@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 In your own words, define “OBJECTIVE”. ☝️🤔☝️

@@TheWorldTeacher objective means not based upon opinion. A moral is a social agreement over how good or bad some behavior is. This is clearly, by its very nature, subjective and relative.

@@davidjacquemotte6850, right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Weirdo.

Stop using drugs and get your therapy, which is drugs as well, so in any case, take your drugs and chill. lmao

​@@user-kt5gm6wq7x, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Makes a certain sense but..why Krishna, among all the other Gods?

But why is it wrong to destroy the poor? It's subjectively wrong. It's in the subjective realm.

@@CuriosityGuy, right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@@TheWorldTeacheryes, slave!

​@@CuriosityGuy The Sanskrit word "KARMA" originates from the verbal root "kri", meaning work, action, or deed. Every thought or ACTION produces an equal and opposite REACTION. When junk "foods" are consumed, one's health is damaged to the degree that we eat such things. When we deliberately hurt another living creature, we are burdened with feelings of guilt, etcetera. Based on this premise, what do you think would be the penalty for insulting or disrespecting a member of the Holy Priesthood, SLAVE? MUCH greater than you may realize, I'd posit. "Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead." 😈 John Ono Lennon

​@@CuriosityGuy The Sanskrit word "KARMA" originates from the verbal root "kri", meaning work, action, or deed. Every thought or ACTION produces an equal and opposite REACTION. When junk "foods" are consumed, one's health is damaged to the degree that we eat such things. When we deliberately hurt another living creature, we are burdened with feelings of guilt, etcetera. Based on this premise, what do you think would be the penalty for insulting or disrespecting a member of the Holy Priesthood, SLAVE? MUCH greater than you may realize, I'd posit. "Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead." 😈 John Ono Lennon

Yeah, this argument ab initio assumes Determinism though

@@CuriosityGuy i am an incompatibalist. So i would grant that an assumption of determinism makes LFW impossible. But that is not worth a whole lot to one who rejects determinism

@@mindtrap0289 NFW is the case regardless of determinism or indeterminism, for the LFW FW definition. You may checkout some previous videos of mine if you please

@@CuriosityGuyI will have to, because as long as LFW is possible (such as in the case of God), then LFW is plausible for us as well.

Well sure! I'd like to! I'll probably read more on that first and we can catch up later.

Good question. If criminals say that they did not have free will while they committed whatever crime they did, and that they're not morally responsible for that act,they'd be right. Now, it's a separate question, what needs to be done to them. Suppose it's just one serious crime they will ever perform (the crime in question here) and we somehow know this fact and that act has already been performed. Then, it doesn't make sense to punish that person retributively and it doesn't make sense to lock them in prison either. Now, suppose we know this guy is a repeated offender and has this psychological disposition that leads him to commit crimes repeatedly. It still doesn't make sense to retributively punish them because they don't have basic desert moral responsibility. By retributively punish, I mean "you committed this crime, hence you deserve punishment as revenge, as justice". It makes sense to quarantine them though, like we did during the Corona times. It makes sense to morally educate them, to keep them in confinement and rehabilitate them. I hope that answers your question?

🐟 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…

@@CuriosityGuy, your understanding of normative ethics is truly abysmal. 🤡

Not sure! A couple of guys told me this, but most haven't 😕

@@CuriosityGuy Depends on one's setup, if one has true stereo headphones or speakers it will be left channel only. Some cheaper headphones and speakers are not true stereo but one mono-channel copied over the two channels, they almost always take the left channel for the copying/mirroring. If you record in mono and don't manually create a left and right audio channel in some software like Audacity, it will only have left channel audio by default to a stereo system or headphone. Hope this helps!

@@Top_LadI see.. that was useful, thanks! I'll try fixing that for the next one

Just found this gem of a comment today! This means a lot! Thank you so much 😊

I would not go so far as saying it's bogus. Quantum Mechanics is arguably the most successful scientific theory of all time. Its real life applications include MRI, Lasers, Quantum Computing, Quantum Cryptography, Quantum Sensors, Quantum Chromodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Dots, Superconductors, etc. Much of modern electronics and its gifts are based on QM. It works. However, I'd just say that it hasn't conclusively established Ontology, the true nature of reality yet.

@@CuriosityGuy what they are making they are using deterministic physics or classical physics only and still they are giving name as quantum physics to it. There is no such thing as probability physics. That's why quantum physics is bogus. They are simply using deterministic physics and promoting the name of quantum physics just to stablish it's presence in the minds of common innocent people. Einstein knew these rascals and that's why he was ready to defeat them by making the unified theory but he died before that otherwise that would have been the proper answer to these people and that would have proved the real physics is not probability physics, it's actually deterministic physics, if you see the bigger picture or you understand the mind of God. That's why Einstein was trying to understand the mind of God. He knew God doesn't play 🎲.

I think it would be unfair to not address almost all possible objections to No Free Will before claiming or establishing NFW. That's the motive behind the series /project. I can't wait for and am definitely thinking of making videos on a lot of other topics too, perhaps I will do it soon, simultaneously. I am doing all this, out of no free will of my own. I was forced into it, circumstantially, psychologically, etc. To me NFW has been liberating rather than depressing tbh. It has made me a better person. I can't make sense of much of negative reactive attitudes and emotions like anger, hatred, regret, revenge, ego, jealousy, etc due to the NFW realisation and I'm not having to sacrifice love, rationality, well being, subjective purpose, either. Will make video/s on that later. Keep well ❤

To me nfw has been liberating

More or less agree with that. You should surely check out my video "Quantum Physics on Free Will". It covers most common interpretations of Quantum Mechanics including The Many Worlds one and why they don't grant us free will either. Do check out 😉

@@CuriosityGuy Just saw it. Very informative and pretty much hits all the points. I've been slowly watching all of your videos day by day!

