Kevin Beal

Okay, explain it to me very simply like I'm daft. If you explained how free will requires a suspension of physical laws, I missed it. All I was able to suss out was a reiteration of what you already stated.

My experience with Nihilism: I considered myself a nihilist for several years. Specifically a nihilist with regard to truth and morality (and even reality at times). I have that part of myself inside me still. I associate it with depression. It seems to fit a cycle that I have where something will provoke insecurity in me, then I feel depressed, then I have nihilistic thoughts about how everybody is full of shit and everybody is arrogant to think that they know anything true. The function of the nihilism seemed to be to make my depression out to be healthy and the state where I'm most "honest". In other words, it's okay that I feel afloat unsure of myself because (ostensibly) everybody else is floating too and they are deluded, only pretending to be ship captains. I had been chronically depressed from an early age until just a few years ago and it was very familiar to me. I knew other people who were also very depressed, but had great rhetorical skill, always contradicting what I said, making me feel like I knew nothing. A sort of post modern,... sickness. And I would do the same thing to people eventually (and regretfully). What changed: The way that I started working out of it was by first realizing that this was a problem and that I had very poor self esteem. No matter what ideology I adopted, I just knew that what I wanted most was to be happy. The nihilism gave me too many reasons to isolate myself, not take risks, not build or maintain relationships, not put myself out there. I got into the politics talked about in this show and the book The Psychology of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden came up, so I decided that I would try and see if working on my self esteem was something that I wanted to do. The book is amazing (in case you haven't read it) and I became aware of how important the idea that I take myself and my rationality seriously was. I took a greater interest in objectivity as it offered me a an opportunity to better understand the world around me, be more effective, have real values and eventually have real lasting self esteem (as is explained in the book). I started feeling good about myself and seeing how I was formally so irrational with the nihilistic ramblings that I would produce. I felt it important to gain good logical tools: principles, in order to combat the nihilism I have within me, so that I could have self esteem and be happy. Now, that nihilism in me takes more the form of cynicism and skepticism which I'm much happier with. A certain degree of doubt seems worthwhile to me. I don't know if that helps at all, but that was my experience. Also, Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (by Stef) extinguished the last vestige of my moral nihilism. I would highly recommend that one if you're more thinking about moral nihilism. I think it actually kind of appeals to moral nihilists in a weird way since the problem moral nihilists seem to have most often is how irrational people are when they make moral arguments, inflict shame, wage wars etc. Show content on nihilism: 863 – Son Versus Nihilists - A Listener Conversation http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_863_Son_Versus_Nihilist_Listener.mp3 930 – The Lure of Nihilism (A listener conversation) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_930_The_Lure_of_Nihilism.mp3 1010 – Mr Nihilist... (A Listener Convo) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1010_Mr_Nihilist_Listener_Convo.mp3 1044 – Mr Nihilist Part 2 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1044_Mr_Nihilist_Part_2.mp3 1059 – Mr. Nihilist Part Three http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1059_Mr_Nihilist_Part_3.mp3

Am I wrong, or is this conversation going in circles?

How is the existence of physical laws, causation etc incompatible with the free will position? You state this repeatedly but never actually explain it. If it were actually true, then all you'd need to do is collect a sufficient number of variables and predict my behavior. You see this in every determinism debate: "conscious volitional action can't violate the physical laws and causality!" because determinists always have the two premises I mentioned earlier presumed. There is nothing that I'm aware of in physics or any other science that says that self generating, volitional, free will is incompatible. That should be a rather easy thing to prove, right? And yet no one ever does that, they always just presuppose it without any thoughtful consideration to what causation actually is. They repeat it ad nauseum as if simply saying it makes it true. They just picture a physics experiment and extrapolate the principle to everything in the universe. (I believe I have rescued physics in my event driven programming language analogy earlier in the thread.) @HasMat: Have you watched the John Searle video I just posted? Here's a related article on why you cannot explain the mind in terms of a computer (also by John Searle): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

All I'm saying is that (assuming I understand determinism) there is a misconception that says that you can look at any event taking place right now and tie it deterministically through a series of necessary causal events necessitating the next (given some set of variables) all the way back to the big bang (or before, some distant event in the past, anyway). Determinism assumes a fullness, a causality where every single instance and event is tied to another necessarily. And that to offer a causal description that says that I chose an action of my own volition is a naive proposition since if we were only able to account for every variable and event we could have predicted that result, in the same way we can do physics models that predict where a rock will land rolling down a hill. 1. causality connects every single event deterministically, and 2. the level of description that says that I choose to lift my arm is inferior to the much more accurate description that says that an electrical impulse is sent to my brain and triggering a series of impulses that lift my arm Both of these premises appear to me to be necessary for the determinist position, and both are always assumed before any debate with a determinist ever begins. Determinists sometimes aren't even aware that they are operating from these premises. I don't accept either premise. At least I've never once been given a reason that they should be true beyond mere assertion. You can prove determinism right now if you can predict the exact manner in which I respond next time I do respond. Type it up, save it, timestamp it and then when I make my next response, you can show it to me and I'll be entirely convinced of determinism. There is a fantastic bit about free will in the Psychology of Self Esteem where Nathaniel Branden distinguishes two descriptions of causality: one based on causality great for describing physics models (by Galileo) and one based on the identities of the actors involved in events (by Aristotle). He also makes a similar case to how Stef does around preferred states. The point about appealing to preferred states and how a determinist can never logically do this without immediately contradicting themselves is here: John Searle speaking to consciousness and causality:

