Note to whomever edited this video: Audio levels are very inconsistent. In general, Mr. Kuhn's voiceovers are too low.

I KNOW this, if we had free will before, marriage put a quick END to it.. Good show...

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

To be serious though (sorry) you bring up a salient point... marriage is a perfect example of free will altering impulse behavior. Every day you choose to honor those vows (whether it be out of fear or respect or love etc is another matter) in spite of your natural impulses.

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidaustin6962 You are definitely speaking to the choir friend, and I agree 100%..

@mustafaelbahi7979

4 жыл бұрын

@Zameen Z If the various worlds are unknown in relation to them, they do not explain our faith and do not interpret faith as the basis of scientific epistemological knowledge, then the claim of atheists' lack of faith to not see is unjustified

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@mustafaelbahi7979 Buddy we've talked before so I know where your comming from, but this comment made NO sense despite my BEST efforts to extract some..

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@mustafaelbahi7979 Say it a different way..

I have a theory that free will and determinism are true at the same time if you include the multiverse. All multiverses are ruled by determinism but your freewill moves you from one to another based on your decision without you noticing. Instead of collapsing the waveform with your intention, it only appears that way to you because you really go to (or bring to you) the unique version of the multiverse that your intention. The electron cloud is always a cloud of possibilities, you're just no longer examining the cloud believe and it has collapsed.

These always gets uploaded close to bedtime, they have become a wind down routine at this point for me 😌

@YB7517167

4 жыл бұрын

the videos won't run away buddy

A discussion about free will seems like a waste of time until you understand what consciousness is and how/if it can act on the physical world.

I love your show Dr. Kuhn. I’ve watched nearly all of them and the interviews. Here’s the deal. I just can’t get past the free will question. For most questions one can say, “well assuming this then lets talk about that”. But unless someone can make me understand how free will and the block universe can co-exist, I’m not willing to stipulate free will. This question must be settled before we can make any sense of any of your other questions. Kip Thorne put it well when you asked him. Talia Wheatley showed how we’re tricking ourselves all the time. Jon Seral, and Peter Van Inwagon are such monumental intellects and even they consider the question a “mystery”. We need some kind of experiment that can settle this question. I’m really stuck on the block universe vs. the sense of free choice we have. This is my biggest sticking point. It seems so clear that the block universe idea works and yields so many successful experimental outcomes and theories. But is 100% totally contrary to the idea, any idea, of free will. Please, please explain to me how both of those things can be true? Also I’d love to see you interview the most well rounded, expert in this entire field...Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn. After all your explorations, I would love to know what your current opinion is. How do you make peace with the block universe? Thanks for putting all this material out so that I can share in it.

@domcasmurro2417

4 жыл бұрын

Why you think block universe is still a thing? Very few serious physicists would take it seriously currently. Its just a naive way to understand time, before quantum physics was developed. There is no block universe.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

@@domcasmurro2417 the block universe is very much a thing. I don't get the impression that it's fallen out of favor. Maybe it has never been popular because it seems deterministic, but even that could be an illusion based on a concept of time that simply we might not understand because we are in time ... We suffer from myopia in that respect.

Maybe you experience time before it happens and then live that moment out based on your choices.

This really needs to be remixed. The audio is al over the place.

I think there is free will in the sense that we chose certain actions, but there is not free will in the fact that we were going to chose what we chose any way since everything is predetermined before we come here any way.

