Free Will │ Determinism and Compatibilism

Related videos

[alexanderchippel]

We don't need free will. All we need is the *illusion* of free will.

[YostPeter]

The day-to-video ratio right now is 1/1

[RunningOnAutopilot]

Just want to disperse some preconceptions as someone who has had a profound experience of seeing in myself at the most basic way. The soul does not disprove determinism the soul can also be deterministic. Also I think to a total or greater extent it is after seeing myself most basicly

[axelthemango]

Great so determinism and free will are two sperate things. Hm, who knows, maybe one day we will find out what free will is or what it could be. For now all I know is that consciousness is ok and very real. Ima get back to my bird videos now.

[lilym]

3 things make up what you do 1. DNA the literal making of your brain and body 2. Past experience and 3. Current experience. What more is there?

[Linares]

"I think you are doing ideas bad" I'm so using this

[Staroy]

*Great, now I have existential crisis.*

[MrAntieMatter]

I was expecting a video soon, but not this soon, damn!

[SpaunnGaming]

Great, now I'm gonna be paranoid for the rest of my life that there's an invisible chair judging me...

[ducomors]

This was very good. So good that i cannot really put it into words yet. But i wanted to say that it was very good prior to me going and trying to digest these thoughts for a few hours. I may be back later with a more cohesive response

[sephyrias]

Oh boy, a discussion on free will and determinism ... oh wait, it's just this place again.

[videogyar]

3:12 He finally came out of the closet!

[Nettakrim]

if there is no “free will”, does that change anything though? is life any more or less valuable? probably not

[loganleatherman]

I would like to add, because I’m seeing this in the comment section, determinism and pre-destination are NOT the same thing in concept or mechanics; even if they might be the same thing in terms of outcome. Determinism is simply the idea that everything that happens, has happened, and will happen, can only happen one way/will happen one way based on the events of the moments chronologically adjacent to the moment of the event in question. Nothing and no one can know the outcome of such an event at any given time until the event has passed (unless you adhere to ideas of God/gods, which we won’t even address here because it isn’t relevant to this secular discussion). Knowing the outcome to future events, or even more severe directly being able to influence the outcome to future events in an absolutely certain predictable fashion is pre-destination. If someone is “destined” to do something, that implies that some form of consciousness somewhere concretely knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what will inevitably happen, or that some consciousness somewhere has directly decided/influenced the outcome of an event. Pre-destiny involves conscious knowledge of everything that will happen, at the very minimum. This is not determinism, as determinism doesn’t assume such a consciousness having the ability to do so. Just wanted to clear that up. It’s possible to be an atheistic determinist (e.g. me). Please comment for further discussion/clarification.

[aeroplane]

This is one of the smartest entry level approachable videos Ive seen on youtube, because of multiple aspects.
First of you actually go the length to explain what a concept of reflection is to properly explain this topic. Concepts of reflection are such an important aspect of logical argumentation that could often be brought up, but I never see anyone (on YT) actually caring to do so.
Secondly you dont go the moronic way of even discussing free will vs determinism with the argumentation of "we should leave everyone their right to form an own opinion, cuz democracy and values" but you actually right out make sure that everybody knows that we are talking about objective concepts here where opinions and morality doesnt apply, which is while you rule the illogic free will and soul philosophies out from the get go. Those simple statements are revolutionary on such a dense platform where everbody freely subjectivies statements and still brings them forth like they matter. I hope you are introducing some fresh people to these important topics and bring them to reflect a bit about themselves through your videos.
Furthermore this comment section is suprisingly interesting for a creator of your size, which just validates my points further!
Thanks for making this!

[PuppetRebelPress]

"Damn the compatibilist pig-dogs!" *Like*
Really good discussion.

[flyingfree]

Blue and yellow light don't make green, blue and yellow pigment do. Green is a primary colour in light (RGB) and a secondary colour in pigment.

[brianfreeman]

The universe is made of atoms which yield to the laws of physics. We are made of atoms. Our brains are made of atoms. They too yield to the laws of physics. But, consciousness is a game changer. Yes everything we do is determined, but the way we feel about certain things will result in a different action in the future. And I don't mean 'feel' in the physical sense. I mean it in the mental sense. If i touch a hot stove in my ignorance, I'll deterministically never touch a hot stove on purpose again, but if it weren't for my feeling about touching this hot stove, the reinforcement wouldn't work, and I'd probably touch it again. So no, we don't have freewill in the sense that we can change fate; an omniscient mind could calculate what you would do in the future based on the movements of molecules in your body and in the world, but we're not just along for the ride, watching what our bodies do without any regard for how we feel. We are the body itself, which is why our desires and feelings effect what our bodies do. So there is a sense that freewill is still true since what we want to do affects what we do. But its not so strong that we can change what the laws of the universe have us do. Compatibilism is the truer view, but its hard to wrap your head around.

[roxef]

Universe either behaves deterministically or there is some amount of randomness involved. (Note that for large statistical samples, random phenomena also behave very predictably.) By definition there is no other option. Even if you include souls, magic or supernatural, it will not change anything.

[Deathnotefan]

The current theory of how time travel would work (assuming it can be done to begin with) is that it would always create a closed loop, this works both scientifically (alternate timelines would require the spontaneous generation of entire universes, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics) and logically (as changes to the past create paradoxes, in violation of logic itself)

Let's imagine you tried to go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power, the current theory of time travel says you can't do this

Determinists would argue that this proves there is no free will, as you have no choice regarding Hitler's life/death

But if you tried to jump off a roof and flap your arms in an attempt to fly, very few people would claim the reason you can't fly is due to "lack of free will", you can't fly because it's simply not possible for your arms to generate the lift needed to counteract gravity, nothing about this situation disproves free will

The determinist vs compatibilist argument exists because the two sides have different definitions of what free will is

Let say a compatibilist and a determinist both prefer fruit loops over cornflakes, and both look into the future and see themselves eating cornflakes for breakfast

The determinist believes there is no free will, and he therefore has no choice but to eat cornflakes

Whereas the compatibilist believes he still has free will. Perhaps he simply decides on a whim to eat cornflakes, maybe there are no fruit loops left, or maybe a crazy guy broke in an made him eat cornflakes at gunpoint

The compatibilist may claim that the determinist still _chose_ to eat cornflakes, as seeing his own future was a factor in what he chose to do

And the determinist may claim that the compatibilist had no choice, as a crazy guy with a gun ate the last of the fruit loops, leaving only cornflakes

Neither is actually wrong, the campatibilist's only options were to eat cornflakes or not eat at all, and while some philosophers may claim this is still a choice, most people would argue that it isn't

But the determinist did see the inevitable future, and _chose_ to not fight it, thereby causing it to happen