Head to www.squarespace.com/drbenmiles to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code drbenmiles

@Rick_Cavallaro

6 ай бұрын

The left and right eye do not report to different sides of the brain. This is true of our voluntary muscles, but different with our vision. Instead, the left field of view of both eyes reports to the right side of the brain and vice-versa.

@Rick_Cavallaro

6 ай бұрын

@@Zuluknob yes it is. But he mistakenly said that that right eye communicates with the left hemisphere and vice-versa. That's not actually the case. With vision, it's the visual field that's divided. Both eyes communicate with both hemispheres. But the left hemisphere only sees the right visual field from both eyes, and vice versa.

@tomwhateley5697

6 ай бұрын

Are you saying that science has proved a negative?

@Rick_Cavallaro

6 ай бұрын

@@Zuluknob Indeed! If you read "The man who mistook his wife for a hat", Oliver Sacks describes some incredible split brain experiments where the subject can easily identify an object when held in his left hand and viewed in his left visual field, but can't begin to tell you what it's used for. At the same time he can hold the object in his right hand and view it with his right visual field and develop all sorts of ideas of how the object might be used, but he can't recognize or tell you the name of the perfectly familiar object (like a glove).

@Rick_Cavallaro

6 ай бұрын

@@tomwhateley5697 >> Are you saying that science has proved a negative? Despite common "wisdom" there are cases where we can prove a negative. But I don't think even those that believe free will is an illusion are quite ready to claim it's been proved.

Thanks for this. I showed the video to my wife, and she now finally agrees that I cannot avoid drinking in the afternoon.

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

This is the answer. 😂

@chimpinabowtie6913

6 ай бұрын

Why are you waiting so long...?🥂🍹

@AbhaySingh-nk6fi

5 ай бұрын

You're doomed

@trombone7

5 ай бұрын

Drinking aside, that's proof your wife has no free will. She had no choice but to believe you could control your drinking in the afternoon before watching the video. And no choice but to conclude you cannot control it after watching the video. She was never in the driver's seat. No one is. You could show her another video. Maybe it will change her mind, maybe it won't. But one cannot unsee what one has seen. Cannot unconclude what one has concluded.

@JarodM

4 ай бұрын

This is the way, cheers~🍻

"What you do with that information is your choice" Ummm, apparently not. 😂

@divyanshkashyap3938

3 ай бұрын

Yeah

@scienceexplains302

3 ай бұрын

Nice, but there is a problem of definition which I didn’t hear Miles address: what is free will? Choice may not be part of free will, depending on the definition. It may be our choice as to what to do, in that the choice was made in our mind, but that choice may have been determined+ (Determined+ - determined to the extent that effectively random quantum collapses aren’t involved. Quantum collapses within our brain processes would not be part of most people’s idea of Free Will)

for me living with adhd, free will has always felt like an illusion. alot of my action is dictated not by MY wishes. but by my minds whims, mood, and focus. hearing about the whole split brain experiment in my childhood i kind of have accepted an idea that the self is less like you are in control of who you are and rather. you have a collection of selves that bicker and argue inside your head about what you will do, what you believe, what you think about, etc. productivity is when interests aligns amongst the "selves" and such. not to say that you cannot work to improve yourself if you have no free will cause like. there are aspects of your self which WISH to be better. one just has to focus on those. the illusion of will at least lets you choose which aspect of yourself to give more priority to. free will is not as big of an issue for me as is "how i define myself" and i think thats really a big factor that affects my actions and behavior. am i those aspects of me which bring about laziness? am i those aspects of me which are spiteful and sour toned? the answer is both, BUT i can also define myself as my better aspects. i am also me who seeks my happiness, the me who seeks self improvement, the me who draws art because its fun. excuse me for my nonsense. just wanted to chatter

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

I wish you the best, I hope someday you are able to take control of your actions. I feel bad for people that are unable to make their own decisions. Blessings to you.

@PrivateSi

6 ай бұрын

Nothing is truly random but when you've got so many particles interacting the possibilities are near enough infinite. Probability waves can't diffract and interfere in reality if they are simply the probability of finding a tiny point in space. You need a physical wave medium for that, 2 tiny points can't interfere or diffract. The universe is 100% deterministic, but by increasing the number of choices and selection mechanism at all levels in a system the appearance of Free Will emerges until almost fully real. -- It becomes a definition of how you define your 'self' and 'freedom' in the end though. These are quite wishy-washy.. There is certainly no such thing as 100% free will, but those who aren't kids or demented are generally above 50% free on the FREE WILL SCALE... But then maybe the left and right extremes and moral majority centre are the most brainwashed and the fringes in between have the most free will.. Liberty requires scales and balance. -- I am now redefining Entropy as Simplicity in My Universe... Time reduces closed system complexity. Universe's simplest state is perfectly ordered empty field. Complexity requires energy input

@kayakMike1000

6 ай бұрын

You have always had the freedom to take your medication or find ways to cope with your deficiency of executive function. I have ADHD also and sometimes struggle with staying focused, but you can learn effective coping strategies if you really try.

@kayakMike1000

6 ай бұрын

​@@PrivateSiummm... Entropy increases in reality, though....

@zefellowbud5970

6 ай бұрын

​@@kayakMike1000 eh i prefer to live without meds, ive tried meds and like. you get focused and stuff but you lose alot of the weird creativity that you have without it. tho that could just be the type of meds i tried, i did hear different meds have different effects so i might need to try the others. another analogy i have for ADHD is its sort of like living with an autopilot. hyperfocus? distraction? etc one time i was addicted to webnovels where i tried to stop reading them and like... the moment i found my mind unoccupied and empty i just automatically openned chrome, to novelupdates then wasted a day until i noticed what i was doing... its all just like a faulty autopilot and whats rather interesting getting it to like work properly. those like productive focused moments is essentially when the autopilot is aimed at the preferred direction i came up with some methods albeit they are rather weird. but they work lol. on the thing i mentioned about how important it is on how one defines oneself. if you figure out a really good rationalization for something i found it gets really easy to counter it. one time when i was in my lowest longest months long adhd paralysis streak i remembered a post describing adhd as "its like you have a problem with an easy solution, but you aren't doing the solution, and you don't know why" i sort of rationalized by saying "i know why, its because i ask why, asking the question itself is why im not working, cause asking the question spends time" after that i made it so that if i found myself asking the question i would in a theatric exaggerated motion stand up and "pretend" to work to get to work i think a term for this whole thing is Cognitive Reframing. only learned of it recently. but depending on how you frame and view your situation it can honestly surprisingly make alot of things easier. most reframes their situation like a game, like the whole turning schedules and tasks into quests and stuff. there are even apps for that. For me i like to reframe my situation like im trying to learn a ficitonal magic system, like describing habits and triggers as trap cards in a TCG game like yu gi oh or something. or describing emotional investment as a system of mana. which surprisingly helped me set up some stuff in regards to how to much more easily steer my autopilot.

This is a great argument for a “Pre-crime judicial system”. 😂

@boring7823

Ай бұрын

Um, no. As long as there's quantum randomness in the world you can add that into your decision process and a pre-crime system either cannot decide which crime you would do or would convict you of something you wouldn't have done (with x% probability). Randomness isn't enough to create free will, but it is enough to destroy prediction.