I suggest that this argument is divided along the same old perennial lines that separate materialism from idealism. On the one side you have the hardcore materialists who believe that all of reality is composed of some kind of singular and mindless substance whose workings are purely deterministic in nature. And what that means is that not only does materialism insist that there can be no such thing as free will because anything that is presumed to be an act of free will is simply the end product of a causal chain of precursory material events,... ...but it (materialism) also insists that anything capable of expressing free will (such as a “self” or a “soul”) is simply an epiphenomenal illusion created by a specific (brain-shaped) arrangement of matter. Whereas, on the other side of the argument, you have the idealists who believe that reality is founded upon mind and consciousness, and that the substance that composes mind and consciousness cannot be placed in the same category as the substance that composes matter... ...(with matter simply being the infinitely malleable mental fabric that consciousness uses to create 3-D phenomena). In other words, the substance of life, mind, and consciousness is founded upon different (unknown) principles than that of the substance of matter, which, in turn, allows for the existence of a “self” and a “soul” and thus, something capable of possessing and expressing free will. The bottom line is that the question of free will cannot be resolved until the truth of the ontological nature of reality itself is resolved. _______

@ggentry5189

4 жыл бұрын

TheUltimateSeeds why does the idealist side of the argument with mind and consciousness allow for a self/soul?

@TheUltimateSeeds

4 жыл бұрын

@@ggentry5189 Hi G Gentry, One reason is because the idealist side of the argument contains Berkeleyanism, which suggests the possibility that the entire universe is the living mind of a higher self and soul (i.e., the mind of a higher consciousness). Therefore, at least from the perspective of Berkeleyan idealism, the precedent for the existence of a self and soul is implicit within the very makeup of the universe itself. Now if you just add to that particular interpretation of idealism the “possibility” that we humans may be the familial offspring of this universal soul (“created in its image”), then our minds (and souls) would be similar in form and function. _______

@ggentry5189

4 жыл бұрын

TheUltimateSeeds Are there other types of idealism which don’t rely on this higher consciousness/mind aspect? Is it a requirement for idealism?

