Maybe it does not show anything to you, but it did to me and I suspect some others as well. I can accept your OPINION that it is pathetic, but that does not make it so. No need to be sorry, we can only know what we know.

Did you even read the article or the original information/videos that were included? My guess is no. Rather you jumped to a conclusion based on your 'preconcieved' notions of what is true and what is not.

Bravo for being a deterministic robot.

Sorry, you linked to the video, and claimed the video debunked Hawking. So I watched the video.

Now are you saying the important stuff is in the videos ASSOCIATED with the video, and the linked articles claiming to be RELATED?

I didn't jump to any conclusions, I watched the (entire) video and considered what was said. I noticed that the video in fact doesn't SHOW anything (I remind you again)--other than the personal thoughts of the author. It offers no extra data (other than some helpfully mined quotes), and uses (misuses) inaccurate summaries of what Hawking says as one straw man after another (which it mostly fails to even knock down). Really, it's a terrible piece of crap.

EDIT: But if you like, why don't you tell us about something the video "shows" ?

Here are some of my comments, ideas, and opinions that arose after watching the video:


• There is no free will, but there is consciousness. They are not the same thing, and one doesn’t follow from the other. Not only scientists, but also most modern philosophers accept that there is no free will.

• The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the accepted interpretation because Niels Bohr devised it and at the time he was the most influential physicist in the physics community. Hugh Everett’s “Many Worlds” interpretation makes much more sense, but when presented to the physics community it was dismissed by Niels Bohr because Niels Bohr wanted to maintain power and control. Politics affects the scientific community just as much as any other.

• Physics (what we call physics) cannot explain everything. Mathematics cannot describe everything.

• Consciousness is the only thing we know for certain to exist. Every “thing” that we believe exists is believed only because it has entered into our consciousness.

• We ARE “biological machines” or “biochemical robots” and we have no free will, but it does not follow that we don’t have a “soul” or don’t have consciousness or awareness.

Imagine that you’re watching a very engaging film: You relate especially well to one of the characters. You become completely absorbed by the character – you feel what the character is feeling, you think what the character must be thinking. In a sense, you become the character. But what is the character? The character is nothing more than an image on a screen. The character has no feelings, no thoughts. The image of the character deterministically moves from frame to frame without awareness, consciousness, or “free will”. When watching the film and engaged with the character, you are the “soul” of the character.

Here’s what I believe: We have no free will. We are biological machines. However, “our” consciousness is not really “ours”. Our consciousness is the material manifestation of our higher immaterial “selves”.

• We cannot predict the future state of complex, chaotic systems, even in theory, and even if all physical phenomena are strictly deterministic. We cannot accurately predict specific details of a particular individual’s behavior.

• The “primacy of matter” paradigm, which is the prevailing paradigm among both scientists and non-scientists, claims that the physical, material world actually exists, yet makes this claim without proof. Physicality is an un-provable materialist axiom. The “primacy of consciousness” paradigm claims that everything derives from consciousness. This also can’t be proven, but the existence of consciousness is self-evident. It is the ONLY fundamental “thing” in “existence” that is self-evident.

poetry. that's all it is, elaborate mathematical poetry.
None of Hawking's musings have any bearing on my day-to-day activities, so to me, it matters not.
I prefer experiential musings.
I take Hawking about as seriously as Criss Angel, but, that's just me.

The article I was refering to was the latest "headline" on the website, which you were so quick to dismiss and use as a basis for invalidating everything else posted on the site. I never said anything important was included elsewhere, was just curious if you had even bothered to read the 'headline' article before casually dismissing it and everything else on the site...therefore letting your programming control you, hence proving to yourself and Hawking that you are acting as a deterministic robot.

I never claimed the video debunked Hawking, just that it shows that his particular perspective is narrow, especially to the MEANING of things, as it does not fit into his programmed paradigm. There is no meaning behind the equations, no cause for all the effects we see in the universe.

So consciousness doesn't have free will?

And therefore by extension, every single solitary thing in the universe, from the smallest partile of matter to the largest structures are deterministic? What about that which we cannot see or detect? All dimensions and realities are determined as well?

I can't conceptualize how consciousness can be determined, please help me understand.