I admit it! I have a hard-on for philosophy

Lol. Is that like having a hard-on for philosophy?

It has been mentioned in a few recent call-in shows. Nothing too in-depth. Mostly just an explanation why Stef doesn't think it's a very wise strategy, some jokes at PUA's expense and that sort of thing. Here's a listener mailbag on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9QSNCO7NUQ

Pick up artist

BCF: Big chatty forehead LCF: Little chatty forehead BTC: Bitcoin

I'd happily contribute to this, just tell me how I can help

Whether or not there is indeterminacy at the quantum level does nothing to explain free will. It's a red herring. You can be entirely right and still there is no free will. Also, I did qualify the rock down the hill as theoretically 100% deterministic. I am not a physicist, so for the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept that it describes fully deterministic events. We can grant the premise and if determinism is wrong, it will still fail. I was asked "free from what", as in what are we comparing free will to. Obviously a rock rolling down a hill has no free will. That's why the analogy was made. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the pretty feathers thing. If you are saying that both sides of the debate can provide scientific arguments then that's not really any kind of real response to what I said. I made a very specific point with a heavy implication that should throw determinism into serious doubt, not a deal clincher but it is something determinists (and Daniel Dennett) would have to explain.

And she later ended up saying was basically that she treats all men as potential rapists. A guilty until proven innocent sort of deal. Ostensibly, the only reason us guys don't rape is because we haven't found an opportunity yet to do it and get away with it. Pretty vile.

That's amazing to me that we can do things like that. It would be interesting to watch the lives of these first groups. Living on Mars seems like it could change your perspective on things in pretty interesting ways. I checked out the road map and have a little bit of the picture of the next few decades, but I'm curious if they have any material out there around what the 50-100 year or later vision is. The goal seems to be primarily colonization and to start a true colony on Mars, it would seem that you would need some kind of local market. I'd be very interested how they plan to scale up from these smaller pods / domes to a larger society. Or do they plan on setting up some initial frameworks / technologies that other companies / groups would find it profitable to get on board? This is the approach SpaceX is taking and I think it's an interesting one. The biggest most ambitious projects in human history are taking place all around us. Time is speeding up like crazy. It's a wonderful time to be alive.

Sounds like a fascinating project. I would hate to be one of the first people though. No internet...

In exactly the same way that you can't argue that language has no meaning, yes. It would be more accurate to not include the word "belief" since what the person believes is irrelevant to the truth value of the proposition. Their actions necessarily imply the reality of free will, would be (I think) a more accurate phrasing. The "free" in free will means free from necessary antecedent events in the way you can (theoretically) predict with 100% accuracy where a rock will land down a hill. The rock and the hill and the wind all lack volition. Everything that happens to them is imposed on them by outside factors. There are events that precipitated my response right here that could be considered causal like your question, my desire to communicate this idea, how I like going about that etc. But they aren't deterministic, I can't put these variables together and reach a result like you can in physics. Jon Searles has a presentation where he describes the irreducibility of consciousness that blew my mind:

Wow. First off, welcome to the boards! Second, I'm very sorry about your dad, and I'm really sorry about your mom, and the bullying in your schools. That is truly awful. I am very glad that you've taken the steps you have, made the progress you have and that you are finding yourself more in control of your life. That is awesome. Also, the animation is beautiful. Very nice work. The illustrations too. I haven't checked out the music, but really great stuff. I don't have any advice, but I'm sure that there are other people who can relate and provide more meaningful feedback on the boards. Again, welcome!

