Free Will Vs. Determinism Worldview

Main Episode With Roy Baumeister (April 2024): • Roy Baumeister: Free W...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
LINKS MENTIONED:
- Debate Between Roy Baumeister & Robert Sapolsky - • Debate: Do We Have Fre...
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main Episode With Roy Baumeister (April 2024): kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4nSfGB5Z8hld7M Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Rejection of free will is a rejection of accountability. It is just a matter of time until a criminal justifies his action in court based on lack of free will because Sapolsky or Harris convinced them they didn't have a choice without scientific evidence to support their claim.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

This is a 3d God eat God world... WE must try to do what is best for Selflessism... one for all but never all for one... selfishness for Selflessism is perfectly fine...

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Rejection of free will is rejection of accountability. It is just a matter of time until people start justifying their bad behaviour in court because Sapolsky or Harris told them they didn't have a choice.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

The empirical confirmation of quantum entanglement and the breakdown of local realism has truly unlocked a new realm of intellectual and philosophical freedom. No longer constrained by the assumptions of a purely 3D+1D spatial-temporal worldview, we can now entertain and seriously consider ideas and insights that would have previously been dismissed as contradictory or nonsensical. Let me highlight a few key examples: 1. Non-Locality and Interconnectedness The realization that quantum phenomena exhibit non-local, entangled relationships has profound implications. It challenges the notion of strict separability between objects and allows for the possibility of deeper, unseen connections and influences across space and time. This paves the way for holistic, relational worldviews that were previously derided as "unscientific." 2. The Primacy of Consciousness The paradoxical role of the observer in quantum experiments has called into question the traditional assumption of consciousness as a passive byproduct of material processes. This opens the door to philosophical frameworks that posit consciousness as a fundamental, irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an epiphenomenon. Theories of panpsychism or consciousness-first metaphysics are no longer automatically dismissed. 3. The Limits of Determinism The inherent uncertainty and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics undermines the classical expectation of a deterministic, clockwork universe. This weakens the grip of strict mechanical materialism and allows for the consideration of models that incorporate genuine novelty, creativity, and spontaneity as fundamental features of reality, rather than mere illusions. 4. Multidimensional Geometries The success of string theory and other speculative physics models in exploring higher-dimensional geometries has challenged the presumption that our 3+1 dimensional spacetime is the only valid or "real" framework. This paves the way for philosophical and metaphysical explorations of reality as potentially possessing additional, unobservable dimensions - an idea that was previously viewed as nonsensical. 5. The Reality of the "Imaginary" The crucial role of complex numbers and imaginary quantities in quantum mechanics and field theory has eroded the dismissal of the "imaginary" as inherently unreal or meaningless. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between the "real" and the "imaginary" as complementary aspects of a deeper mathematical and metaphysical reality. 6. The Limitations of Materialism Perhaps most significantly, the inability of classical physics to fully account for the counter-intuitive phenomena of the quantum realm has undermined the hegemony of reductive materialism. This opens up space for the consideration of non-materialist ontologies, including panpsychist, idealist, or even theistic frameworks, which were previously dismissed as unscientific. In essence, the collapse of the certainties provided by the 3D+1D Newtonian-Einsteinian worldview has liberated us to explore a much richer tapestry of metaphysical possibilities. Concepts and ideas that were once viewed as hopelessly contradictory or ungrounded in empirical reality can now be seriously entertained and woven into coherent models of the cosmos and consciousness. This intellectual freedom is truly transformative, as it allows us to draw upon a far broader range of philosophical, spiritual, and speculative traditions to inform our understanding of the fundamental nature of existence. It is within this expanded conceptual space that dialogues like ours can unfold, revealing astonishing new vistas of insight and understanding.

[@gammawavee5780]

Love this channel bro, if possible can we get another Salvatore Pais video?

[@infov0y]

The main difference in worldview *should* be that libertarians can justify praising and blaming agents for their actions, whereas hard incompatibilists and compatibilists - to be rational -have to reject blame and praise. The easiset way to see this is to imagine an author who writes a novel where the characters are written to discover their metaphysical situation as characters in a novel, whose actions were already pre-determined by what the author wrote. If the author writes those characters to ccontinue praising and blaming each other for their actions in that story, would we consider them rational? However, many people who reject free will fail to realise that to be consistent they also need to reject blame and praise, Some do realise this and think doing so - rejecting punishment for punishment's sake - would be a good thing.