I've always been puzzled about the opposite position: I can't possibly fathom how events/thoughts can be anything BUT "caused," and thus determined--unless they're random. Random I can understand.

I challenge anyone to even DESCRIBE how something could be neither CAUSED by factors (and could be only what it was because of the confluence of the factors) or RANDOM.

What would be the "process" of a thing arising that is neither caused nor random?

Free will doesn’t exist anywhere. Not here, not in hyperspace, not in “God”. The concept is a logical contradiction. It remains illogical whether a system is deterministic or non-deterministic. Free will cannot exist in a realm where causes lead to effects. Free will is an abstraction without definition. (Try to define it and you'll see this to be true.)

All cause-effect relationships are by definition lawful. A lawful relationship is not necessarily a deterministic one. And a “non-lawful” cause-effect relationship is a contradiction: It is the lawfulness of the relationship that makes it a relationship. It is lawfulness that binds together cause and effect.

Consciousness seems to me to be pure “being”. Pure being lies outside of the realm of cause and effect: There are no causes and there are no effects. There is no will in consciousness, free or otherwise. It simply is, eternally.

dude.... like.... whoa...

The concept is a logical contradiction, and therefore a paradox.

Free will does exist as consciousness or being, for in the present moment all possibilites are avaialable. In the present, there is no past and no future. You have infinite choice and can percieve those choices irregardless of the input of the past that no longer influences what may be.

The present is a focal point for eternity in which all things are possible, therefore nothing is determined and one is free to choose any of an infinite of possibilities. That choice being free will, unfettered or constricted by anything from the past or desired outcome from the future.

We always have access to the Now (being), in which we are free.

There's good reason to believe that's a delusion.

The only way to show that it's NOT delusion is to DESCRIBE a process by which a decision is made (or a path taken) that is NEITHER a deterministic process nor a random process.

Hmmm, that is a fascinating way of looking at the present moment, but doesn't really say anything about free will.... unless of course, one defines free will exactly as you describe it here.

In the sense that choices are not restricted or limited or constrained by “others”, we are free to choose. But ultimately, choices can’t ever be free.

Either something causes a choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free, or nothing causes the choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free.

And to equate free will with making free choices (which is reasonable) doesn’t help us to define what free will is. “Free will is free choice.” OK, so what’s free choice?

As food for thought, another argument against the idea of free will, which I won’t get into here, is the concept of agency. Free will is assigned to individual agents. If one believes that individuality is an illusion, then to whom do we assign free will?

show evidence.

In logic, a tautology is always true. The following statement is a logical tautology:

Either something causes a choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free, or nothing causes the choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free.

Well said. I agree with much of this, however, when speaking of the issue of "free will" we need to understand that what the word freedom actually means, when taken into this consideration and about how said freedom effects our perceptual view of reality (or even the existence of the universe). From my vantage point, we have the freedom to embrace or refute what our minds and perceptions reveal to us. We are free to believe our choice is spontaneous. But is it truly?

In other words, to confirm within our psychology and interior perceptual philosophy, or reject appearances as a mirage played by forces we cannot see or understand. So for myself, my personal freedom is limited to either accepting the appearance of things as they spontaneously manifest themselves... or to brush them off the table and seek an alternate view. Such freedom is less about having the power to choose, as it is in having the power to decide how said choice comes into being.

Who am I? Is my awareness born from my existence or is my existence born from my own awareness? The freedom seems to come into play when I challenge myself and my subjective perceptions. And yes, in this eternal moment, this expanse of the NOW... we are essentially free to make just one vital decision, that of releasing our mental conditioning and SEEING something else in all of this paradigm, this puzzling existential challenge. So are we the direct catalyst or the end result of another source for such a result in our choice?

This turn in the discussion reminds me of the long debates I have had with a good friend of mine who is a Calvinist. His stance was that there is NO free will whatsoever, as God Almighty has chosen for us, every tiny detail of all of the events of our earthly existence BEFORE we were created. Period. So, nothing we can do as individuals is applicable to our soul's salvation and freewill is an illusion. Other than the overt anthropomorphizing, I disagree with this assessment, as it is founded in blind faith, not reason, intuition or self exploration. It is as debatable as the notion of chaos and random happenstance. I think it is fair to say that it takes a lifetime of practicing being in the present & training the mind to be attentive to the now, to even approach this idea and NOT be influenced by our conceptual predilections.

