Mr. Caruso has been thinking the same thoughts as I have been thinking. He just articulates them much better!

Yes, totally Gregg; "Once you give up the notion of free will and just desserts, you can look more clearly at the causes, and more deeply at the systems that shape individuals and their behavior, and then you could focus on addressing the kind of social determinants of bad behavior, the social determinants of criminal behavior, so, as to prevent the behaviors from occurring in the first place."

@mvcatdaddy

3 жыл бұрын

That is such an important insight.

@sabreroseline3886

3 жыл бұрын

@@mvcatdaddy the only other person I know who thinks along these lines is Dr. James Gilligan.

If you tried to have this conversation with Dan Dennett, he would redefine the entire discussion out of existence while you were not looking and then deny having done so.

caruso is doing excellent work!

An excellent discussion!

Ur asking all my questions Thank u for getting answer s

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

I hope you aren't asking your questions in the backwards way that this Caruso guy is. He has a type of moral responsibility that he likes, and then looks for a concept of free will that will support it. It makes no sense to project your wants or needs onto nature. You follow the evidence, use reason and deal with the consequences like an adult.

This about the most complete and detailed discussion regarding the possibility of understanding Free Will that I have ever heard. I had to listen to it multiple times to grasp all their positions. Still they are both dancing around the idea of an ideal standard of True Goodness that we use as a reference to make our decisions. I'll lay all that out in my book. :-)

You do what you do, because of the way you are. You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will. It's as simple as that.

When everyone understand it self as one as whole only when one will start to move forward, J. K.

36:34 - If Caruso made a cookbook of easy-to-make desserts with a picture of someone torn between choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream on the cover called Basic Desserts I would buy it

Man knowing Good and evil is somewhat predetermined for them to either choose good or evil. Choice zero or choice One?

I had an interesting moment the other day. I was trying to remember a word and for the life of me, I couldn't. I paused, then continued the conversation I was in. Knowing full well I was about to say a sentence without knowing the end word. I kind of just went with it, and Walah at the end of the sentence without the word ever formulating in my head. I finished the sentence out loud without a delay between words. After I pondered if something like this could be used as a control in a Free Will experiment.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

As an aside, apropos to nothing, as you get older, those dang words often don't appear so magically. You learn real quick not to start a sentence out loud until you are sure the word will be there. Good comment though.

@c.guydubois8270

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, perhaps an example for our complex neural interaction...

Time is everything.

I think we don't yet fully understand a complex self-regulating system like the brain. How can you argue for moral responsibility without arguing for agency - where do you draw a line between a being that has moral responsibility and one that doesn't? What's the difference between a human and a snake? Both are deterministic and both respond to incentives. I think the emergence theory of agency/free will needs to be given more weight. Emergence leads to self-regulation and sufficiently complex emergence leads to agency.

You cannot take control by taking things. You control what you take by giving things.

As for luck, who's to say it is luck? Not that we made good choices. Or what we think is good choices and then we call it luck. And whenever we make bad choices we call it bad luck. Maybe it's not maybe it's good that what we think is bad happened. And what we thought was good that happened might have really been bad for later on.

We are frustrated because we don't know yet and it's right in front of you every day your reality you can do this or that you just can't know how

If there WERE free will there would be no addiction, no obesity, no insanity defense in court.

If you haven’t already, please consider listening to and inviting on the show for a dialogue- Tom Jump (TJump on KZread). He talked with many academics in their respective fields on similar topics 👍🏼🤗

Well since we didn't exist before we were concepted by our parents I don't see how we had any choice or how we could make a choice or parents freely chose to come together and conceive a child or more. They had to Free Will choice to make that child. Gave half of themselves away to be joined to the other half. Really chose to become one flesh, or freely chose to self-satisfy, And hope to get lucky to not get a child possibly. Which is good and which is evil, to make life I just live life for self? which doesn't make life for anybody else.

Determinism doubt to have that incompatibility of freewil in life because they dont wanna loose something, in some case skeptism has no power at getting any act

Well how's that shirt in your closet either somebody got it for you and gave it to you by making a choice thinking that you would like it. Or you bought it because you liked it. So yeah there's still free will choice in the matter because you could even take that article back that that person bought for you if you didn't like it. I have three wheel choice to buy what clothes and stuff that I want to wear or make them how I want to make them.

But, if in quantum physics events are random, that is effects happen without a cause, why can we not posit consciousness as the cause?

@sensereference2227

3 жыл бұрын

First, it makes no sense to claim that quantum events happen without a cause and also that they have a cause. Second, one would have to actually describe the mechanism that makes it is possible for consciousness, which is the product of the activity of billions of neurons working together, to cause quantum events to occur within single neurons.

@logic8673

2 жыл бұрын

Roger Penrose (Probably the most towering figure still alive for Physics and Physics Nobel Laureate) thinks so. I am not so sure what you mean that events are random. The simplest idea for a wave collapse is really consciousness. The other way around is to say somehow quantum mechanisms cause consciousness, which is also very unsatisfactory.

@sensereference2227

2 жыл бұрын

​@@logic8673 Penrose does not solve this problem either. He simply claims that quantum events in the microtubules of neurons start the chain of causality in the brain but not how consciousness causes the outcome of those quantum events. In the lab, consciousness does not cause wave function collapse but "observation" does, which is really the instruments being used to record the data being the cause. Even Wigner, who proposed consciousness collapse of the wave function, later changed his mind: "Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively and stochastically changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness."

@logic8673

2 жыл бұрын

@@sensereference2227 Yes, you are correct. Very much appreciated. What is "start the chain of causality in the brain...?"