I'm having several problems with Ben's conclusion. In the first section, he just hand-waved away the quantum effects by saying that it falls under a probability distribution. That doesn't really work in a deterministic reality, if an outcome of a specific quantum effect can't be determined beforehand even if the state of every particle is known then that's a problem for a deterministic reality. The study referenced at 13:35 was published in 2008, not 2018. Also what the study states is that the state of your brain in the seconds leading up to a decision influences your decision and can be used to predict your decision. Also I couldn't see in the study how accurately they were able to make this prediction. Stating that the previous state influences the current state is kinda intuitive and not really evidence for or against determinism. All the last chapter is really saying is that if you remove the brains ability to process certain types of information then it can't do certain things. Not really evidence for free will or determinism. Really interesting information though. He doesn't provide references to any of the studies he talks about in the video.

@MindForgedManacle

6 ай бұрын

Like I said in a comment as well, he doesn't even give a working definition of free will that he's supposed to be invalidating. Which makes any conclusion he would even be drawing unclear (even if his arguments were valid). I mean he's correct to say that indeterminacy doesn't get free will (alone). But in that case, why assert determinacy removes free will? All this because he doesn't define his terms and doesn't appear familiar with free will discussions at all. Certainly compatibilism, which accepts determinism and free will, has been entirely ignored, and its the most common position on free will in philosophy!

@donpeny6470

5 ай бұрын

I do as well. As for the last chapter, it's not about being unable to do certain things. When asked why they did certain things that only one side perceived, they gave a fabrication similar to LLM hallucinations. So they just made something up to compensate for the disconnection. The point is they believed it was true. One example was instructions for one side to smile. When asked why they were smiling, they said things like thinking of something funny. This demonstrates our conscious experience is dictated by the unconscious brain and our mind which we associate with our will is not only not in control but has no idea of whether we're actually experiencing anything at all. It's a good point. He just seems to disregard that it is still our brain and we don't understand the conscious mind. What we do know is it forms when areas of the brain communicate. Breaking that communication is how anesthesia works. Imo the whole brain and body works together. His last chapter highlights how important it is for the entire brain to work together and the conscious mind is but a part of the whole. Free will has never sat right with me. Its closer to a negotiation. Some people seem to think that if our mind isn't in full control of our choices then there's no free will. They must perceive the mind and brain as separate but there's no reason to think that way.

@dereksavastano

4 ай бұрын

The study you’re referencing in an experiment by Libet in like the 18 or 1900’s, thats determinism. If you’re sitting down and “decide” to stand up, you still need your brain’s neurochemistry to send the signal and trigger the neurons in the leg muscles to do such. But even leaving that out, Lets just say you want to turn your brain off and play the Free Will game. You’d quickly find out that everything you’ve been doing has been previously determined. Going to work or school, Even getting hungry is determined for you. So you can decide what food to get when your hungry so you get the illusion of choice. But we all know if we don’t eat and hydrate we’ll suffer for it.

@dereksavastano

4 ай бұрын

Libet concluded that we don’t necessarily get free will, we do get the power to veto the brain’s thoughts tho. And the illusion of choice, like sure you can put on Outfit X, Y, or Z. But you can’t choose to wear nothing so Free Will there should be getting vetoed by common sense.

@dereksavastano

4 ай бұрын

Even using the bathroom is determined for you, and a window for going to sleep. I’m willing to listen to any Free Will Arguments, I had to do a presentation in my Philosophy class last year on this tho. There’s really not much area for Free Will with how the world works.

making a decision and being consciously aware of that decision are two very different things

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

5 ай бұрын

Either way, the "decision" (i.e. action without free choice) happens, and then the awareness that the action occurs happens after. IOW, events happen, and then we make up stories about them.

@blucat4

5 ай бұрын

@@CliffSedge-nu5fv Maybe the right brain has free will, but the interpreter doesn't know and makes up stories.

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

5 ай бұрын

@@blucat4 Nope. The senses sense. The memory records. And the senses sense the recollections of memories. It all happens so fast that we mistake our immediate memories of events as if they were our prior thoughts before the event happened.

Every point you make, gives me pause for thought, and then you go and cover exactly what I'm thinking...😊 It makes me smile!

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

6 ай бұрын

@ 8:25 ish... (I'm walking myself through my own internal arguments here.) can't reside at the level of the organism. Can a computer be corrupted by outside influence? Cosmic rays, EM radiation? Synesthesia like... I'm totally on board so far... But we don't have a perfect understanding of matter, past the plank scale... Let alone connective processes in the brain... which we are imbedded in. Measuring waves in the ocean looks discrete enough, but what is that field doing, really, at the level of energy? The driving mechanism doesn't have to be inherently random...(pseudoRNG)... for emergent frameworks to have random outcomes. Especially if our understanding of the pattern isn't complete, which it can't be. Coherence/decoherence happens above a fundamental level even if your argument is correct, and it's turtles all the way down. Will, seems to be more of a computer program than anything fundamental. I definitely have more autonomous agency than my dog, for example. Option space, or each place a dichotomous logic operation can happen... Sure the framework is pre existing, but that only dictates the type of information it must be coded in, but not what programs can be built with it. If we can't build a turing machine that can determine halting, what does that say about process and it's measurability? Albeit, I can see how the collective "superego" of process, can ultimately supercede the nucleation of individual locus of control. It's dynamic, a super process needed to exist before,,, say the autistic agent,,, could begin to digest what it was, they were looking at. But still, how did the first idea sharers begin to form coherence, or is the evolution of the process itself enough? Was there a halting moment? Or did we just gain knowledge collectively, enough to create the inceptive ideas around will...as a secondary outcome of communal process, and the drive for existence? This is all very fascinating. Dialectics is inherent to pragmatism, which is a shoddy way of thinking about a human level FEP. Which is built out of our brains desire to keep doing what it is doing... AKA being alive. But within this context, there are agents who build culture up in good faith, and those who deceive as a way to counter act any "power of agency" this culture gives to "others." Will is drive, free will is the ability to control those drives... Except we are chemical machines, even if the outcomes of the computational parts feel, on the surface, random... There is no way the chemical process can be random, even if we don't understand it... Meaning... That... Since we breathe, drink water, and eat... The desire to keep doing those things is what drives everything that can emerge from it... No "free" will... Ok, I'm back. But inside of the context of doing what your body wants, we have the frame story, and that has nothing to do with the chemical... The practically infinite number of ways ideas can be mixed and shared, almost makes the difference between the concept of "free" will, versus choosing the outcome of ideas within the framework of allowed possibility, seem semantic... Which I get, is what is being described. Mind is body, monism, and therefore even ideas come from something we can measure, surely??? But if we are indeed imbedded into this consciousness thing, and can't determine halting, then we can't ever understand it completely, can we?. Only build representation of it, through this language thing.... there is the superego again... So one can only understand self through the constant updating of these representations, within the context of our own processing capabilities, which are emerging as a function of society. Ok, so... I feel like the conclusion I have come to, on this portion of the journey, has led me to this... Will is the framework, and _mostly_ what people are actually arguing for/over is more accurately/correctly described as choice. Within the context of the necessary pre-conditions, accounting for life seeking desires, choices are pseudo free. They are not random, but they are not determinable up front.