That being said, I know what you mean and it is quite reasonable to believe that within the focal point of the present moment, we do have certain freedoms available at our disposal. I believe you are implying that this freedom is spontaneous and in-and-of-itself, it is free? Free insofar as it is birthed in the now and is wholly new and if we are empty/transparent in our reception of this perception, a window opens into new horizons.



Exactly. I can agree with much of this assessment. Whether we use logical deduction or some kind of spiritual intuition to come to this point is irrelevant, for we are each caught within this paradigm. We are hard-pressed to SHOW such a possibility, as it is rooted in our subjective impressions (which is what I suspect you are implying?). None of us can prove or disprove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what factors are at play, by which we might determine if we have any freedom of choice in this present moment. It behooves us to ponder the significance of our possible freedom of choice but perhaps the very spark if inquisition is built upon by factors which are out of our control?



Yes, this certainly seems to be a relative truth in this existential equation. For if we make the choice through our conscious will, this is a decision based upon all that we have been gradually conditioned to perceive. Likewise, if another force makes the choice, as with the concept of predestination, there is little freedom involved.

So I guess I am giving the nod to all of these insightful observations, despite the seeming contradiction, as I cannot honestly be sure I know that my perception of anything at all... is not founded in delusion or a mirage my mind is accepting at face value. Or if conversely, I am seeing a new vista into unrealized potentiality. Frankly, it's always good to question everything we think, feel and intuit, right? Perhaps I this state of inquiry, we are beginning to approach the true nature of freedom?

In another thread I remember discussing the blossoming of a flower: The blossoming of a flower is determined by the delicate and complex interaction of the bud’s environment and the DNA and other constituents of the bud. When the interplay is just right, the bud begins to blossom. It doesn’t choose to blossom. It doesn’t will itself to blossom. There is no free will had by the bud or the flower it becomes. Does this diminish the beauty of the blossoming flower?

I think of the entire universe as a blossoming flower – eternally opening, eternally unfolding. Like the flower, the universe has no choice but to open and unfold. There is no free will, but how does that diminish the beauty of the eternally blossoming universe?

so determinism is all there is?
that's bs, a cop-out, and a forfeit of other "logical" human constructs such as responsibility.
of course there is choice, and often, there is no reasoning behind spontaneous choices. either way, you actively make the choice, nobody else makes the choice for you; and good luck showing evidence that the universe makes all the decisions.


you're really just debating semantics, which is typical in philosophy.

my wife says "everything happens for a reason."
in the cause/effect sense, yes...but show evidence that determinism is the cause.

Benzyme...this is what determinism is. Cause/effect. What else are you looking for?

No reasoning behind spontaneous choices? What does that mean? It doesn't have anything to do with determinism. The concept of determinism includes the idea that this entity that you consider to be yourself IS DETERMINED by the past. The person making "spontaneous choices" is determined by it's environment, it's culture, it's genetic, it's past actions and habits... therefore, the "spontaneous choices" are also predetermined. The choices doesn't make themselves...a certain entity needs to make those choices, and that entity is necessarly determined by a complexe system of cause/effect.

Saidin, you can talk about deprogrammation all you want, but certain events, causes, is what will cause you to reject your pre-programming. Since you can't function without a program, you need to build yourself a new structure. That structure, or new programming, will be defined by your past experiences or your new ones, depending on what your process is. You cannot survive as pure being, or else you have to stop functionning. And don't take it as an insult, but as much as some people may look like "materialist pre-programmed people", just be aware that to some, you sound pretty much like a "new age re-programmed person (brainwashed?)". We are all determined by our environment... you as much as anyone else.

And don't call me a materialist. It is not because I criticize that pathetic video you showed us that I am strictly a materialist. I'd just like to see people have solid arguments if they are to reject other people's logical and scientific opinions.

if you want a solid argument, show evidence, not circular arguments based on semantics and mental wanking.
this is similar to the kind of crap that shows why psychology isn't a science.