@JJ8KK

4 жыл бұрын

Free Will is a possibility *_IF_* a _remote_ Mind and Body interface with each other on a level of EM waves. I actually spelled out how this is possible in a comment thread of one of Robert's earlier vids on Dualism. If you're interested... In this version, the human soul does not exist within a particular organ of the brain, but instead exists at a location that is spatially distant from the body it interfaces with. Upon one's death, the soul does not 'leave' the body, because souls do not occupy the bodies they exert a substantial amount of control over. This conceptualization of The Soul allows for its continued existence after the body it 'owned' dies and it _also_ allows for the existence of an actual Free Will that is not ultimately merely an illusion. It is also a conceptualization which is consistent with what we understand about the laws of science. Imagine a few hundred years from now, when humans will be able to create some very sophisticated robot explorers that they will no doubt send to distant planets. If an intelligent alien race were to encounter one of these robots, they just might mistake the robot for a "form of life" given that it appears to respond spontaneously to its environment and also appears to initiate/pursue purposeful actions. Through its 'eyes' and 'ears', the scientists back on earth who made it would be able to see what it sees and hear what it hears and we'd be able to give it 'volitional' instructions re: how to take advantage of its changing environmental circumstances. All this would be possible cuz we are able to send and receive info (sights and sounds) through the vacuum of space via electromagnetic waves. If a meteor were to hit one of these robots and it "died", we could say that its 'soul' back on earth--the scientists who processed its incoming data and gave it instructions--was able to survive its death. Now we know that sights and sounds can be reduced to electromagnetic wave 'disturbances' which can communicate that data to remote destinations. And we know that all the incoming data collected by the human sensory glands is reduced to electrical 'signals' which are transmitted via the nervous system from remote locations to the brain. With the use of this metaphor, we can suspect that perhaps the human brain is effectively a 'transceiver' which both generates electromagnetic waves associated with bits of information and detects incoming data via the same EM 'information highway.' The soul's thoughts would also generate wave energy which would be picked up by the brain, where they would be mistakenly interpreted by our unwitting brains as signals coming from its own sensory inputs. So maybe what Descartes was trying to locate was the point of this _interface_ (in the region of the Thalamus?) Just as a radio is constructed in such a way that it is able to _be influenced by_ a certain type of electromagnetic wave frequency/pattern, our brains are--by this account--constructed in such a way that 'invasive signals' from a remote Soul are able to interface with the brains that otherwise control our bodies. Imaging this point of 'data collection' from the body's sensory glands as a sort of 'control room' where the incoming sights, sounds, feelings, etc. are 'displayed' on a 'screen' area which is actually where electrical, and EM activity is occurring. The Amygdala would be in a position to monitor this incoming data and when it 'perceives' certain images/sounds/feelings that have been tagged in memory as threats or opportunities, it generates an emotional response. Now imagine that these images/sounds/feelings are also transmitted via EM waves in every direction, and that a remotely located 'soul' is able to receive them and perceive them in much the same way the brain (Amygdala) perceives them. Which is another way of saying that the Soul is therefore able to see/feel/etc. everything that is being 'displayed' on the 'screen' everything that the Amygdala is witnessing and responding to. Because this EMF interface is so complete, the Soul in its remote location mistakenly perceives the body's incoming sensory data _to be its own perceptions_ . When the soul then 'thinks' about alternative responses to the incoming data (alternative, that is, to the Amygdala's emotional response program) these thoughts are transmitted via 'energy waves' in such a way that _they are displayed_ on this 'screen' in the brain's 'control center.' Here, the brain/amygdala perceives the soul's thoughts, and mistakenly assumes that they are just more of the incoming data that it is always monitoring, according to its genetically determined program (flight, fight, approach). In this way, the soul is actually able to _indirectly_ give volitional instructions (idea suggestions) to the body. E.g., the body may initially perceive a threat that it needs to respond to, but if the Mind is thinking of the situation as a possible opportunity to take advantage of, instead of as a threat it must flee or attack, then the biological 'instinct' effectively becomes overridden by 'reason.' Not because the Mind/Soul is actually giving instructions to the body directly, but only because it is able---via the interface---to influence what the body/brain _is perceiving_ . How powerful is this influence on the body's biological response program? Well, powerful enough to persuade a soldier to march into machine gun fire to his certain death. What does the brain of a soldier see that makes him 'choose' to intentionally endure great suffering? Answer: the Mind's perception that such _mental_ happiness/satisfaction will be gained from being perceived a hero that it will be fully worth the physical pain/death that is fully expected as a consequence of the effort made. Such a conceptualization of The Soul allows for the possibility of an Afterlife (for the Mind, if not the body) which would be a state of affairs that then give us _logical_ permission to embrace all of the meaning and value we see in our lives on a daily basis. Without such a conceptualization of The Human Soul, we are forced by logic to perceive all of our intellectual ambitions and life goals as just so much futile nonsense...

@TheUltimateSeeds

4 жыл бұрын

@Nelson Giles Hi Nelson Giles, Setting aside the fact that the only thing that humans (be they materialist, idealist, or whatever) can do right now is hypothesize the truth of reality, what kind of “empirical evidence” would you need to see to convince you of the existence of free will?

I don`t remember being asked if I wanted free will

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

If you were asked then you were asked before you were born, and part of the process of being subject to free will included born as an infant where all previous experiences or knowledge was abolished. So yeah, you don't remember.

Great subject and very very good video. I see two aspects on free will. 1) As far as living creatures go and in the here and now goes, YES there is free will. Without this assertion, we could not be held accountable for our own behavior. In this aspect, we can understand that our behavior is usually predicated on what previously happened. 2) From an external point of view(outside of our universe and accounting for all time), NO there is no such thing as free will. In this aspect, everything that has happened and everything that will happen is all cause and effect.

