What is Libertarianism? (Free Will)

[@manamejeffbeezos]

I think I just found a gem of a KZbin channel. Excited to binge. :D

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Glad you think so! Hope you enjoy. :)

[@thehunter11]

I didn't understand Thomas Pink's definition of free will, but now I think I am pretty sure that I do thanks to you. Thank you.

[@lrwerewolf]

@Carneades.og Please make sure in your quantum video to discuss the implications of superdeterminism. Far too often this interpretation gets overlooked.

[@BelegaerTheGreat]

You can make choices, with which you influence the world. Duh. 5:00 Some actions are non-causal. There is no cause of them, they are the free will. Of course, other actions are causal, like dominos. 8:00 Nice! He mentions quantum mechanics, which I intuitively spoke of too, when considering this myself!

[@crab7965]

There are no non causal events and quantum mechanics do not give you free will.

[@MartinHal-fead]

​@@crab7965Free will is a priori only. Judgements are able to exist, but only in the brain, by weighing various things we don't control. Thus, yes, we do have freedom, but ironically we had no choice.

[@scarlettwilliams5722]

Is there any possibility of explaining “soft determinism”?

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Soft determinism is in two parts. The belief that determinism is true and we have free will. That naturally seems impossible to most people so a very common error is to imagine determinism is being played around with to allow more than one physically possible future. But that's not it. What's happening is the soft determinist defines free will so that it is compatible with having only one physically possible future.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Political libertarianism is quite closely related to metaphysical libertarianism. The idea is people strongly deserve the consequences of their choices. And also that is our successes and failures in life are a result of our choices. And so the poor deserve their lot and the rich deserve theirs and so we shouldn't impose rules to make life better and fairer, like government intervention to help the worst off, using money from taxation to do it.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

I've listened to 4 minutes. The term "real choice" keeps coming up but it's not defined so it gets us no further. "real choices" and by that I mean the choices we actually make usually do seem to be predetermined!!! Take the case of two people happily in love who decide to get married. Of course it doesn't seem like they could do otherwise in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past. It's frankly nuts. If we take "real choice" to be the illusionary version the speaker is talking about then that needs defining. Which can give us a definition of Libertarian free will.

[@GrimsBar]

I think there is a range of choices a person has the ability to make that is also constrained. Case an point, If you want to fly, but live in 1900 that is not possible at the time. So your ability to make the choice to fly doesn't exist. Now, if you have the knowledge and expertise from outside influences, and make the choice to build a machine to fly, you can. Your ability to choose the option of flying is constrained by many different factors such as education, resources, time, even having the mental ability to design a functioning flying machine. Free will falls in between these two schools of thought, where Lerbertarianism is nested with a deterministic framework.

[@Firefly256]

Yeah I believe in this as well. A roadblock in me trying to make sense of free will was like this: If our actions are free, that means there isn’t any cause behind it. But if there isn’t any cause behind it, it would mean our actions are purely random, which is still not free will. However, I’ve made sense of this today. There IS a cause behind the action (which is the deterministic part), however, that cause does not only lead to one action, it leads to multiple, which you can indeed freely choose. To give an example, say there are actions A, B, C, D, E Person 1 is born with a personality, the deterministic part, P(1) Person 2 is born with a personality, P(2) P(1) will always lead to either A, C or E P(2) will always leads to either B, D or E In this case, person 1 is restrained to only pick A, C or E, and cannot otherwise pick B or D. Yet, they are free to pick any one of those 3 options (A, C or E) Same goes for person 2.

[@hessylaguna5415]

The "quantum" section of this video is a straw-man of the libertarian position. The way a libertarian would appeal to quantum physics in order to undermine determinism is not by appealing to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which is what you describe here). It's by considering the implications of Local Hidden Variables, a fairly new discovery in quantum physics (1964). To understand local hidden variables I would recommend watching the Minute Physics video "Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox". What Bell's Theorem implies is that either one of 2 things is false: Localism or Realism. If Localism is false it means that Einstein's theory of relativty (E=mc^2) is wrong since causality, information or something else has the ability to travel faster than light. If Realism is wrong it means that randomness exists in the universe in a quantum level and that determinism is wrong. Physicists tend to accept the latter view more (determinism is false).