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

6 ай бұрын

On to the second half ...😊

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

6 ай бұрын

I love it! Great stuff...

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

6 ай бұрын

@ end of video... Good grief, we nailed it!

The scariest part of the illusion of free will is how we hold each other accountable for our actions; punishing and rewarding them accordingly, regardless of the fact that none of us really had any choice. So much of what we value, strive for, or fear, is a result of thinking we have free will; without it society would collapse into meaninglessness.

@cugms

6 ай бұрын

But at least we had no choice but to hold each other accountable :-)

@Luke-ih1oc

6 ай бұрын

Yeah.. this is what fucks with me

@robguyatt9602

6 ай бұрын

The concept of free will, whether it exists or is relatively new in the history of our species. We have got along fine without stressing over the topic. And in any case, the religious among us will fight like the devil (LOL) to maintain we have it. It ain't going out the window any time soon.

@12pentaborane

6 ай бұрын

To accept no freewill I think a person needs to have a large amount of compassion, because the conversation inevitably swings around to the justice system. I believe the global public does not have enough compassion to make up for a disbelief in freewill.

@gdolphy

6 ай бұрын

​@12pentaborane : that lack of compassion is not their free will. We are simply observers in a 4d movie

I already agree with your stance on free will. However, I also think there's more arguments for free will that have been overlooked here: Firstly I think using a law of physics to argue a point on psychology isn't that relevant. In the case of cause and effect, I think it can be argued both ways (for example - you may chose a life path based on your parents or siblings, and some choose to go in a completely different direction. In this case, a negative opinion of your parents caused this effect, but ultimately, a choice was made based on the information your brain was given.) In the case of your brain deciding for you, - of course we can read electrical signals BEFORE a decision, that is the 'computational energy output' of our fleshy network that enables an action. This doesn't mean we are any less in control. Our brains are programmed for certain impulses or desire that often link to self preservation, reproduction and pleasure, but ultimately there are also cases of people making decisions despite having this programming, like suicide, asexuality and abstinence. It's easy to say free will is an illusion created by our brains, but then what are we, if not a unique bio-chemical finger print pressed against the the cold, cloudy looking glass of lived experience. YOU CHOSE to read this comment, and just because you're able to explain and even predict this, response doesn't change disprove it was made freely. - let me know if you disagree

@nicolasmartinak700

6 ай бұрын

What you wrote unfortunately makes no sense. One starting premise of yours, which is clearly wrong and breaks physics, is that we can "read electrical signals before a decision". This cannot be the case, because the only way that could happen is if an effect somehow happened before a cause. Any and all decisions you're making are the result of neurons, electricity, hormones, and the rest of your inner biochemistry, which you cannot and do not control in any way, shape or form. You freely admit there is programming, and would likely admit that many things about our lives are directly out of our control, are not a choice whatsoever, such as our sexual preferences or our parents or where we're raised or which genes express themselves, or which genes you're given, but somehow, with the power of magical thinking, or perhaps the power of wishful thinking, you believe that your identity, your 'I", bootstraps thoughts -- this means you believe effects can happen before causes, and that breaks the laws of physics. Congrats, you believe in magic, and that's very silly.

the free will might hides in the quantum uncertainty, at least it could have influence. I am not a fan of beliefs anyway, we do not have enough understanding of the universe yet, as long as the future is not deterministic, there can be free will in the way the uncertainty collapses, also it feels a lot like having free will, I can even feel when I am not under control, so the feeling of control at least exists, whether that is free will or not, it's enough to give us the illusion of having free will, also it could be a spectrum, it could be that we have 1% free will and 99% of our decisions a hardwired, even 0.0001% free will could "steer the boat in another direction" so to speak, over a longer period of time. While we can disprove free will easily if everything is deterministic, we can't ever prove free will to be true, I can't think of a way a god1 could prove free will, because that god1 could have another god2 that predetermined the actions of god1 9:08 if there is free will, it is 100% not in the bigger-than-quantum-level, because bigger-than-quantum-level is deterministic as it already collapsed so to speak, and amino acids etc are above qunatum-effect size, the only question is, do the quantum uncertainty-effects affect our neurons/electric signals etc, there is still a fine line that would allow free will to have at least some % of influence, but maybe we rule out that uncertainty thing one day too. Also since uncertainty-curves collapse in their given probability every time, there probably isn't any free will

@santiagomier8379

6 ай бұрын

Big brain time 🧠🫡

Agreed, we have no free will. Any 'choices' one makes could never change if one was able to go back to a precise point in spacetime within an identical universe. That means the universe conspired to give us only one real 'choice', the one we chose.

@nicktecky55

5 ай бұрын

But that assertion is impossible, therefore free will is not disproved.

@chrissscottt

5 ай бұрын

Another way of looking at this; whenever you 'choose' to do something, everything that has happened to you in your life up until that point causally bears down upon that single decision making it inevitable. @@nicktecky55

For me, causality is a given. Which makes the universe deterministic. But we cannot in principle predict the future because we cannot in principle know all conditions at any instant (because the speed of light places a limit on knowability for anything distant, and time doesn't stand still either. I take the wavefunction as being a function of possibility and its collapse as being the point at which we know which possibility was the correct one. Finally, I take the view that whatever happens/occurs was always going to (causality). No ifs or buts.

My view is that the universe is a machine (deterministic) that can accommodate random input (e.g. atomic decay, etc.). As such it is not a classical deterministic situation that can boast of a chain of cause and effect back to the initial conditions of the big bang. It is a machine that due to random input departs farther and farther from predictability. You can predict what happens in the next second, but not the next year. So the future is not written in stone. In a deterministic universe, all our inputs and decisions are determined at the big bang. We are following the script written by the initial conditions of that event. Our decisions have no effect on that script. We are puppets. In the mechanical universe, however, our decisions are determined by processing the current input of our senses that are witnessing an unpredictable long-term environment. This means that although our brains are deterministic -- input A mechanically results in output B -- in the long term Input A is uncertain, which means output B -- while being a deterministic result of A -- is similarly uncertain. This means our decisions cannot be traced back to the initial conditions of the big bang, and actually make a difference to the unfolding of the future. In this scenario, we are robots. My view is that we are robots marching into an uncertain future. Beats being a puppet!

Anyone interested in this topic should read “Determined” by Robert Sapolski. The author is a researcher that tries to convince the reader that there is no free will and the implications of it

This is describing what I was thinking about. Great job at making it more ordered and less chaotic.

I think one of the reasons people believe in free will is a thought experiment gone wrong. i.e. People thinking if they went back in time that they could pick something different. Which of course normally means. 'knowing what I know now I would pick different' Well, if you go back in time, you didn't know what you know now, so you would pick the same thing.

@anonymeister123

6 ай бұрын

…and if they did manage to go back in time and chose something different, even THAT was predetermined.