I am asked to rise my left or right hand when I wish. How does my free will do that? Free will can not rise my hand, my muscles can. And because I am free to choose what hand to rise, it doesn't matter which hand it is. I find that the act of lifting left or right hand is a process or a task to the brain, something like the following: From free I "orders" my brain to initiate a following sequence: 1. choose randomnly which hand to move 2. Send the choise to the motoric brain area so that hand is lifted. After my brain has done task 1. (or maybe both, at some point of time in the process altough), I notice what my brain did and become avare of that. So the free in this case may well not be the decision to lift my left or right hand but to order my brain to do that randomnly. The randomness of course is not the same randomness that it is in mathematics, but that is immaterial. So this kind of inconsequentil action, lifting a hand, may well be a process that free will initiates in the brain so that choise of which hand to lift is not subject to free will, rather it is that free will initiates a process in the brain and then becomes avare of how it was executed. Kinda like: Ahaa my brain lifted my right hand. :-)

@mustafaelbahi7979

4 жыл бұрын

You mistakenly understood this free will. It is your materialistic way of thinking. What do you understand from this model? Faith is the basis of epistemological knowledge.

There is a fundamental probabilistic nature underlying everything. We can't claim that free will does not exist because of determinism. OTOH, there is no good reason, apart from our feelings, to claim free will exists.

I vote with Prof Peter Tse. Our entire purpose in life is to recognize impulse behavior and override that with things like reason and altruism when it comes to decisions that have moral implications. That is what separates us from wild animals. Plus, when you see a signal that implies a person makes a decision before they are aware of it how can you ensure that signal isn't proof of an essence (call it a spirit or life force etc) that is guiding your choices before you follow them? These experiments v interpretation are extremely dubious. It's astonishing that anyone might think they've settled anything ... But sure is good food for thought and can help lay down some tenets. There is definitely something that happens to our brains before we are consciously aware of it.

I am having an argument with myself over free will, and I am losing.

You are not free when I write these beautiful poetic words in the computer to convince me and not to convince you.

Context and Pretext. Meaning and Logic. Just because some things are predictable everything is predictable? Just because some things are random everything is random? Any choice that has an experiential context is still a choice. The choice will have an explanatory context, but it will still be a choice. Any choice that has no experiential context may not be a choice. The "choice" will be given a pretext, but the pretext is just that, a ruse. There is no explanatory context. Context gives choice a rational process. Randomness gives choice a pretextual process: absence of any context.

the being of agency or the agency of being

02:33 05:39 06:54 07:25 -- 08:08 12:43 13:21

It would help to answer clearly the question "My will is free of what?"

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

Free of someone or something forcing you to think and want (will) what you may.

@olivergroning6421

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidaustin6962 If I am hypnotized, I do what someone else wants, so my will depends on the mental state. I can decide not to breath, but only for a short time, so my will depends on physiological state. If I am hungry I shop different than when I am full (well proven), so my will depends on stimulus. Our will depends on a combination of mental state, physiological state and external stimulus. The notion of a purely free will is just academic, as it doesn't match everyday experience.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

@@olivergroning6421 have you seen closer to truth part 2 of the free will question? Lots of good experiments in that one, clearly demonstrated that free will is a question of degrees. Sure there are many factors influencing our actions, but its a hasty generalization to presume that rules out a free will. That's like saying atmospheric h2o influencing global warming means that co2 can't.

@olivergroning6421

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidaustin6962 No, I have not yet seen it. But what you say underlines exactly my point. Which is, that our will is formed by a protagonist and antagonistic influence of external, internal, conscious and unconscious stimuli. You might have seen in my reply that I say "purely free will" doesn't exist. What you say is that we may still have free will to some degree (almost free will). I define this 'almost free will' as 'our will can be dominated by conscious reflections' to which I agree. But almost free will is like almost winning a race or almost passing an exam. You actually do not win and do not pass, almost free will is no free will. I hope you see where I am going too and why I was unhappy with the question to start with. As every time I find myself looking into the fridge for a snack when I want to lose weight it is proven wrong. Cheers.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

@@olivergroning6421 Understandable. One of the experiments in the part 2 video demonstrated clearly that when subjects were continually subjected to situations out of their control they were likely to perceive things as you do. Those who were empowered to control a situation (such as bouncing and catching a ball) that small act was enough to make then see life less as "almost free will” (which equals no free will) and more as "mostly free will" (which is free will). I hope your situation improves to where you are victimized less, because that *is* miserable.

the hypnosis part is questionable especially after they didn't give any details or sources to how this very controversial procedure was done

@sudipadhikari491

4 жыл бұрын

The test shows the phenomenon of hypnosis doesn't exist, it doesn't work and it is useless.

