steve_

It would be very easy to pick apart some of the nuttier ones; lawd knows there's many. Picking apart some of what someone like Alan Watts says would be interesting, though. Stef's video on drugs was really great. I remember the first time I watched it having a different reaction than the 2nd; I think I either knew Stef better and so knew to give him more respect and to actually listen to what he was saying, or I just got better at receiving and deciphering arguments all together - It was probably a bit of both. At any rate, I think he mentioned some of the more in-depth reactions people have with psychedelics, the other dimensions and entities that people report to have come into contact with, but in my experience with small doses of psilocybin it has just a case of making your brain work a little different which gives you a different perspective on things, relatable to how you may feel social situations are easier after drinking alcohol. I believe there's been studies done that show psilocybin having similar effects on the brain to deep meditation, which might account for people reporting an improvement in their personality and feeling of well-being.

Well, even allowing you that, it still means I can assault mentally disabled people.

But, if free will isn't real, you didn't have any choice where you ended up. You're literally a rock rolling down a hill, or a drop of water in a wave. Whatever you do, was just that, what you were always going to do - there was no other way it could have gone down even if you duplicated and replayed the universe an infinite amount of times. If free will isn't real then you might have the illusion of being able to freely choose whether to go left or right, but you were always going to go left. Yep, that's pretty much determinism as I understand it.

I'm not so sure it is: Even if we have absolutely no ability to deviate from our fate?

Why's this?

What's the point in having it if you're only going to apply it to things you think it's convenient to?

Therefore the NAP applies to us humans, which means we humans shouldn't break it. Not: Therefore it's okay to initiate force against babies and animals. Right?

I had a discussion with a friend about this and we concluded that we couldn't as we'd cause a sort of infinite loop which would never finish. If you were outside of the universe, then yes, but any interference within the universe would possibly make our prediction false because variables would have been changed.

Hiya Has there been a podcast on this before? I hear the claim so often and it sounds so crazy; is there any truth to it?

Well not if you didn't think they cared about who won, no. If they were getting antsy about me pointing out the truth then I'd stop and disengage with that person, but if the person repeatedly says they're all about truth then I'm going to take their word for it and try to convince them... with a tactic that isn't just repeating myself over and over I'm not sure why beliving in determinism means you can't change another person's mind, though. Whether or not free will is a thing I'm sure we've all changed someone's mind or have seen other people change their minds. I think it's safe to say everybody believed in free will at some point; I don't think determinism is the default position for many people.

Truth for me I think. I've found the whole lack of free will thing pretty scary and disheartening, but I want to challenge myself by ignoring my emotions and ego while trying to unbiasly seek truth. I always admired one line from one of Stef's videos; I think it was one where he was infront of a lake and he said something along the lines of "I'm sorry if imaginary things get knocked over in my mad dash for truth" and I think we should all always put that into action. It seems to be one of the only things I disagree with Stef on, and I'm not really even sure if I do, but I do find his arguments to be flawed. I wish I were around a few years ago when the podcasts started so I could have been apart of the conversations back then as they were happening.

The idea of free will not being real bummed me out a bit, but at the same time I think it's one of the least important discussions of all time, and I've found a video by an awesome guy called Dean which explains why:

Isn't that what we're trying to get away from?

Hey Stef, I had a few concerns with your arguments from the last sunday show. I commented on youtube too, but they probably got quickly swallowed by other commenters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=159s https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=228s These states are just personal preferences, no? Whether or not free will is a thing, isn't the preference for another to believe truth over falsehood just a personal preferece over anything objective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=320s Regardless of the debate we can all see that we have made choices and have been affected by other people when choosing things, right? @ the boulder scenario. If you note my first point, we of course have a personally preferred place for a boulder to land if there's a chance it might hit your house, or you. I wouldn't say there is an objective preference set by the universe/god or anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=659s I think mixing the word 'choice' in here is confusing issues since they don't have the ability to choose; they're just subject to other things (gravity, colliding objects). If a bunch of people do an Armageddon(?) and fly up to an asteroid on a rocket ship and plant a bomb on it then that would be the same as telling it to choose to move another way since it's just an attempt at changing a (guestimately) predicted outcome. It wouldn't be contradictory, it's just you having a personal preference to change a (guestimately) predicted outcome.