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

Yet somehow we are still unable to predict the future. 😂

@lucidmoses

6 ай бұрын

@@askedofgod9067Are you talking about gypsy seances and such. If not your logic doesn't follow. Try again.

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

@@lucidmoses free will exists. And science cannot disprove it. An analogy of time travel is stupid.

@lucidmoses

6 ай бұрын

@@askedofgod9067 Ok, supply your evidence that it does exist, as to date, there has been none.

Hi Ben. Thanks for the fascinating discussion. I would like to make one small comment if I may. Both the left and right eye project images to the both left and right sides of the visual cortex. Taking the left eye for example, the retina is subdivided into two halves, which project onto the left and right sides of the visual cortex. In one experiment, the right field of vision was screen from view, which gave the results you explained. So your overall point is still valid. 👍

We don't get to tell the universe how tired it should be of generating new universes

wow! this take on consciousness *chef's kiss* love that ray of hope at the end, too

You present some interesting ideas here. A suggestion: when so explicitly citing research, you should consider including the actual citations either on screen and/or in the video description. (Also, corpus collosotomy is still performed for refractory epilepsy.)

If free will doesn't exist, then there really isn't any point to anything at all. It would explain a lot, frankly.

@anonymeister123

6 ай бұрын

There might not be a point, but you can still enjoy it. A movie has a predetermined outcome, and people still choose to watch movies even though they have no influence over it

@robguyatt9602

6 ай бұрын

We evolved as a social species because we choose to get along for the good of the individual and community. Free will, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant to that. It is our evolutionary heritage that defines us. Free Will is a philosophical sideshow.

@DinoCism

6 ай бұрын

Isn't a "point" entirely subjective? Why would anyone expect life to have an objective point? That would feel even more stifling than being told I don't have "free will."

@robguyatt9602

6 ай бұрын

@@DinoCism I think the debate about free will or whether there is a point to life or not is silly and unnecessary. Life is what you make of it is enough for me.

@nicolasmartinak700

6 ай бұрын

There is still pleasure, knowledge, family, friends, and all the things that make up the enjoyable parts of a human experience. Just because you're watching a movie of your own life doesn't mean that life isn't worth living. You are a biological agent that was given consciousness and for that we ought to all be grateful.

At a fundamental macro-scale level, one only needs to show "1" example to conclude that determinism does not exist, this being the 3-BodyProblem (Poincaré). At best, and most probable, is that |Non-Determinism Determinism| are 2 extremes of a spectrum thereof, and therein....where the Mind-Body fluctuates within this |NDD| spectrum. The Brain-Mind complex, differentiated among all people, may facilitate the emergence of free-will in some people and not in others. There's a grave misunderstanding about the 'reflexive neural action" experiments that are being used today as proof that free-will doesn't exist. Nevertheless, if one can show just “1” fundamental example in nature that “Determinism” does not exist, via the 3-Body Problem, then "Determinism" should not be promulgated as defining our realm, thereby sending the sciences into erred trajectories. Its a foolish determination.

Predicting someone's action does not equal or mean there is no free will. Though this really does force us to relook and rethink how we see and understand what consciousness, thought, and how we make decisions. Very interesting and raises a bunch of new questions

The response time argument doesn’t take into account the complexity of the old brain. I recommend reading the book, A Thousand Brains that delves into this more. That said, the consciousness latency has also been referred to as the Hemingway Paradox (for morbid reasons) by Roger Penrose who makes the case for the sending back of quantum information in time to reconcile consciousness plus determinism. Interesting hypothesis.

Free will is the system’s inability to predict its own actions, because it cannot predict what it will predict, etc, so this ignorance feels liberating - Seth Loyd has a good paper on it.

@atlasnetwork7855

6 ай бұрын

That's right. It's a delta between the metacognitive awareness and the awareness itself.

@anywallsocket

6 ай бұрын

@@atlasnetwork7855 have you read anything else on this? The research is slim

@robguyatt9602

6 ай бұрын

Word salad

@anywallsocket

6 ай бұрын

@@robguyatt9602 Seth loyd’s a Turing test for free will - read that then complain

14:35 you could make a video testing this on yourself, mainly because I am curious but too lazy to test it myself xD, I am not sure if those tests have been made properly, predicting a decision seems very unlikely, mainly because one can switch the decision after those 4 seconds in which the researchers "predicted" it. Also can they tell me how often I will switch between the buttons in those 4 seconds? Seems squishy

You kind of blew both my minds with this one.

"What you do with that information is your choice." Really? How can I have a real choice if I don't have free will?

There is no splitting, all splits were there, your point of view moving through the branches determines the physics you observe. You can send information to other particles but only particles travelling in the domain with the same vector will be able to communicate without translation. We learn something is red only because we both experience that thing with the same stimulus, then name it red. Same for everything around us. How could we tell if we were not just minds travelling through a complex space, and this is our shared perception?

*7-second delay and “no control”* This is only at the immediate level. Let’s say that when I go to bed I always think of something bad and I can’t seem to help it and it interferes with my sleep. So I decide that as soon as I start thinking of something bad in bed I’m going to start thinking of something soothing. I tried that and it worked. So I can control what I’m thinking about in some ways. That doesn’t disprove determinism, because because I could have been determined to find that solution, but it does put some perspective on that delay of the decision reaching our consciousness.

Very well presented and argued. Nice work.

*Many Worlds Interpretation misunderstood* MWI doesn’t say new universes are generated with each decision. It says the probability wave of the current universe is split into 2, each resulting world now having 1/2 the possibilities that their parent world had. So far it is the only interpretation of quantum physics that corresponds to Schrödinger’s equation, as do all other interactions. The problem with MWI is that it is impossible to run any direct tests. After the quantum collapse, the researcher is permanently separated from all the other decisions and can see only the world that her/his current version ended up in.

Do we have free will? Who's asking? Maybe more importantly, who's answering?

@AnthemUnanthemed

6 ай бұрын

"the structure of the brain is basically an analog computer" biologists would like to talk to u if you know the brain so well because they seem to think otherwise, this video seems particularly poorly sourced, also what even is free will is it the ability to do anything I choose bc I cant do that, society prevents me, laws prevent me, what are you saying by free will the ability to have control over yourself? it doesnt even feel that way in psychosis for some. Also if you haven't heard of any other arguments then you aren't a science communicator, go find and source some with the links to the papers so people can read more and try to begin to form an idea about something extremely complicated that has been debated likely since the dawn of thought, your 15 min yt vid isnt going to make a dent in this debate especially not by laughing at the other side. Like an analog computer my ass DOI:10.1126/science.adl0913

@robt8869

6 ай бұрын

I find it's easier to be kind in a world without free will or the illusion of it. It's difficult to be angry or hate anyone much like anything.

@MagicNash89

6 ай бұрын

We can choose to have free will the moment we are challenged and told we don't have it😛People have done things irrational, hard to rationalize, hard to explain in any biological sense like "self-preservation instinct" , since the dawn of time. The real problem is that we are limited overall in what we can do, our choices are kinda limited by our physical, cognitive abilities, which could be enhanced, but would still make them limited. I suspect this is why there is evidence for no free will found by scientists.