@ChrisLively

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly, I just posted this above: I have a theory that free will and determinism are true at the same time if you include the multiverse. All multiverses are ruled by determinism but your freewill moves you from one to another based on your decision without you noticing. Instead of collapsing the waveform with your intention, it only appears that way to you because you really go to (or bring to you) the unique version of the multiverse that your intention. The electron cloud is always a cloud of possibilities, you're just no longer examining the cloud believe and it has collapsed.

@carnap355

4 жыл бұрын

​@@ChrisLively I think it is extremely unlikely that our consciousness can manipulate the wave function collapse. Do you believe we necessarily have to have free will to be conscious?

@ChrisLively

4 жыл бұрын

@@carnap355 I do not believe that to be true. We are conscious without doubt but may not have freewill. I do think about consciousness being the engine that may create reality by using our intention to collapse a waveform, or reality, into experience. If that is true, how did the universe, or Earth, exist before humans? Is that a sign that animals and minerals are also conscious? It's all fun to to think about, until I can't stop.

@Wretchedrenegade

3 жыл бұрын

@@carnap355 no I don't. But I believe free will is an emergency of consciousness

Thank you for another thought-provoking video; this one on the profound and pivotal question of “free will.” It’s yet another mind excursion while under the pandemic lockdown. Well, I am exercising “free will” right now by making this post. I could just as easily have chosen NOT to. So my human senses tell me that it’s obvious I possess it. Yet science posits a deterministic universe, with actions following preceding actions, and “cause” producing an inevitable “effect.” So perhaps everything I did up to the moment of my posting actually predetermined the fact and content of my post. So which is it? As the Prof. Searle explains, there are compelling arguments and proofs on both sides of the question - namely, Yes we humans do possess free will and No we don’t. My 2 cents. I suggest this. “Free will” and “No-Free-Will” have to be reconciled at some deep and primordial level. To me, “free will” exists in a quantum-based universe based on probability. Meanwhile, deterministic “No-free-will” actions are set in a relativity-based cause-and-effect universe. Thus, when quantum mechanics is ever reconciled with relativity theory, some final explanation, I think, might emerge in the underlying “free will” vs. determinism debate. For now, both seem to operate on some mysterious, yet unexplained, level. Thank you again for your video.

@garybalatennis

4 жыл бұрын

“God does not play dice!” - Einstein, using “God” as metaphor, to reject the nondeterministic universe implied by the quixotic foundation of Quantum Mechanics and the quirky randomness underlying the Uncertainty Principle, and suggesting a predetermined ordered cosmos governed solely by cause-effect with no free will. “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do!” - Niels Bohr, using “God” as metaphor, to counter by rejecting a predetermined cause-effect universe in favor of a universe fundamentally governed by the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics (superposition of probabilities) and the inherent randomness underlying the Uncertainty Principle - which in turn on some level arguably generate a nondeterministic fork-in-the road for choice-making agents to exercise free will.

@garybalatennis

4 жыл бұрын

DylonW Thanks for clarification.

In some things no - in others yes. Other-wise - you could do terrible things and not be held accountable.

The bigger question is not whether there is free will but whether there is anyone at home to have it. Neuroscience has increasingly supported the Eastern philosophical view that there is no self which could own or have agency over decisions and actions. Furthermore, in order to even prove that a decision was made it would need to be demonstrated that the alternative could have happened. Since the alternative did not happen there is no evidence that it could have happened and its possibility remains entirely counterfactual.

The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?