@FreeMind320

2 жыл бұрын

@@sensereference2227 Quantum events are random in the sense that they are only statistically predictable by a probability law, which means that which of the possible outcomes is observed is random or, if you prefer, totally unpredictable. If qm is a theory without hidden variables, then this unpredictability is not due to ignorance of us but is intrinsic in the phenomenon. There is no cause for the effect, the effect just happens. It is "cause-less".

And it's isn't hard to do it. Just someone have to establish perpetual non profit organisation for union of self sustainable ecovilages where everyone is welcome to progress within

Your birth is out of your control so your will has not choice. The circumstances you are born into does not control your freewill but will influence your choices as will your surroundings at any moment in time. Everyone has freewill but some people sacrifice it for peace and harmony. You find out when it's too late when the honeymoon is over.

Free will is an illusion. Determinism is a delusion. Reality is ultimately infinite groundless consciousness.

I can’t offer a rational argument in favor of free will, but I can offer an intuitive one. I’ll call it the argument from absurdism. The notion that beings with no free will are determined to spend hours, years and even centuries arguing whether they have free will or not is so absurd that we must have free will. What kind of universe is this if we argue about free will so fervently because we were determined to? That would be so ridiculous that it can’t be the case.

The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

The "physical world/universe" exists, in large part, due to duality and the interaction and balance of these opposing forces. Light - Dark; North - South, Positive - Negative; Right - Wrong, Yin - Yang, Day - Night, Order - Disorder, Good - Evil, Up - Down, True - False, Love - Hate, Male - Female, Hot - Cold, Wave - Particle, etc. is observed to be interwoven within the fabric of the "physical world/universe". This scientifically confirmed property of the physical world/universe does not preclude the existence of a Prime Observer/Cause.

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer

@sigigle

3 жыл бұрын

Nothing (no thing) could be the state of affairs, even if there was no mind to perceive it or compare it to something.

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

@@sigigle If Nothing (no thing) exists, then it has been defined. If it is defined then it is a concept of mind.

Hi, I would like to see some video about kinds of knowledges or the ways to get knowledge. (by experience, by authority, etc.)

_[comment retracted]_ 🤣

When 2 persons are looking each other with eyes, they may understand each other. But how? Brain only? I think heart also plays important role in this. Human, animals and robots may different by this as I supposed that human can built a perfectly robot in this case. I mean that brain is not only thing from human body for communicating. Human will not survive without brain or heart.

When talking about freewill we should differentiate between human and jinn kind as creatures with gifted of intelligent with obvious choices from the rest of God creations without intelligent (which are totally submitted to laws of nature and/or their innate natural dispositions / fitrah). The Almighty God created everything according to His Will and purposes. He created heavens for human and jinn for their eternal life in their next life. This worldly is the test for them. Thus they have absolute freewill to ensure they use their intelligent and choices according to their Creator rules and objective morality standard.

_H A R D C O R E M O D E_

По плану мировое награждение Мартьянов

They both over complicate both the concept and the application of free will.

Маленкая Рунчану послужиди

Collective unconscious. No free will.

People have free will with God / consciousness, not with political central government / human leadership.

*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific". *Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.*

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

*_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

*_“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”_* Arthur Schopenhauer

@moses777exodus

3 жыл бұрын

Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.

@sigigle

3 жыл бұрын

@@moses777exodus I also tend to lean towards the idealism perspective, that is; that mind is at the base of the reality and gives rise to matter, rather than the other way around. But I don't think that does much to prove any kind of god concept as we usually think of one, or an intelligent design kind of thing. For example, this could all just the dream of some sort of eternal idiot lol

@victos-vertex

3 жыл бұрын

@@sigigle The "idiot" doesn't have to be eternal either. You yourself only ever experience your own experiences by definition. You'll not experience anything that is outside your realm of possible observations. Thus you can't even be sure I am experiencing anything or I'm part of some larger experience. For you to experience your life it is sufficient to let a single "idiot" create said experience in their own head. Thus you may very well be the "God" of your own experience. But this does indeed not answer any question and doesn't prove any concept of god. The only thing you can be sure of existing is your own experience, everything else may very well be an illusion. So all (we) scientists do is find out how this "illusion" works. @ Moses Exodus Because it is unscientific to assume the existence of something without evidence. There is - zero - evidence for a mind-like structure that put everything in place. Also physical laws do not require a conscious mind to create either, even pure randomness and sufficient time can make it happen given a system that is randomly generated. "Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter." That's just a bunch of assumptions without evidence. You just invoke a god of the gaps because you reached the limits of your understanding. Where did that mind come from and where does it exist? You can't answer that because that's not part of science: Hence unscientific. The double slit experiment does - not - demonstrate that a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function, it also doesn't demonstrate the opposite. This is just the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics which is not a fact but merely an interpretation, there are numerous other interpretations to choose from, this doesn't make either of them right. Citing a bunch of famous people completely out of context doesn't make your points any more valid.

Дед их радистт

Пинкосович нас отмажео

Totally facile convo. This guy spoke for over an entire hour and said absolutely nothing!

It all sounds interesting until we get to practical applications of his beliefs. And then it all sounds like wishful thinking, or a utopia, which everyone knows is just a dystopia. A society Gregg Caruso dreams of would quickly fall apart because, despite it all, humans are extremely unpredictable. We’re not Ebola. All of these arguments against free will sound interesting, but none of them seem consistent with the reality of the absolute bizarreness of individuals.

If you noticed, that the god’s doesn’t, lives , in the time’s, he’s living, in the minds !