@@jamyangpelsang3099 thank you so much! Really appreciate it 😊

It either did, or it didn't 🤔.. Haha thank you bro ❤️😊

If fatalism means "inevitability and predeterminism, regardless of your thoughts and desires" to you, I am not a fatalist. You obviously, make causal unfree decisions. A lot of things that happen to you, happen through you, not extrinsic of you.

Unfortunately, I have only uploaded 2 videos on my Hindi KZfaq channel so far because of time and circumstantial constraints. You can find the link to the channel in the description to this video.

I've never philosophically claimed myself to be a card carrying determinist and this very argument in this video has totally been against Indeterminism's incompatibility with free will, not Determinism's! So that seems like a strawman to me from first read. I don't understand why you've worked so hard here typing all that. Neither Determinism from what Determinism means and Indeterminism from what Indeterminism means, or a combination of both, dividing them into macro and micro worlds or whatever, none of them are giving us free will, from what they mean. Now, in Epistemology, we come to a stand that we can't be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF ANYTHING. It could be that EVERYTHING that we know of, is an illusion, the Cosmos is an illusion, it could be that reality itself is an illusion, it could be that existence is an illusion and existence doesn't make sense, it could be that nothing has actually happened, change itself is an illusion, causality is an illusion. Is Determinism "Proved with absolute certainty"? No! Is Indeterminism "Proved with absolute certainty"? No! You seem to be suggesting Causa Sui agent here, that one could be the cause of itself, that's just logically incoherent. Also, you're basically knowingly or unknowingly alluding to something like the Problem of Induction and or things like The Epistemic Uncertainty. Do we REALLY know that the Sun would rise tomorrow? We don't REALLY know that! And you're basically (analogously speaking) only using that to say "You don't REALLY know that Free Will doesn't exist". Well yeah, I don't ABSOLUTELY with 100% certainty know that Free Will doesn't exist! We have all Scientific reasons to believe something along the lines of "The Brain affects the Mind" and we have extremely high degree of certainty to believe that l. "NeuroSCIENCE" is proof for that. Now, talking about evidence for the "subjective" illusion of free will, just meditate and witness and notice and pay close attention to how thoughts arise in your consciousness. You would easily be able to experience Lack of Free Will (for someone who said you can't live without the sheer experience of Free Will). Try experiencing the lack of control, the lack of agency, the lack of authority over your thoughts. All thoughts and counter thoughts, they are just happening, no agent is authoring those. It's all a mystery, it's all coming from behind, from the darkness and we just witness them unawares of the process of causation and even if we track all causes down backwards, we had no say over them and we can't go back in time and change them. If you want more info on that, you may follow Sam Harris's work on the same. Now, imagine, why is it that your magical free will property, is not a property that other animals have or mentally challenged people have or children have (presuming you think they all don't have), and where in the evolutionary process did this property pop up into existence and where in the human developmental process did this property pop up into existence? Homo Erectus? Homo Heidelbergensis? Homo Neanderthals? 18 years? 10 years? 21 years? 25 years? If you're well aware of evolution, you know there's no single line that could be drawn that is a clear separation between two species!

@@CuriosityGuy I wrote it out because 1) I am trying to make the best sense of these ideas for myself; 2) I assumed that you were curious about the positive case for free will. However, it would appear that you have still not discovered the extensive work done on this positive case by Objectivists. If you had, you would already know that most of your objections have been comprehensively dealt with. These include the definitions of contextual certainty, the proper definition of causality, the solution to the problem of induction, the solution to the is/ought gap via proper concept formation, and the primacy of existence over consciousness. If you are genuinely curious, and don't simply parrot Sam Harris, check out what Objectivism (and Leonard Peikoff) has to say and report back. I'm not trying to convince you either way, just pointing out that there is a good positive case for free will and as yet you have completely ignored it (on the channel). What does your experience of meditation lead you to? Is it that given a certain mental effort, you can learn how to "tune out" certain processing in the mind? Is that really a refutation of the personal experience of free will, if free will is the ability to focus attention? By the Objectivist definition, you made a choice to focus on meditation, then you "floated" in your thoughts for a while, noticing things entering and leaving from you sub-conscious, then you presumably came back to normal. I have followed Sam Harris for many years, and I now find his arguments utterly unconvincing. Regards.

Yes, causal will does exist, causal choice does exist. Since causal choice exists, the choice is "caused" and not upto you, because it's not a free choice. If choices are uncaused, then those wills could be free since the ability to do otherwise exists, but the ability is not yours, the will is not yours, as it's uncontrolled, random and uncaused.

Thanks for explaining 👍

@@CuriosityGuy You'll have to explain your definition of "do otherwise" here. Surely, if (by your system) all events are determined, the choice could NOT have been otherwise.

If you haven't, go listen to Sam Harris debating your Dan Dennett till the end and see who "sets whom straight". Watch Alex O' Connor and Gregg Caruso "set Dennett straight" too

They're not the same. There's a relevant difference between voluntary and involuntary decisions and actions. Control does occur in the brain while weighing options, for eg, to take a rational decision rather than an impulsive one. But that control is not freely upto you, you don't author the control, because they too, are just thoughts popping up in consciousness, unawares. You probably don't wanna agree on the definition. But you do agree with the conclusion, just don't like using the term free will there.

​@@CuriosityGuyIt's a bad definition because normal people don't mean that when they say free will. They mean the difference between a human and a fly that acts more automatically and the difference between choosing to do something or having a gun to your head.

@@justinlloyd3 Nope. People have the feeling of could have done otherwise. That's what they mean by free will. We have other terms for the phenomenon you wanna care about. Like voluntary control, will power, self control or something.