When u dont have free will to be born and at specific parents. What free will you expect in remaining life. When ever you think you are in stance of free will, free will is no more. Every thing is already written in form of choices. Its the choice you make. And selecting choice among choices is not absolute free will. Regards

I believe in total free will because I am unable to believe otherwise.

It is just me that feeling hopelessness after understand that I have no control over my own thoughts? I just like seligman's dog in his experiment

As usual, only half of Libet's experiments have been reported. The other half of Libet's finding on vetoing the readiness potential have been left out. This makes the end of the video cryptic and confusing.

@Coyote9771

4 жыл бұрын

they won't even mention his finding on Free won't this is a really big deal

@bmdecker93

4 жыл бұрын

The Libet experiments are now obsolete. Aaron Schurger did work back in 2012 that highlighted it's short comings and misconceptions. Since then Schurger, John Dylan Haynes and others have expanded on the original work and their findings are very interesting. Let's just say free will is still in play.

every person have relatively many degrees of freedom to choose what to do in his everyday life which we can call as personal Free Will, but a global mankind has much less choices for the development - evolution is process which obeys the objective laws of nature. Darwinian evolution can be much better understand through physics, despite such views are not very common at present, but more and more scientists (not only physicists) are becoming convinced in this.

17:18: "... the feeling of making a choice comes after brain activity so free will must still be an illusion." - That is a logical fallacy.

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

Which one?

@DLee1100s

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang A non-sequitur

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@DLee1100s Perhaps it does not logically follow but it is at least an indication IMO.

@DLee1100s

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang Yes, but in the words of George Gershwin "It Ain't Necessarily So".

Touch the criminal before he committed the crime ???

I'd say that both words, 'free' and 'will' aren't clear. Freedom isn't necessarily binary, where you either have freedom or you don't. Because freedom is never infinite or absolute. You can only have a degree of freedom within some limitations. Because people are always limited by their bodies, their social and economic situation, the laws of physics, and their immediate physical environment. And if you look at freedom this way, then people can be free only to some extent, but not infinitely or absolutely. And the word 'will' isn't clear either. Because if you look for a definition of this word in a dictionary, then you will find several different meanings. It can mean volition. It can mean desire or wish. And it can mean self-control. So, it's not clear which of these meanings you mean, when you talk about will. It might be more useful to talk about free choice, rather than free will. Because this is a more precise way of saying it. And when it comes to marriage, then you can find real examples where people are either free or not free to chose the person they marry. In some cultures, the marriage is arranged, and the woman often doesn't have much choice in whom she marries. But in other cultures, both men and women are free to chose their marriage partners, and we say that their choice is free. This an example of freedom from social rules and constraints. But even when people are free to chose their partner, then they are still limited by many other things. These include your personal standards of beauty and attractiveness. Your economic and social means to attract potential partners. Your age, your ethnicity, and your race might play a role too in whether other people chose to marry you or not. So, your freedom is always very limited by all of these feelings, conditions, and rules.

If determinism rules, & or there is randomness; no "free-will" - who's funding the research to support otherwise? Even the definition of "free-will" is absurd.

Why does Free Will have to be a conscious process. Are you not your entire brain, even the unconscious parts?

@mustafaelbahi7979

4 жыл бұрын

You are not free when I write these beautiful poetic words on the computer to convince me and not to convince you.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

Good point, Steve. I too thought they made way too many assumptions in the design of these experiments. The interpretation of the results were very dubious. Interesting though. There is definitely something happening at least for impulse behaviours before we are aware of it. What it means is an entirely different matter.

@caricue

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidaustin6962 If you think about it David, the entire concept for the experiment was nonsense, besides the fact that there is no way to tell what is being measured, or if the reported time was relevant. Did the researchers seriously think that some non-physical feeling could initiate a physical response? Do they believe in magic? Every feeling, response or action is necessarily preceded by a change in brain state. How could it be any other way?