@ArmyGuyClaude

6 ай бұрын

Does this mean Sabine has converted another follower for Super Determinism or can an idea like The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics still have a chance? Post-Script: TIQM almost feels like it's trying to say time itself is a living thing and our actions are basically a spider web weaving itself while regarding which route it wants to take. I could just not be understanding it very well though :).

@robguyatt9602

6 ай бұрын

I do not think so. I see on a daily basis how my actions often predate my awareness of my actions. Also to answer a question you may also have asked, does it matter and or do you care, no and no.

15:45 this does not disprove free will, it just shows how our brain works. The question is more like "is there a universal free-will soul in our universe" because everything feels pretty real for being just a computer, not saying I am more than my brain, but that communication causes the experience of consciousness because of uncertainty or sth like that

@1337asader

6 ай бұрын

Well, consciousness needs to come from somewhere and with my consciousness I have the ability to visualize a square or a cube or other objects. Yet my brain is not changing physical shape. So Some field in physics has to allow for this visualization of multiple dimensions to occur in human consciousness. May we call it the conscious field or something else, hell it may simply be the electromagnetic field and when you work through math with that, it utilizes the properties of complex numbers which can allow for those multiple dimensions. But sadly Many horrible books about stupid things with consciousness has really destroyed the ability to have this conversation in the world of science, but physics needs to start working towards consciousness and understanding what it is

@JuliusUnique

6 ай бұрын

@@1337asader well if you store the information as a combination of neurons, you can re-imagine the cube by running through set neurons with an electric signal I think, so there would not be an extra dimension needed as you already experience reality with neurons, so the reality we experience gets encoded with neurons, now if we decode it, it feels the same way as actually experiencing it because the experience itself was made up by neurons, so activating the neural structure that remembers the event (seeing the cube) feels the same as actually seeing it

Is it possible we don't understand what free will actually is?

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

5 ай бұрын

No. It is well-defined, and its definition makes it an absurd impossible concept. Defining it differently would be defining something that isn't actually free will. That is what some philosophers try to do; they redefine the term to be something that could be real, but then it isn't really free will. Similar to how some unsophisticated religious apologists redefine what a "god" is so that it isn't actually a god anymore.

Counterfactual Computation kinda destroys the lack of free-will argument. The universe itself is doing a JIT like compilation of superpositions ahead of the current reference frame, which mammalian ego structures exploit during the spike in an action potential through some really neat on-the-fly signal modulation that allows spontaneous reconfiguration (JCN).

What about reprogramming by memory editing and conditioning/training? Can those not change the decision engine to make different choices? And by making the decision to embark on making these changes, is that not an imposition of will? If consciousness is an analysis function, a perception of decision making, would we not then be capable of influencing future decisions? Love your videos ❤

Not sure if it is my choice to write this comment, but SUPER interesting video. Kind of a hard pill to swallow, to think that we really don't have free will. I am going to stick my head in the sand and say to my self that I choose to write this and then I am going to chose to have a beer. Thank you for the video.

@ZJProductionHK

5 ай бұрын

Do this when u r high. Its. Crazy lol

The timing of things happening in separate parts of the brain, and how those events are coordinated and perceived, is complex, so it's not even clear that people know anything about when anything happens, much less that they are able to report on it without indeterminate delay. It isn't the case that information from conscious consideration doesn't influence decisions, even if the decision itself doesn't get made within consciousness. Even if we accept that decisions are made unconsciously, it only moves the question of free will to the locale of pre-consciousness, it doesn't eliminate it. Also, it would be best to cite the specific studies used as "proof," since the descriptions leave out significant details.

@chimpinabowtie6913

6 ай бұрын

The explanation you give *IS* the proof that free will is an illusion. One cannot think a thought before one has thought it, but once thought, our brain is merely creating a _post hoc_ rationale that deceives our conscious self that we were the author; in reality, all our thoughts and actions are brought into being without any conscious input.

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

The title of vid is click bait. Lol

@blucat4

5 ай бұрын

I agree. Also at the end where he says if the interpreter has to make something up we can't be in control, is wrong. The decision could be made by the right brain, but the explanation is lacking, that doesn't mean there was no free will. I'm sure some people refused the command. I wonder what they said when asked why they refused the command? Probably, "I didn't see any command." Also the idea that the only action of the brain if from atoms up seems to be wrong. Our brains create electromagnetic fields, and are influenced by them. External EMFields could interact with our brains and affect the decision making process. He hasn't taken this into account at all.

@crawkn

5 ай бұрын

​@@blucat4 I don't try to predict precisely the locus of freewill, or the mechanism by which it may operate, _if_ it exists. I only allow that there are realms of intelligence which we understand very poorly, or not at all, and I don't think what we _do_ know about is complete enough to make any absolute declarations with unassailable certainty. I'm fine with just admitting that we have a lot more to learn in the field, and I will just wait and see what shakes out. In the meantime, it's really a pretty academic question, about which it's not really important that we have certainty. The really useful information, when the question is answerable, will be in a much broader theory of intelligence.

18:16 "What you do with that information, is your choice". This negates everything that was said in the whole video.

Well the beauty of this universe is that you can have multiple things happening and being true in the same time despite the apparent paradoxes, like the quantum super positions, the waves being just molecules exchanging energy but also actual waves as an emerging property and free-will not existing and existing in the same time depending on the point of view from inside or outside a time/space dimension or emerging phenomena like the consciousness perceived time flow

@matthewyabsley

6 ай бұрын

No.

@arunk2710

5 ай бұрын

Nope

You overstate your case. We can't remotely cover the topic of free will until we crack the hard problem of consciousness (and I have my doubts that we can). I'm down for discussions about the limits of free will (and there's no question that there are limits), but science hasn't "proven" much in this space, merely found evidence. This idea that constraining choices limits free will is inherently a false application of logic. Bounds to all things exist. If I'm given a binary choice, I'm constrained, but I still (in theory) have the freedom to choose as I wish between them. Free will, like all possibilities, will be limited by said possibilities. I'm in a gray space on the idea that the brain processing before we're aware of it is somehow a bypass. Some of this may come to self-awareness. I can kind of see my thinking both as a separate part of my conscious state. It's incomplete, no question, and I won't pretend it's somehow different: It's my experience. So then we get to the interpreter side of things as you stated it. To me, and this one is a lot more... nebulous? We have the two halves of the brain, possibly with their own mind-states, in constant communication normally. If you sever that, they have to start trying to anticipate and explain to themselves why their other half acts out. There's no way to know if extrapolating that to a normally functioning brain is in any way the correct solution or not. And again, there's the hard problem of consciousness. Assumptions are being made about how what we're seeing is actually working. I'm sure there's something to this. I'm also sure there's more than we're able to see yet. So, if you tell me free will is minimal for decisions in the heat of the moment, I'm down for that. If you tell me that me taking my time and weighing my options isn't a state where my free will is in effect, you're going to have to bring a lot more to the table to convince me

@Solscapes.

6 ай бұрын

If will was free, we wouldn't be able to drug them, buy them, influence them with food, lights, sounds, and peer pressure. Will is not free.

First of all: I'm a huge fan! Thank you SO much for sharing your knowledge with us all. Secondly: I should immediately disclose that I am NOT a scientist... more of a free-range, generalist philosopher. That being said, I do get it... I've actually become previously familiar with several of the hypotheses/experiments covered in this video through the course of my all-consuming edutainment addiction. However, whilst consuming this specific content on this particular occasion, I had a thought. What if free will need not occupy any space at all within the tight confines of matter's atomic matrices? What if, circling alllll the way back to Newton's law numero uno, free will isn't a property of the material world, but an external force that acts upon and interacts with the material world? Perhaps free will is even a fundamental force, intrinsic to any universe containing sentient life? I dunno... it's just like any other purely philosophical preponderance: probably nothing, but possibly everything. Bottom line: I was uncomfortable with the implications a world devoid of any real choice had for the concept of creativity. And, whether it be preordained or spontaneous in nature, I am personally satisfied with my creativity's ability to quell that discomfort in this instance.

But now I'm definitely falling into chaos. This is video 74 of a series of videos that I am watching and saving with the aim of understanding the non-existence of free will and interpreting this fact as something less chaotic than my current conclusions. Because, as free will is not real and all our interpretations and emotions are the result of the chaotic interaction of neurons, then there are no feelings, reality is not real, but interpretation. Values do not matter, life does not matter. Well, at least there is no guilt, but there is also no merit, and if there is no merit there is no reward. But if there is no reward, all the effort is useless, and if the emotions, which are all that remains of this mess, are also not real, then why live? It is a waste of unnecessary pain and sacrifice. There are no values and feelings. They are just ''things'' happening, like a chemical chain reaction. I suffer from a type of depression that makes me incapable of having emotions, and I also have ADHD, and to overcome these problems I delved into the mysteries of the mind, and unfortunately I was forced to understand that my motivation is the shit of a molecule called dopamine, and that my emotions lost during depression are also other molecules and neural interactions that were corrupted in my brain. It was then that I noticed that there is no value, no meaning or purpose in anything, and that given my conditions I am the only one capable of understanding this, because since I have no emotions, I am not connected to anything, and I can be the most intellectually sincere and less hypocritical. But that wasn't what I wanted, to be more exact, now that I understand everything, I haven't been to my job for days, soon my money will run out, I won't have a living, I'll start abandoning everything and now every night I sleep crying and with a pillow wrapped around my head trying in vain to shut my mind to free myself from this pain of knowing that I am just a chemical chain reaction and that it doesn't make any difference whether I fight or not. Honestly, it's the first time I've felt anything in years, and it was definite dread and agony. I don't think I can live anymore. I just wanted to bang my head against the wall until I forgot, or walk down the road and go so far and so far and... I don't know, disappear, die, fly. I don't know. But I'm here, I'm here because I want to know, how. How are you okay with all this? How do you deal with this and not go down like I did? How can you love someone knowing that they only love you because circuits in their brain induce this cooperative behavior, and that the same applies to you? How can you try to move forward if it's the future that catches up with you and there's nothing you can do to change it or change yourself? Please if you can, I need help.

@bruceb7464

5 ай бұрын

There is no certainty that humans do not have free will. What was offered in this video, and most others on this topic, was various arguments as to why free will does not exist. It is all an unproven hypothesis. The scientific proof of human determinism does not exist. Even if life was completely deterministic - and I don't think it is - a person would be well advised to just continue to live life believing that they have free will. if you have watched 74 video on the subject then you are not going to get anything more by watching a 75th video that proposes determinism. Get out of the rabbit hole that is determinism. It is not helpful. Try looking for videos that support free will. There are less of them but they are around. Anyway - good luck to you. I wish you well.

@bruceb7464

5 ай бұрын

You very well express the one of the problems with determinism. That is the potential for nihilism. However it need not be like that. As you may have worked out from my previous post I don't believe in determinism - for many of the reason said in that post and others as well. But leave that aside for the moment even if the world is deterministic it need not lead to nihilism. Perhaps you could think of life as a very long train journey. Once you are on the train your destination is determined. However that does not mean that you can't enjoy the trip. You can watch the world go by and admire its beauty and diversity. You can interact with the other passengers on the train and enjoy their company. After all you are all on this trip together. Joy and happiness still exist and they are real if you choose them. Even in the video the presenter of the video said at the end - "Joy is still joy and sorrow is still sorrow. We are part of a great connected Universe where the play button was hit billions of years ago and the story is continuing to unfold with us both as the actors and the audience." Enjoy the trip. You might as well.

I've never understood why people need it to exist so badly. I wonder if they feel that their anger, shame, guilt or pride would be invalid if their choices aren't free? That's simply not true, emotions are valid all on their own. They aren't supposed to be perfectly logical, which is good, because they never are. Or maybe they feel 'locked' in to some kind of bad future if they can't change things? Free will, or no free will, the brain still thinks, grows, reacts. Just because, ultimately, we aren't in control of our destinies doesn't mean that we can't choose to enjoy life or be better people. Even if free choice doesn't exist, choice does. It's probably pedantic, but I don't fully agree that our consciousness has little control over our actions. I think the purpose of our consciousness is to review what has happened, and how we reacted so it can attempt to modify the way our brain works so we will react differently in the future. That's not free will, because we didn't control the event, but I do think if that's true then consciousness plays a pivotal role in what kind of person we are tomorrow, and how we will act. Knowing that means we're better equipped to decide how much mental energy to put into stressing over our failures or the outcomes of our actions, but it also means that we know stressing over it too hard doesn't fix anything so it's sometimes best to just move on.

@kayakMike1000

6 ай бұрын

Who is the you that is modifying your brain to react differently? Who is it that chooses your destiny? Just because the MRI scanner can identify what decision can be made before we make a decision a few seconds before we are "consciously aware" doesn't mean really anything.

@jameshughes3014

6 ай бұрын

@@kayakMike1000why not?

@screamerchaotix5182

5 ай бұрын

The problem with your statement "we aren't in control of our destinies doesn't mean that we can't choose to enjoy life or be better people." I hate to say it, but that's exactly what it means. That's the whole point. You won't, you CAN'T, choose anything. It's all been determined. That's scientific fact so I'll accept it...but it sucks lol

@jameshughes3014

4 ай бұрын

@@screamerchaotix5182choice doesn't mean free choice. it just means choice. looking at options, and picking one. free will doesn't have to exist for that to happen. It may not be 'your choice' in some ephemeral sense, but that doesn't matter or have anything to do with my thoughts on the matter , because my point was that it doesn't matter if your will is free, it's still will.

Of course you have the freedom to choose whatever you want to choose, but what you want ain't under your control. Think about if you've ever thought 'I'm not in the mood' or 'I feel like ....', or, try to convince yourself you love doing whatever you absolutely loathe doing. It really shouldn't be so difficult for folks to understand. Your video is a great explanation of different ways that free will can't exist, it touches on a number of issues that have guided my thinking--most especially the split-brain info and how our conscious minds are wholly a creation of our brains and how we most certainly ain't in the drivers seat. It really blew at least half of my mind when I first heard about one hemisphere making up stories to explain what the other half did with their one body.

I think the unknowable category of things is where free will lies. Within the realm of science, the universe will always be deterministic because those who live in science mind disregard the unknowable. If you really thought the world was deterministic, you would have to advocate for all the people in prison that are there unjustifiably. No one can have responsibility for their actions without free will. Whatever you might say you think scientifically, you live a life of free will.

“Play your part in the comedy but don’t identify yourself with your role” -Wei Wu Wei

Determinism works well for lifeless matter imo. As lifeforms composed of matter. some of us sometimes exhibit freewill. But it is rare and not seemingly permanent.

It's interesting. I really like your video and I'm impressed by the chain of reasoning behind it, but for the first time I can't agree with the conclusion. My honest belief is closer to what you say at 12:47, although I know you don't find that idea compelling or explanatory. Regardless, it's clear that our thoughts are influenced by the physical condition of our brains. When our brains are injured or diseased we can't think clearly. If the corpus callosum is severed one side of the brain appears to be unaware of what the other side perceives. When learning a new skill we can actually measure how our neurons become more efficient, requiring less activity to perform the same task. And something subtle happens as brains age - our thoughts become more settled and we tend to be less and less open to new ideas, perhaps because of an age related loss of brain plasticity. So at some level thought must emerge from the physical processes of our brain, at least in part. On the other hand, the idea that we have no free will seems pretty implausible. If consciousness is a purely mechanistic phenomenon, something we've evolved to explain to ourselves why we carry out actions that have already been computed somewhere in the brain, then why is human behavior so unpredictable? Why is there a need to "explain" anything at all? Why are we conscious in the first place? In the end, I think "free will" is still a mystery. You say you can't find a place for it, so it can't exist. I say that just shows our knowledge of existence is missing something fundamental. There are still certain features of human existence like free will and our perception of the passage of time that can't be explained (and probably won't be fully explained) no matter how much we learn about how the universe works.

the way how you talk about determinsm as if that concept alone is profoundly advanced and stuff when its something I learned when I was 1 year old

The difference is we as intelligent beings have the ability to act vs be acted upon.

Neils Bohr in his book Atomic Theory page 4, " We have been forced step by step to forgo a casual description of the behavior of individual atoms in space and time, and to recon with FREE CHOICE on the part of nature between various possibilities to which only probability considerations can be applied...we have gradually reached a complete understanding of the intimate connection between the RENUNCIATION of causality in the quantum mechanical description." I think Bohr figured out where free will lives long ago.

@konyvnyelv.

3 ай бұрын

You're describing how quantum theory supports randomness but randomness is not freedom for us. We still don't control what happens by chance

@JoshuaRolen

3 ай бұрын

@@konyvnyelv. Just because WE don't understand or control it doesn't mean it's random. In fact, it must not be random for the universe to be coherent. I personally don't believe in randomness or coincidence.

This video does not live up to its title and falls into the standard lack of reading about free will discussions that has been common for ages. The video doesn't even contemplate what free will is as far as the definition goes. It's barely any better than a lay person talking about it if I'm being frank. Akin to the people who think ethics are subjective merely because people have different views on ethics (they don't extend this logic to every domain where people disagree). If you wonder why I conclude this, please read up on the compatibilist theory of free will. You will learn more about conceptions of free will even under a deterministic universe than the "Determinism, ergo no free will" video you get above. The fact free will isn't given a working definition for the video was an immediate red flag to me that the uploader was going to make a bad argument. What argument can you give if you're not even specific about what your topic item means? Even just the logic kind of falls flat. If determinism implies no free will, indeterminism ought to imply free will. Otherwise the initial supposition is either false or the uploader is saying his undefined concept of free will is incoherent. But even the video recognizes a universe with randomness doesn't get you free will by default. So it's not even clear the uploader has a conception of free will fleshed out and he doesn't bother arguing it's an incoherent idea.

@adderallsenpai

6 ай бұрын

I've had premonitions all my life and all of them have come true. Not a single vision has failed to come to pass. Free will is an illusion, a man-made concept that didn't exist until we as a species arrogantly decided we were in control. You are a part of something much bigger than you or anyone else could ever hope to be. Just enjoy the ride and quit bitching.

Dhammapada Chapter 1, The Pairs 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. 5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. 6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels. 7. Just as a storm throws down a weak tree, so does Mara overpower the man who lives for the pursuit of pleasures, who is uncontrolled in his senses, immoderate in eating, indolent, and dissipated. [1] 8. Just as a storm cannot prevail against a rocky mountain, so Mara can never overpower the man who lives meditating on the impurities, who is controlled in his senses, moderate in eating, and filled with faith and earnest effort. [2] 9. Whoever being depraved, devoid of self-control and truthfulness, should don the monk's yellow robe, he surely is not worthy of the robe. 10. But whoever is purged of depravity, well-established in virtues and filled with self-control and truthfulness, he indeed is worthy of the yellow robe. 11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive at the essential. 12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the essential. 13. Just as rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, so passion penetrates an undeveloped mind. 14. Just as rain does not break through a well-thatched house, so passion never penetrates a well-developed mind. 15. The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he grieves in both the worlds. He laments and is afflicted, recollecting his own impure deeds. 16. The doer of good rejoices here and hereafter; he rejoices in both the worlds. He rejoices and exults, recollecting his own pure deeds. 17. The evil-doer suffers here and hereafter; he suffers in both the worlds. The thought, "Evil have I done," torments him, and he suffers even more when gone to realms of woe. 18. The doer of good delights here and hereafter; he delights in both the worlds. The thought, "Good have I done," delights him, and he delights even more when gone to realms of bliss. 19. Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others - he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life. 20. Little though he recites the sacred texts, but puts the Teaching into practice, forsaking lust, hatred, and delusion, with true wisdom and emancipated mind, clinging to nothing of this or any other world - he indeed partakes of the blessings of a holy life.

Emotional rollercoaster of a video. It's correct as viewed from a physicist's perspective of reductive and extrapolative reasoning. BUT (and I welcome corrections) when even as a physicist you say that causality at the fundamental level depens on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of subatomic particles which may or may not interact with another and in whichever possible way and then possibly infinite ways only to prove that's just another layer of reality in which the decisions exemplified in the experiment (left or right hand use) do have a superpositiononal characteristic in which both are possible. Therefore, it can easily be proposed that free will does exist in this superpositional state in which either hand cand be used and only when WE make a decision the superposition state collapsed into OUR decision to use either left or right hand. Thus your argument can easily be turned on its head and propose that there is free will and physics can prove it. With your examples. And instead of having a nihilistic outlook of the world and our place in it we should argue that we do have free will and create order from this ambiguous state of probabilities. Perhaps a more meaningful message to your viewers.

@alex62570

6 ай бұрын

One more criticism of those experiments. Scientists said they can predict 4 seconds ahead of the participants being aware of it. What happens when a participant makes a decision instantly when the math numbers are presented? One could easily divide, multiply, add subtract those numbers within 4 seconds. Free will may determine which operation is first because of preference. There's no preference in quantum state. It's all of them all the time.