Fucking brilliant

Humans can't escape causation, obviously. If determinism means that humans can't escape causation, then I guess that means I'm a determinist. I would say that free will is a self generating, volitional action that was chosen with reference some ideal / preference. I chose to respond to this forum post, but I don't choose to kick my leg when my knee is hit with a rubber mallet. People look at determinism like it's a chain of causal events locked inescapably together with no wiggle room. And such is apparently the case with a rock rolling down a hill. It's direction determined by certain variables like the hill's surface, it's density, the rock's shape and density, the wind etc. A person is not like a rock though. A rock has no volition. A rabbit moves itself around without needing to be nudged, and a human similarly moves itself around and does so with the capacity for conscious motivation. The problem with saying that causality necessitates determinism is that you have to look at a very isolated scope of events. Say I choose to lift my arm. There is nothing necessarily that makes the level of description "an electrical impulse travels to my brain lighting up relevant parts of the brain which are used to process information and then used to cause a response in the muscles that lift my arm" any more valid or causal than the level of description that says "I thought about lifting my arm and chose to do so to make whatever point about free will", lol. Causality is not the same thing as a physics experiment. Obviously causality (and determinism) is required for a physics experiment to have any kind of reliable results from which theories can be based. But this level of description is not the be all and end all, otherwise we wouldn't need any other fields of science. If you've programmed in any event driven language (like javascript) then you know that within the scope of a very specific input, the output is 100% determined, but the environment itself that these event loops are hooked into is not of the same nature. The application itself necessarily implies that the ultimate result of your use case is undetermined. Likewise the brain can include fully determined operations and self generating operations within the same organ. And of course the inherent performative contradiction outlined in the podcasts is clear evidence of the free will position. This is just my own spin that is not covered in the series.

I doubt this very much, that the reason determinists are unconvinced is because it's a philosophical argument without conclusive scientific empiricism. First of all, determinists do not tend to demonstrate any understanding of the philosophical basis so it's not as if they checked it out and then are holding out for neuroscience studies to confirm. Second, if they don't have an understanding of the philosophical basis, then what are we even talking about? And third, where is the evidence that our conscious decision making is an illusion created out of purely deterministic antecedent events? There is no consensus among neuroscientists about the validity of determinism. In fact it sounds like MMD is getting a neuroscientist on the show to talk about some of the relevant research in this area (based on a comment Stef made in a recent call in show). Consistently I see determinists equate the free will position to the ghost in the shell or to spirits or some other mystical (non) explanation. Most determinists don't even know what the debate is about. Why have this very expensive phenotype (that is our subjective experience of making informed decisions) if it served no purpose at all? If you assume determinism, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for the subjective experience of making a decision, you'd just take the action. It costs the human organism a lot in different resources to create this "illusion", that could be spent elsewhere. Have determinists ever heard any arguments like this? Almost certainly not. I'm just saying that if you are a determinist who wants to tackle free will, then actually get to know the position. I hate the strawman that is constantly erected.

Shaming someone is a dishonest appeal to a person's insecurities. What Stef does is the exact opposite. He is being honest. And what is that supposed to mean? That I like being shamed or something? What are you trying to suggest? You have training that I don't. But I also have experience. This appeal to authority is meaningless to me, especially considering I reject NVC. I already know. I'm not unfamiliar with what you are saying. Don't think that because I don't agree that it's because I'm ignorant.

@determinists: have you listened to the podcasts on the subject? (3rd post in this thread)

Maybe you should finish the video first Also, how do you know they are less likely? That's not how I work. It's not how other people I know have looked at their own wrongdoings. When someone exposes an area in which I may be culpable I think about it and I want people to be as direct as humanly possible. I've had to face many of my own demons listening to this show, so when I say that I'm speaking from experience. When someone is bluntly honest and direct about your shortcomings / wrongdoings do you just flippantly reject them? If no, then give other people a little credit. If yes, then you need to work on that. Also, what is the point of your statement? You are suggesting that Stef is twisting the knife in and that he shouldn't, that it's going to drive them further from the truth. What experience is that meant to elicit? Joy? And just to anyone reading who's asking themselves the question in the thread title: Does peaceful marriage have sympathy for miserable (and by implication: violent) spouses? Maybe someone would (or should) have sympathy on some level, but you can't ask the battered spouse to be the one to do it.

I was practicing capitalism as a child before I even knew what the state was. My friends and I didn't need any military, or to exploit anyone. Maybe there are better ways to live, then you can lead by example. Shuck the computer and your modern technology and show us how great it is. But if you aren't willing to lead by example, then I'm not likely to take this seriously. I wanted to get the people in my life interested in bitcoin, and so I invested heavily in it, bought cool things, donated to people and watched the relative value go up and down. When I made the value proposition (with the help of the FDR video) I was much more compelling that way. When I wanted to wanted to show people the value of honesty and reporting the facts of my present experience, I started actually doing it myself, learning how to do it in a way that felt my own and slowly other people in my life started adopting similar approaches. You need to actually do what you advocate. Can we at least agree on that much?

Already a thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38079-youtube-the-truth-about-nelson-mandela I couldn't really parse out any argument that your friend made. He just made some completely unverifiable claims about how things would have been worse if he hadn't been an evil thug, which is a really piss poor defense.