@mustafaelbahi7979

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidaustin6962 If the various worlds are unknown in relation to them, they do not explain our faith and do not interpret faith as the basis of scientific epistemological knowledge, then the claim of atheists' lack of faith to not see is unjustified

I feel like the fact that we can even ask the question, is in itself proof that we have free will.

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

Intuition is way too unreliable to be proof..

@Ndo01

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang I agree with that for most intuitions. But this is a self-referential intuition. Self-reference is a very strange act. There's something there I've yet to find the words to articulate.

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ndo01 So a person who intuits the exact opposite could rightly claim to have proof freewill does not exist?

@Ndo01

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang No I'm not saying it's the intuition itself that is proof, but the act of questioning free will itself inherently takes free will. I've yet to properly dissect the peculiar metaphysics of self-reference.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

Computers can be programmed to ask questions. Free will is manifested in the way we answer questions ... Presumably with the way we live our lives.

you forgot about how Dr Benjamin Libet proved free won't the key word FREE WONT

Is everything exactly as it should be based on the starting conditions of the universe? I think the answer is yes...

Who’s to say subconscious is not free will? Your not being controlled from an outside actor. Subconscious is still part of the brain and i would take a leap of faith, a far faster part of the brain than our Conscious part.

@caricue

4 жыл бұрын

I said the same thing a little after you. You can't separate out some part of your brain processes and imagine it to be independent. It's just dualism by a different name. A person is a living unit that makes choices based on local conditions. Even the hard core determinists should be able to understand that this little piece of the universe called a person is acting and responding to the rest of the universe. To imagine that anything could be ontologically free is just vanity.

@eddiebrown192

4 жыл бұрын

I think some would argue that subconscious decisions are randomness not free will . I lean toward your positions however 🤷🏻‍♂️

@caricue

4 жыл бұрын

@@eddiebrown192 I think that the reason they see it as random is because they don't perceive themselves having control over unconscious decisions. I would argue that this is because they are confused about who they are. They see themselves as being the small conscious part of their mental existence and not the richer and subtler unconscious. It's a weird kind of dualism to separate out your conscious mind from the rest of your brain and body functions. I see myself as a biological unit. My blood pressure or my blood sugar level are choices made by me. Why should unconscious decisions be seen as random, especially when most people's conscious decisions are pretty random in reality.

Match the volume of the narration with the volume of the interview and it will bring you closer to truth.

@hoopstwentyfourseven9873

4 жыл бұрын

Haaa been havin the same problem

Is free will the name of a contradiction? If so I doubt it can exist. maybe. When opposites come together they create a contradiction Determinism vs uncertainty But if thing can just randomly happen isn’t that some way free will The thing about contradictions is that I can’t find any contradictions in life except Eerily enough is existence it self. and if you can some how control and make contradictions, well that is the definition of god. And it would be really amazing cause you could finally feel meaning in life that is not dependent of suffering and if create a word for all contradictions on every axis well that’s true heaven. The conceivable unconceivable. No left without right

Some say its a illusion.??? Sam harris thinks so.

Maybe it's about a limited freedom, a limited number of choices or options, and an unlimited randomness. But see, I don't know.

Why does the subconscious thought not count as free will? That is just silly. It is all me. Most people talk and do things without planning first. Since when is the slow, language based kind of thinking the only thing that counts as capable of free will and decision making?

@Benbjamin-

4 жыл бұрын

The point is it is unconscious.

@davidaustin6962

4 жыл бұрын

Because if an act is subconscious then you can no more take credit for that than you can for the circumstances under which you were born.

you are free and not free.

The entire study is dismissive of volitional impulses.....

The highest moral authority will never violate the inalienable right of a self actuating entity to NOT believe in God. And that is why god allows evil. Love is meaningless if it is not given freely. Most theists and atheists are still in the stages of the ignorance stages of thinking and acting like children... when they become adults maybe they will recognize such concepts and principles as those revealed in the metaphors of the bible.