[@hessylaguna5415]

I didn't even say anything pro-libertarian, it was anti-deterministic if anything. Did you even read what I said? Everything that I said was just clarification not even an argument. Are you going to respond to any of it? Is it bad to clear up misconceptions about topics so that they are better discussed? Nothing you said was relevant at all. Don't step up to me with that weak shit.

[@eleftheriosepikuridis9110]

Yeah but Randomness doesn't support Free Will at all. If you randomly and not deterministically make a choice, that choice is still not made by you, still not free.

[@hessylaguna5415]

@@eleftheriosepikuridis9110 Yeah that's the common objection. There's two responses to that: Your argument misses the point. What discovering indeterminate acts implies is that indeterminate acts are metaphysically possible. We have scientific evidence that says randomness exists, at the same time trying to explain randomness with our current understanding of the universe is impossible. And yet people are quick to accept that randomness exists. In the same way, we have empirical evidence (which I would argue is stronger than scientific evidence) that people make free decisions and we reject that, but on what basis? That we don't yet have an explanation? That's the case with randomness too. So I argue that people are inconsistent with their logical application. I think that having a libertarian free will view is not ridiculous as the requirement for indeterminate acts being possible is met, which opens up a path for agent-causal decision making. I'm not myself a libertarian, just don't think it's helpful to outright reject it as people seem to do. I guess I'll use the second argument on my other post, sine you replied to me there as well.

[@Samuel-qc7kg]

@@ludoviajante Dude, literally if someone attacks one position there will be people defending it on the comments. You see it everywhere, there is nothing special on it happening here. So no organized religion, just humans acting as humans.

[@jokerxxx354]

No they dont

[@Genomsnittet]

"Seem" is the key word here. ^^

[@mr.stargazer9835]

This definition of mental libertarianism presuposes the existance of determinism. You are 'defying' a determined path.

[@patrickwithee7625]

I wouldn’t put Agent Causal ways of looking at free-will in Libertarian or Compatibilist camps, and I certainly don’t think the average Agent Causal theorist thinks agents are uncaused by previous events.

[@ovrava]

partly incorrect (ex. 5:10) but good video.

[@mahnamahna3252]

Mr Smith is The One

[@KEvronista]

that's right: throw fuel on the fire! KEvron

[@dmsexton888]

You might be covering this in your next video, but is there a way, besides appealing to quantum mechanics, to falsify hard determinism?

[@hamooozmugharbel]

Bruh there's no way to establish any kind of determinism to begin with

[@patrickwithee7625]

@@hamooozmugharbel wat?

[@hamooozmugharbel]

@@patrickwithee7625 do you have an argument that would establish some form of determinism?

[@patrickwithee7625]

The problem isn’t the definitions of determinism or free-will per se, but rather the entire paradigm is faulty. Free-will shouldn’t be thought of as “the ability to do otherwise”, but that doesn’t mean we have to change what free-will means within the paradigm like compatibilists do. Rather, we change the paradigm. Freedom is a function of the human mind (which is a function of the brain) that involves making predictions about the future, given the past. The power of hypothetical/counterfactual reasoning is also necessary, as it opens our mental lanes to any question we know how to ask and have an idea of how to confirm/disconfirm. Anything follows from a contradiction, and the human mind is capable of contradicting itself even though no contradictions exist. That’s to say that we can hold contradictory notions because our mental states are products of non-identical brain states. So, the brain states don’t have to be inconsistent, but just the higher-order conscious experience of considering two contradictory options equally. More or less, free-will is humans using memory, hypothesis, experiment, and reason to better align their epistemic situations with reality through time, for whatever purpose they follow.

