, so you are free to doubt.

@@williamburts5495 Are you really though? Even after you've thought something through, are you really in control of that doubt?

@@user-tf2wd1eh3g I believe we are in control of selective thoughts

@@williamburts5495 fair enough, take it easy.

Well I mean we are the sum of our parts working as one or we are the sum plus more. That's something that we do not currently understand.

The egg came first.

@@HumanAndroid18 *"Well I mean we are the sum of our parts working as one or we are the sum plus more. That's something that we do not currently understand."* ... Your individual consciousness is considered part of your individual body. The two are interconnected and represent "you." So, when you get inside your car, does your consciousness, body, AND your car now represent "you?"

@@arletottens6349 Well I know you don't actually know that. My first statement is sound, hence the ongoing debate between materialist and spiritualist. If you told me nothing happens after we die, you would not even believe it because no one knows.

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Anyone who speaks in absolute terms is only fooling themselves. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, not litter my words with assumptions. You can tare open the very fabric of the universe and still not know, ergo laplaces' demon may not have an answer to what exactly is conciousness and what is a 'soul' if there is one. Scientist still don't even understand what dark matter actually is. So unless you were there before the big bang you do not have the answer of the chicken or the egg. Remember, science is just a process of understanding it is not the authority of truth.

Morality as a construct doesn't make it less, ahem, moral. Take the absurdist or existentialist point of view and decide for yourself perhaps. Universality isn't what some seem it's cracked up to be. The irrationality of our minds doesn't preclude us from being rational. As long as we are self-aware and humble to a degree we'll see things, including ourselves and our place in the world, with enough perspective to admit we're only doing the best we can with what we have for as long as we can. Enjoy the ride because the destination is nonexistence.

@@sandollor I've boiled all this down to three possibilities. Superdeterminism as it's now called is what I call the rational universe governed strictly by cause and effect. BTW this theory does not preclude the possibility that the universe has no beginning or end as it may exist on a more than three dimensional closed surface where it undergoes perpetual expansion only to collide at another point in a perpetual cycle. In this view morality makes no sense because free will does not really exist. The existential philosophy presumes all existence is only in my mind. It makes a good point in that during the time I'm asleep it's impossible to convince me that the real world exists. If there is morality it exists only in my mind and is therefore irrelevant. The third one I call the irrational universe where the laws of nature for some reason such as divine intervention can change capriciously. If that's the case then there is no point in studying it because what's true here and now may be false later or somewhere else. This opens the door to free will and morality. But of the three for me this explanation is the least convincing, in fact during my entire life despite seeing things I can't explain there is not one shred of evidence to suggest to me that this is how the universe works. So if the existentialists are right you'd better be nice to me or I'll blink you out of existence assuming you exist at all.

It depends which culture you're talking about. Many defined the "soul" as "breath", that is, some energy that gives life to the body, and leaves the body when the individual dies (stops _breathing)._ Frank Zindler explained it rather nicely, "Chemical marriages and divorces is something we call metabolism. To the writers of the Bible, however, there were vivifying principles. Some Bible passages tell us that it was the blood that makes something alive and a lot more passages indicate that it was breath-spiritus in Latin, where we get the word spirit, or pneuma in Greek... Now, the idea that breath made something alive again made sort of sense because if someone died of a heart attack (in the year 1,000 B.C.) you wouldn’t be able to know what really had happened to him. You didn’t know how to do an autopsy. The only obvious thing is that he’s not breathing. His breath had gone out. His spiritus had left and it was thought that that was the vivifying principle... It was thought that just as breath can leave you, breath can come back into you. ... And remember now spirit is a breath... now we know the origin of the idea of spirit is simply a bit of a biological misunderstanding." Of course, the Greeks then added more properties to pneuma (such as capacity to reason and feel emotions).

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Pneuma, Vapor, Mind, Psyche, Intellect, Self and now Consciousness has been the center of study for millennia by every culture in one form or another... Pato thought of the soul as being separate from all biological activities but Aristotle surprisingly introduced an opposing view 🤔 and eversince the debate has added many new nuances to the mix which obviously try to pinpoint its essence... Recently, the structure attributed with its arousal is considerd its source by many professionals who try to study and attempt to heal it... I'd say, the question "what" is still present while at the same time, the understanding of its design presence is undeniably morphing into a new concept of reality... Wil we ever be able to understand it in its entirety, is yet another interesting topic...

sometimes well and sometimes with ineptitude ...

@@francesco5581 Well, police officers and prosecutors aren't psychologists, are they? With enough data and computing power predicting a specific human's behavior won't be as difficult as most people seem to think.

@@sandollor I think would be silly to think so. A criminal psychologist can find some "traits" that are common to people who makes some kind of crimes and it usually better work in tv shows and movies. As a common psychologist can help you (sometimes ...) to avoid some mental traps that will hamper your life. On the (little) efficacy of both we can talk hours ... Different is of course is to indicate a clear mental "pathology".