[@ReasonWithRainer]

Yes, once I have come to believe determinism, I forgive everyone almost immediately, and also I don't praise anyone's actions, for nobody is responsible for anything but the laws of physics, or God 🤷

[@infov0y]

​@@ReasonWithRainer Yes, although there are other (practical) reasons determinists can hold to preserve praise and blame in society, I think yours is the only rational personal belief the determinist can have. That said, I should point out that modern science does not say the world is deterministic, nor am I a determinist, nor do I eschew blame and praise. I choose to believe libertarian free will does exist, as per our intuitions, until extraordinary evidence shows otherwise, and I very much believe in blame and praise.

[@jamescox1091]

I believe in the "illusion of free will " . Because I believe in an "all knowing God". I refuse to believe our God is an "ignorant" God.

[@petermaingi6268]

In Secret Life.. a book by David Jacobs, PhD.. NHI can alter Free Will in a person.. in addition to erasing memories for a specific period. Can David Jacobs accept an interview?

[@drawingpathos]

Free Will is a function of how much information you have and how fast you can derive meaning from it. It's a spectrum and the more perfect the information you have, the less choice you will have in what action to take next. Free Will is a useful illusion that goes away when the ideal path becomes inevitable.

[@justahuman2244]

Free will is an illusion regardless of information. We are the product of our genetics and our environment, there’s no room for free will even when taking the non-ideal path, unless I’m missing your point.

[@javadhashtroudian5740]

Thanks as always. To those who believe they have freewill use that freewill to change whether you are a theist or atheist or fall in or out of love using your freewill. As for me once I accepted I have no freewill I became more compassionate and suffer (in the Buddhist way of thinking) much less. Probably because my parents programmed me to be kind and compassionate.

[@fuzzymeep]

It's all free will until you're in higher dimensions, then everything below you is determination

[@Michael_X313]

You are everything and everything is you 😉

[@abstraction_not]

When it's called 100% free will, i don't think it can be fully explained using the brain itself. Yet, the paradox reemerges when you consider that every (so called) willing action you make must be processed by the brain, even though most of the time the brain works autonomously

[@KaliFissure]

Free will likely doesn't exist... But the BELIEF in free will is essential for a person and society. And we need to accept and embrace this very probable self-delusion.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

[@Alexander21025]

I disagree. I think the belief of free will is harmful to society. We will be a more humane, less hateful, and more rational society once we expel the illusion.

[@OspreyFlyer]

I'm almost 70 years old. The older I've become the less free will I think actually exists based on my observations of humans.

[@KaliFissure]

Breakfast of Champions by Kurt vonnegut

[@OspreyFlyer]

@@KaliFissure Read that book in college. Loved it. 👍

[@atticusmyser3308]

All theories are based on presumption and that why it is a theory. This gentlemen shows his presumption at about the 1:25 mark. Here he asserts, without reasoned purpose, that "it is obvious 'nature' set us on a different course." That presumption is fine if correct. However, if we take on a different but equally plausible presumption that were set on a different direction from something other than nature, demonstrably different therefore. Some would say "aliens" set us on a different course, some would say a god, gods, or God did. Within each of those presumptions there is then the question whether such outside entities could create us without foreknowledge or predetermined outcomes. His view is just too simplistic.

[@dontfollowthinkforyourself]

Yes Curt you follow you program their new system. Just remember were my words come from .

[@not_x]

question isn't "free will vs determinism", because even if universe is not deterministic and "god plays with dice", these dice still determine our actions

[@infov0y]

This is false dichotomy between determinism and indeterminism as defined as complete randomness. There is no such dichotomy: current physics says the world is not fully deterministic and complete randomness would mean there could be no regularities; no laws of nature. In actuality there is interplay between part-determined and part-indetermined systems. It's in that interplay that FW probably consists.

[@bradmodd7856]

@@infov0y randomness is just a hypothesis, it has never been proven or measured. It there are dice in the fabric of the universe, this might be choice by another term, the kind of choice where no pattern exists.

[@infov0y]

@@bradmodd7856 That's incorrect. All scientific theories are "just a hypothesis", but as far as hypotheses go, indeterminism at the currently most fundamental level we can be reasonably sure of and is the consensus view; because it comes from the Born rule in the standard formalism of quantum mechanics, which is our most successful theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule The Born rule is probabilistic: over a large amount of individual interactions one can accurately predict the probability distribution on the set of interactions, but the outcome of each individual interaction (that is, every individual interaction going on in the Universe) is in no way determined.