[@hamooozmugharbel]

Ill take that as a "no" then

[@KEvronista]

whatever action one takes, it's impossible to prove they could have taken any other action. free will is unfalsifiable. KEvron

[@KEvronista]

@@thotslayer9914 no, not everything; just claims about reality. KEvron

[@KEvronista]

@@thotslayer9914 then claims about free will are subject to falsifiability. KEvron

[@KEvronista]

@@thotslayer9914 *"do as determinism"* have i any other choice?! derrrrrr... _p!_ KEvron

[@Foolish1poorlytrying]

@@KEvronista I agree with you, kevron. I want to extend a respectful suggestion, instead of taunting them, help them to understand. They seem confused from a lack of information.

[@KEvronista]

@@Foolish1poorlytrying i'm quite content with the level of discourse on this matter. KEvron

[@eddiecurrent7721]

So in this case, quantum physics have sufficiently disproved determinism.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

There is an open debate. Check out the next video in the series for more. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYm6npqZjcZ7d6s

[@alsatusmd1A13]

The weakness of political libertarianism is that it views organization as inherently authoritarian and so libertarians never organize any movements to speak of. And though political and metaphysical libertarianism seem only superficially related, it is easy to assume people have both libertarian politics and libertarian metaphysics, at least if you ignore the part about the laws of physics. As for the laws of physics, they determine what an agent can or cannot do but not really what an agent does or doesn’t do when the agent can do it. Even deterministic laws tend to be contingent though, so things often happen otherwise than we may assume.

[@KEvronista]

*"Even deterministic laws tend to be contingent"* they're descriptive, so, of course, they're contingent. KEvron

[@marcs9451]

You don't know a single thing about libertarianism, political pr not. Saying all organizations are authoritarian is not a libertarian point, you most likely never read anything about Proudhon, Konkin, Spooner or Rothbard, that is a cheap strawman

[@Foolish1poorlytrying]

First, I agree with kevron in that free will is unfalsifiable. In order to prove one could have made a different choice you would have to reverse time. But first we have to know what time is. As I commented in the last video on free will, I find hard determinism and cause and effect to be the most compelling possibilities for the nature of the universe and reality. That said, I suggest the possibility of choice being an illusion of chemical biology. As I comment before, I currently think of biological organisms as biological computers. The organism takes in (observation) information(programming) and then computes that info for said result. I don't include consciousness because it first needs to be objectively and definitively defined before you can talk about something. You can't discuss something if you don't know what it is you're discussing. Objective, definitive definition are a necessity. Lastly as for the quantum argument of unpredictability, it's intellectually lazy and dishonest to say, just because you don't know or can't explain, that something isn't so. Maybe the quantum realm is unpredictable, maybe it's not. We don't know. All in all, it's a fun topic. Looking forward to some friendly discourse. If any happens.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Falsifying free will in general would be hard, but in specific cases one could imagine mapping all the neural interactions in a brain and predicting the choice that someone will make. If you can predict choices with 100% accuracy, the Libertarian's claim becomes much harder to justify.

[@Foolish1poorlytrying]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene first I want express my gratitude for replying, thank you. Despite my opinions on the subject, it's still fun and intriguing to discuss. mapping a brain to 100% accuracy would not be enough to except or deny free will. There is still the question of consciousness/personhood. What is, if anything, making the choice? Which brings into question of what is choice. I propose the possibility that choice is the mere cause and effect of those neural interactions. But that still doesn't answer the question of what consciousness/personhood is. As for what consciousness/personhood is, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe consciousness, like choice, is also an illusion created by the neural interactions. Asking what choice and free will are before defining consciousness is trying to run before you can stand.

[@mysigt_]

@@Foolish1poorlytrying the assumption is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain’s processes which doesn’t have a causal interaction with the universe. If that is not the case, consciousness is either material, in which case the argument for determinism doesn’t change, or it is immaterial, in which case we must find a new theory of everything which accounts for this unprecedented kind of phenomenon. Consciousness doesn’t change the argument that IF we could perfectly predict decisions by mapping the brain, it would be a problem for the libertarian stance.

[@earnthis1]

Good and Evil are just like your opinion, man.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Interesting position. It sounds a lot like emotivism. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWrYgIuQi7t7paM

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Libertarians don't think we can break physical laws.

[@madametortue6036]

True