Inhibitory neurons set us free, but they let slip drives, urges and desires.

the hypnosis part is complete bs... also the girl is lieing

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

Naiita I THINK you're right.. Hypnotic suggestion (By itself) cannot turn someone into an unwitting automaton..

I know there is free Willy. If that's what you are asking for.😉

Impelmenting Occam's razor: Q: Do I have free will? A; You can test it out, with the simplest test possible! Q: How? A: Take 10 min off on what ever you are doing, assuming you have it! Q: Ok, now what? A: Now hold your breath for 10 min, with nothing but your strongest will to do so. There is your anwser, plain and simple.

@petarpanonski

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 Either you have it or you don't. Just using the term "limited" indicateds nature of action. It is an oximoron Limited free will = Limited-unlimitedness Stop beating your heart...Stop your body cells from dying or replicating. Even participating or refusing to participate in this test came from input written above.

@petarpanonski

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 Hehe...there you have it! You don't have the freedom to think differently. Best paralel is the situation we have in this aleged "democracy". Perfect imprisonment-thinking we are free: You can do what ever you want, as long as you don't leave your house. Peace out... ;)

@petarpanonski

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 www.imdb.com/title/tt6905542/ I would love to stop, but my brains wouldn't let me... :D :D :D You like myths and storytelling. This series is a prequel to a ''82 movie I loved as a kid. Hunter is a good character. Drama at its finest. Stay safe, podling. :*

@Ndo01

4 жыл бұрын

@@petarpanonski You're confusing variety of choice with free will.

WTF? Do people really think the conscious part is what makes decisions? Does no one speak without consciously planning the whole sentence before starting to talk? In normal conversation, people are just letting stuff come out, right? Obviously the current line of thought so to speak is very slow as compared to the underlying thought process that is more like falling into a pattern and can happen fast no matter how many variables or the complexity of the problem... Then it is up to the language part to parse that thought pattern into the stark and iconic symbols of the language part...

No free will. You always do what you want, unless you are forced to do something. Either way, it is out of your control.

Thys is way to easy i haven't seen the whole video but as I'm typing I am watching thys. At the same time I also know there is freewill but it tricky. 1 if we have daejavu does that mean we dreams of future events. We dream in the past as in the future. When choices present themselves you have the freewill to chose right or wrong no matter what but for every choice there outcomes already predetermined from what maybe. When presented the option at the moment. ♒👽🧠👁🔥

You need to interview Dr. Robert Sapolsky. "There's not much free will out there."

@bmdecker93

4 жыл бұрын

Saposlky is brilliant but hasn't done any direct studies.

JESUS CHRIST OR JUDGEMENT!!!! 🙌🙏✝️

This introduction makes no mention of the domain of ignorance. Freedom assumes omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Any state of being that lacks any portion of these three is, of necessity, not free. To be unable is necessarily not able: free. So in the absolute the human being should not be considered to possess free will. What then of the limited domain of ignorance in which humans live? By ignorance is meant the curtailed state of non omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. Or, to be more scientific, the state of being which has limited access to the future, no access to the past except thru memory. Residing at a single point in space with feeding, energy, constraints. Although this being has no absolute freedom, the degree to which any being in this state can judge any other beings state of freedom depend on that beings ignorance. Not knowledge of knowledge, knowledge of ignorance. Only an intuition of the possibility of unknowability can inform a judgement of freedom of will valid. To act with the expectation of a free will or to act without that expectation would be different how? Is courage the same as ignorance? Who is more free the bravo or the fool? Fear prevents action which only experience (knowledge of what to expect) can overcome. Fearlessness or foolishness may lead to death, but how is death related to freedom? The dead may be more or less free. No answer to free will is worth any salt without an encounter with death. A confronting. The freedom to die. Is that not also a part of a free will? Why not suicide? Why not fight to the death? The greatest answer to the question of free will may well be morality. How to live with death and ignorance in the face of beauty, truth and power. Given the set of unknown and possibly unknowable choices how can any judgement on the constraint of all possible choices be valid?