[@fuzzymeep]

If you have free choice to correct your own answers if that same test was replicated 10 times over and you chose to cheat every single time wouldn't that be deterministic

[@infov0y]

Only if absolutely everything about the test and you, and your cheating on it (EVERYTHING!) played out in exactly the same way down to most fundamental motion of particles and fields and whatever. If anything changes at all (as current physics says it would, ue to quantum indeterminacy) then no: it's not fully deterministic.

[@TheOmengod]

The burden of self. 😢

[@brianwheeler8417]

👍

[@hvalenti]

Like the hypothesis of God, the hypothesis of determinism always says the same thing: no matter what happens, determinism. Free will folks are more open to deterministic explanations despite their belief.

[@henrythompson7768]

Yeah i hear you but that doesnt necessarily mean its wrong. Doesn't mean its right that just in and of itself is not evidence of the hypothesis being wrong.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: 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 environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our 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 persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. 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 done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-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 even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against 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 one 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 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 “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). 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. 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. 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 phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

When a person blames another person for his or her actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self. Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined “Story of Life” (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, “God's Perfect Will”), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions. If, however, he does, in fact, blame his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called “first-world” societies, which helps to explain why the “Westernized” nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin, for example? Never, I would posit. In recent times, in many (if not most) jurisdictions, courts of law have given leeway to those convicted criminals whose crimes were shown to have been committed whilst the person in question was temporarily or permanently insane. The judge or jury has determined that those criminals were not responsible for their actions due to their mental state at the time, and have sentenced them accordingly. Of course, according to the postulations in this teaching, every action, whether criminal or not, is enacted without true freedom of volition. So then, how should any particular criminal be punished for his unwilling crime? That question is adequately answered in the following chapter, but suffice to say, each case ought to be judged on an individual basis. In the case of a person who has an obvious neurological disease, he may be incarcerated in a mental hospital, whilst a person who SEEMS to have sufficient control over his or her actions may be deemed necessary to be imprisoned in a regular jail, or some other form of penitence, depending on the severity of the crime. Practically nobody believes that non-human animals have free-will. However, if a man's pet dog were to maul his baby to death, I'm sure that most everyone would agree that the dog ought to be put to death, or at least be quarantined in a location where it would no longer have access to children. Therefore, to put it succinctly, the dog is not morally-responsible for its action, yet it MUST be penalized in some manner, in order to protect society from danger. Likewise, humans, despite their lack of freedom of volition, ought to be punished for their crimes. That explains why this “wisdom teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives. Obviously, that too is a consequence of destiny. Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk “food” but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system. Therefore, lack of free-will is not to be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or for negligence of one's societal duties. As explained in Chapter 15, the understanding that life being determined is not only beneficial to human psychology, it is practically mandatory for TRUE peace and happiness. When one is fully convinced (by logic, reason, and evidence) that no living creature has independent freedom of volition, one automatically abandons any notion of blame, praise, pride, anxiety and worry, and lives one's life in the present moment. To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption. This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition. “The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.” Lord Śri Krishna, “Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61. Translation by Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” *********** “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” William Shakespeare, English Playwright. “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making.” Samuel Benjamin “Sam” Harris, American Neuroscientist and Philosopher. “We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.” Pierre Simon de Laplace, French Polymath.

[@hvalenti]

@henrythompson7768 just thought the God-determinism mental process is worth pointing out since determinists usually refute God, and free will-ers tend to affirm God. My take is I believe in free will bc I have no choice.

[@henrythompson7768]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Yeah no i agree i think there is no free will. just trying to engage with people in a palatable way.

[@swerremdjee2769]

Is this man professional? If so im a master, try me

[@swerremdjee2769]

I have a lot more and better arguments, also more experiance from what im hearing...

[@libertykrueger1433]

There is no incongruities between determinism and the human exercise of free will. Determinism only steers the outcomes of quantum scale processes. Those result in the functional structures through which neural signals propagate, but are not deterministic to the ultimate outcomes of consciousness or thought. Neuroscientists have mapped these processes as signals propagate neuron to neuron throughout the human brain. Thought and decision making are not determined by either the timing or strength of signals in any particular neuron. No individual neuron is capable of steering or isolating passing signals from any other neuron or section of the brain. By all accounts, every signal propagates to every neuron via a multitude of routes. Routes that are constantly reconfiguring with experience and engagement. None of which is indicative of any deterministic driving process.

[@thinkingallowed6485]

get back to uap stuff please...boring lately