To choose to observe and the way do that, also can be pre-determined. I do not see reason why it would not. Machine learning equivalent.

@@0i0l0o *"To choose to observe and the way do that, also can be pre-determined. I do not see reason why it would not. Machine learning equivalent."* ... Were you compelled by an outside force to type out a reply to Judy's comment ... or did you choose to do it on your own accord? And if you choose to reply to me (or not) then what is compelling you to make that decision? "You?" ... or an "outside force?"

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC There is a distinct possibilty I chose nothing on my own. To reply or the way I replied. I am not sure what do you mean "you" and "outside force"? If there is nothing but biology wich is actually physics on it's base level, everything could be pre-determined. Now, I am not saying I am sure about all of this. What I am saying is that without metaphysics, it is hard to conclude we are making any decisions. After Bing Bang, wich is the only action, everything else is a reaction. p.s. when I saw for the first time simple example of machine learning reinforcement learning algorithm, a thought came to my mind immediately "are we only this?" people would be suprise how it looks exactly like human learning.

@@0i0l0o *"There is a distinct possibilty I chose nothing on my own."* ... Then the alternative is that something else (an "outside force") is compelling you. *"I am not sure what do you mean "you" and "outside force"?"* ... If someone believes that all of their actions are "predetermined," then this requires some type of "outside force" that compels you to make whatever decisions you do end up making. That is only logical. So, what would that outside force be? *"If there is nothing but biology wich is actually physics on it's base level, everything could be pre-determined."* ... So, are you thinking that "biology" represents the "outside force" that predetermines all of your decisions and actions? If I choose to no longer exist, is it "biology" that's compelling me to end my life? Wouldn't that be counter-productive to biology?

Right and honestly, you could see it on Robert's face, he wasnt buying it.

Bingo. This needs to be pinned.

*"Lord Krishna says we must have fee will"* .... Do we have free will because Lord Krishna says so, or simply because we do? And do I have the free will to NOT abide by Lord Krishna's decree by claiming that everything is predetermined? Is Lord Krishna's claim any more or less valid than mine?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC It is both way . I try to explain you we all have strong subjective experience feelings not only that but also we all have moral values at least we do know basic wright or wrong . Now few scientists say we do not have free will so those are criminal they also say we are helpless because we are bound to do what we have done and so everything is determined by neural firings even good peoples are not good because there is no morality ! But in practical what do you see ? In our society there are rules and regulation and there are various punishments also.In B G Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1.gross body 2.subltle body i.e. mind , body and intellect .3 Soul or Atman . Now conciousness emarges from soul and one of it's aspect is free wil.

@@chayanbosu3293 *"Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1.gross body 2.subltle body i.e. mind , body and intellect .3 Soul or Atman ."* ... I am not questioning your beliefs or trying to marginalize Lord Krishna (L.K.), but if everything L.K. states is self-apparent, then why does L.K. need to be cited as a reference? *Example:* I boldly clam that "life is difficult." If you agree, then whenever someone asks, would you say, _"As 0-by-1 Publishing wrote on January 1st, 2022 in a KZfaq comment thread, "Life is difficult!"_

keep your head up, Johnny... best wishes

*"I’m losing the will to live"* ... This is only Day-1. Get it back during 2022.

@@ritornelloandrefrain Thank you I’m ok I was losing the will whilst watching this video

@@johnnyreggae969 ha! cheers

if i decide to scratch my elbow do i create a new universe?

The contradiction is between the non-existent God being omniscient(all knowing) and omnipotent(all powerful) and still humanbeings having a fucking free will, which necessarily means that the non-existent God isn't omnipotent otherwise we wouldn't have had a truly "free" will.

@@vidyanandbapat8032 ...That is basically what I implied. And if you want to be an ignorant penis, you forgot the third part of the powers that all monotheistic religions claim. That he is "All Loving". Clearly that doesn't jive!!!!! They should have thought it through, if they didn't want to be destroyed by simple logic!!!!

@@vidyanandbapat8032 ....If he is omnipotent, as they SAY he is, it is even WORSE!!! Because he could STOP the suffering, but CHOSE NOT TOO!!! Get it straight.

@@realitycheck1231 ...Pure ignorance.

@@realitycheck1231 ....What are you talking about? You sure you are responding to the right comment?

@@arletottens6349 I'm pretty sure my statement was pretty straightforward as saying Free Will is reality. Hence we live in a free world. A life given as a gift a place given as a gift oh what a graceful merciful God I serve thank you Father in the name of our savior Lord Jesus Christ. Amen! Hallelujah!

@@arletottens6349 there's a lot of facts and things about history that people are missing cuz they freely choose not to look in and to know about it.

@@arletottens6349 so it can be an illusion of someone's imagination and how they want to try to narrate it instead of narrating it as what it really is.

@@arletottens6349 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Genesis 11:6 KJV

@@arletottens6349 casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV