Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Do We Have Free Will? | 5 Minute Video" video.

DifferentGuy4 What if the god is very abstract, i.e. a deistic or pantheistic god? Does it need to be a god with human features such as emotions according to you?
1
Calvin Smith Indeterministic for us or absolutely indeterministic?
1
Calvin Smith Well, I don't see how anything could be non-stochastic. And I meant that something could be impossible to back-track for us (e.g. because we can't look at a quantum state without changing it) but that doesn't mean that it's not cause and effect.
1
Yesica1993 > because there is no transcendent standard for what is right or wrong. Is there any in any world view? Please give an example for a good standard.
1
Yesica1993 That's what I am doing, I am arguing that there can't be no absolute standard even when you allow for a perfect supernatural creator being.
1
Yesica1993 No and a society where this would be OK would not work, it would lead to less happiness overall.
1
Yesica1993 It's still based in reality.
1
Yesica1993 I consider "transcendent" not to be.
1
summercures2 > concerning our emotions, why do certain people we know cause feelings of love and sadness? I don't see why this needs a supernatural explanation.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > So anything nonphysical is magic now? Something is physical if it follows certain rules, otherwise it's non-physical, just like magic. > nonphysical doesn't mean it has to be mysterious If you understand it then it becomes physical. Or do you define "physical" differently? > It just requires different methods of understanding. What's that supposed to mean? > even if it is magic, I'm not sure if I care. I'm fine with such a notion. You don't gain much by declaring the possibility of magic. You are basically just saying that anything is possible at any moment, that not everything has to follow certain rules. But since you can't make any predictions or draw conclusions based on this there isn't any value. Also there is no explanatory power of declaring something the result of magic, you aren't any wiser.
1
YamiShadow Kitty More desirable because it makes our world simpler and better to understand. Also, being sceptical and keeping it Occam's-razor-simple instead of shoving wishful fantasies everywhere is the humble thing to do.
1
summercures2 > After all, chemicals in our brain are not intelligent enough to know how to respond to seeing your wife after not seeing her for a long period of time. Huh? I think you don't understand how neurons in our brain work. What you said would be akin to saying that carbon, hydrogen and iron aren't intelligent enough for combustion engines.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > Occam was happily religious throughout his entire life I don't care about him personally, I don't consider him a prophet, I am not trying to appeal to his authority, … (Why do certain types of people assume that everyone thinks the way they do and follow every word/action of a prophet. I've seen this before, creationists starting arguments with what Darwin supposedly said/did, as if it changed anything about evolution itself… it really baffles me how these people have such similar thinking patterns that are so different to mine.) > It would be a misunderstanding to suppose that his Razor is meant to remove the possibility or existence of the nonphysical from our sphere of awareness. It is meant to uphold scepticism towards all claims, especially those extraordinary ones that change more of the status quo, e.g. if you allow for magic you allow for a lot more. Otherwise you could always insert everywhere an absurdly complex explanation for no good reason and there would be no rules and regularities. Can you assume I am a human more or less like you as opposed to an alien? Yes, unless there is good reason to assume that I am in fact an alien. > I love weird definitions that are easy to rip apart. > You clearly don't know what physical means and are trying to equate it to "exists" as a sleight of hand, to remove the possibility of the nonphysical mind outright. How about offering your own? I am happy to be using it in discussions with you. > Yet it isn't a physical thing so much as a nonphysical/spiritual manifestation which can affect the physical. What's that supposed to mean? Again, define "physical" please. And using no circular/recursive definitions if you may. > That something is nonphysical doesn't mean that it does not follow rules-- only that whatever rules it might follow are probably not the rules which physical things follow. That's circular.
1
Sam Kalagi Are you saying that being allowed something to happen at random (indeterministic) for it? While being all-knowing?
1
Sam Kalagi If you are adopting WLC's arguments can you please answer the question using his arguments to show that you understood it? Because with WLC's followers I often get the feeling that they themselves didn't understood it.
1
Ah, subtle creationism. And presented quite fallacious, I especially like the false dichotomies here.
1
Wayne Ekeh You do realize that some things are theoretically possible but practically impossible?
1
YamiShadow Kitty > but it's such a weak theory when you try to apply it as a universal. Isn't it the simpler explanation to assume that it applies everywhere? Occam's razor.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > Universal claims are the hardest to make for anything. But it's quite reasonable to live as if certain things were universally true, e.g. that the universe existed last Thursday just like 5 seconds ago. We can't dismiss solipsism but there is no value in considering it.
1
YamiShadow Kitty I would argue we don't hold people responsible just for the sake of it but because it works in creating a better society. And it works no matter whether there is a "free" will or not. I still don't see how determinism should change anything.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > It seems to be just an argument that the herd is more important than its parts. The herd is important for its parts, we are social creatures.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > You don't seem to understand the nature of the relationship you're proposing between the individual and the collective. All I am saying is that it's good for us to be social and build societies with rules. Without it you don't come as far. It's pragmatic to hold people accountable.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > just arbitrarianism given a polite name. It's a fact that a society works better when people are held accountable, you disagree?
1
YamiShadow Kitty If there are reasons why it shouldn't be universally applicable then we need to find it out just like with the fish and the water, the null hypothesis should be that it is universal
1
Deb Ona > I am claiming that our current collection of scientific evidence does not exclude the possibility completely. When does/would it ever do? You can't completely exclude solipsism (e.g. that you are a brain in a vat) but that does not mean it is reasonable to assume it to be true. Unless there is exceptional good evidence I consider it unreasonable.
1
YamiShadow Kitty > Why should we care about civil society if people aren't accountable for what they do? We should care because we want a society we feel better in. > would you not say that evolution should probably cull it over the following generations? If there is at least some selective pressure/advantage, sure. > We can't simply live by instinct. Depending on how you define instinct I might argue that we pretty much are, even when we are behaving rationally. > Without free will, there is no such thing as accountability, as you grant. Do I? I really don't remember doing so. I am just saying there is no absolute accountability. It is up to us and the goals we want to achieve. > What follows from this is that there is also no necessity of holding people accountable There is a necessity in order to have a better society. > To do so would be like eating, if there were no physiological or taste based need. People want to feel better, like they do in a better society. > What you need to do is justify the claim that we can keep something just because it's practical or pragmatic. Under what grounds and for what reasons? Under "what grounds and for what reasons" should a believer strive for the carrot (heaven) instead of the stick (hell)? In order to feel better. Same goes for why we should strive for a better society, in order to feel better. > We don't just lose accountability with causal determinism, but also any notion of values in an overarching sense. What is "values in an overarching sense" even supposed to mean? > Why should we even CARE about the fact that someone was raped, or murdered? Because if we do and act correctly then in the end it leads to a better society. > but it's not like she had a choice anyways. In a society with accountability it's less likely, that's what should count. > Murder supposes an intentional act. If we aren't responsible for what we do, how can we do something "intentionally"? We should be held responsible for what we do in order to get a better society. (BTW, I can't stop thinking about how this discussion would go if you were talking to a Calvinists; if I remember correctly they conclude determinism from their belief that god is almighty [omnipotent] and thus all-knowing [omniscient] and therefore knew all outcomes when he created everything while having the power to choose any other outcome with no outcome being impossible for him because of his omnipotence. By this he predetermined all outcomes including every outcome of our thinking.) > Why on earth should we punish both? We shouldn't, it would lead to a worse society. (I know I am starting to sound like a robot but it's fun how the pragmatic/utilitarian approach to things is always possible, I still haven't seen you present good arguments against it.) BTW, I can't remember that I really argued against "free will", normally I will only argue for determinism (except when "determinism" is defined as solely what we pesky humans can "determine" about previous events) and have a discussion about the definition of "free will" where I would then present my definition of free will as something describing a feeling or state of mind rather than an absolute concept (works quite well unlike when people try to define the "absolute free" where you can always poke holes into it, try it yourself).
1
Wayne Ekeh Huh, why do you think so? What is conscious/subconscious has hardly to do with the particles in our brains per se but more with different brain areals.
1