If you can compute that it's random it's not random. There is no limit without Determinability, no Determinability without limit.

I love your arguments. But I think it possible, likely even that we see only the tip of the iceberg. Our science is at its historic peak, but almost at the bottom of its future peak. Its likely we'll reinvent our modelling many times over as we perceive more and more. That's not to say you're wrong. But I think it's far too early to accept as fact that which we barely understand, consciousness. I know you referenced free-will specifically, but it seems you intended conciousness to be considered within this area of discussion. (As a side note, I previously found the observations from split brain people fascinating and worthy of continued examination. I actually pencilled in my own model of my brain's operation being in part that the non verbal side of my brain well use what we interpret as emotions as its method of communicating with the speech part. I don't consider this hard and fast, but its helpful and I pay attention and acknowledge my feelings on many matters now.)

I am truly bothered by this individual stating that when someone has their brain severed into two pieces that they are then disconnected. No we now have two new conscious entities in play. Not the complex of the left and right hemisphere but just a left hemisphere and a right hemisphere and one of those hemispheres have controls of speech and just cuz a person can speak and it will speak for the entire body. Does not mean the other side of the brain does not experience and have that conscious state. You ask that side questions. It will write you answers and give you response. It just doesn't have the verbal attributes into the physical properties of that now consciousness so it can't respond and how he disassociates the side of the brain that can't speak from consciousness is absolutely appalling

Counter argument: If free will is not real but we consciously feel like we do have free will. Then that feeling is just an illusion. But what or who is that illusion for if not to convince some entity with the capacity to make decisions to be more likely to make a certain choice. Why have we evolved the illusion of free will at all?

@AlexDC93

4 ай бұрын

To add to the above we know that our brains have the ability to comprehend things. For example you can comprehend the video and comment. But the atoms on their own can't comprehend. So the argument that atoms cant make decisions and thus the brain can't may not hold true. I do agree with you that it makes sense that there is no free will but the question of consciousness, comprehension and the illusion of free will need answering before you can confidently say that free will does not exists at all.

As a person with ocd its more like a fight between what i think to be myself and what i consider to be "not me" although i can never make out which one is the real me, well maybe because there is no real "me"

11:30 the realities popping into existence all around is more controlled and it’s in the patterns that emerge and those patterns are thoughts and movies and games and alternate things we think of. They always pop in and out and can be translated to other material and not just a pattern with less detail but now a pattern realized by materials to represent the things we’ve thought of so making the “unreal” real. Everything exists as potential and we live in the current and i don’t just mean the now but also the flow of it all back and forth like quantum mechanics. It’s not a wave collapse but once we measure a part of the pattern we can see the rest so it’s no longer like a wave to us. Our problem is thinking our perception of reality is real even when those perceptions are based on repeated patterns and known data, those too are perceptions even though they are more likely. The free will is the process and the reason it’s free is because we believe and do what we want but if we believe it’s not free then we live our lives blaming others and living in hell. All potentials exist, look at the patterns of connections, but we are in the current so find the patterns and data accompanying so that we can build our reality to not be hell.

Free will is absurd, but not having free will is equally absurd. WTF did I write this comment?

@kayakMike1000

6 ай бұрын

That is not something we could have computed from initial conditions of the universe without just letting the universe unfold as it already has. To do so would require a universe sized simulation that would be identical to the universe that you're already in.

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

5 ай бұрын

What is absurd about not having free will? That can only seem absurd if you don't think about it. It only takes a couple simple thoughts to show that free will is impossible. Not having free will is the only logically sound (non-absurd) conclusion.

@kredwol2103

5 ай бұрын

@@CliffSedge-nu5fv The argument against free will necessarily depends upon assumptions whether hidden, explicitly stated or simply overlooked. Supposedly noncontroversial assumptions or self-evident axioms can be wrong or arbitrary. Throw infinity into the mix and things get dicey quickly. Think about the axiom of parallel lines in geometry or the axiom of choice in set theory. Would you bet your life that there's no such thing as free will? I wouldn't.

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

5 ай бұрын

@@kredwol2103 You just spouted a bunch of gibberish, so are not worthy of a serious reply.

@kredwol2103

5 ай бұрын

@@CliffSedge-nu5fv the tard is strong in you

Maybe free will is only an illusion due to the fact that multiple beings can make different decisions in the same situation. And the cause is not only the situation. But also the background and experiences that these beings had in life. To experiment on this regard. You will be needing a lot of test objects.

Even if we make choices through unconscious processes, our conscious "explanations" lead to self awareness and personal growth. That's where humans exercise free will: in becoming aware of, and modifying, their own decision-making hardware.

"Guys, we did a scan of a brain and we can predict how you will answer binary questions. You don't have free will!" Ah, and physics has no room for free will despite the fact we need a 12 layer deep neural network to simulate the behavior of a single type of neuron and have only vague ideas how our brain works in the first place. Mechanistically, there are uncertain things. This is basic QM. We've experimentally verified that things like spin are not persistent material properties. Bell's inequality. There's plenty of room for free will. The question is how we define free will and where we arbitrarily assign the decision making process. It seems patently absurd to me to scan the brain to see when and where decisions are made only to then shift the goal posts and claim that because the cause of a decision can be neurologically isolated, free will does not exist. "Because decisions are made in the brain (as opposed to....?), those decisions must not be free." When people took time to meditate as part of a study, a region of neurons serving as insulation for the limbic system thickened. Numerous studies have shown extensive neural plasticity and the ability for conscious behavioral action to alter deeper structures of the brain. In what definition does this not qualify as free agency? If the agency is not free, then from what are the rules derived? The ambiguous answer of "well... the mechanics compound..." doesn't pass muster when the claim is "physics doesn't allow...." "I don't want to believe..." You want to know something others don't. Core gnostic gibberish repackaged into a comical surrender to the demiurge.

Consider the free will theorem of Conway and Kochen.

The Devs series also deals with this topic and is highly recommended.

Simple solution: Through evolution we evolved advanced consciousness emerging from the area of the brain where decision cascades are made OR the region of the brain where consciousness emerges from "operates" the "control room" part of the brain where decision cascades are made.

Free will does exist but it's a moot point. Universe made up its mind a long time ago

I love the input, but there are no jumping to conclusions in this topic, no right or wrong, consider: If everything in the universe exists as an idea, you... me... earth... an atom, what invented that idea, the idea of anything existing at all, the idea of these rules, and structures, particles and anything else can't simply exist without any sense of randomness or creativity, or a "why", if we are following the same logic that is how we've come to understand the small bits of universe we know of, so perhaps it's not that we are all individually conscious or not, but maybe a variable out side our prison (the universe), that chooses the decisions and paths of each life or instance as if we were all people in a dream searching for the answer to what it means to be awake. But also maybe not, maybe anything, because as long as we are stuck on the idea that things can simply exist from nothing, we are stuck on the very idea of what makes random, what makes free will. I am not here to say one side is more reasonable then the other, but to say that there is even a side closer than another is probability wrong, for we are not just stuck inside the limitations of our universe but also our minds, meaning the idea of communicating how the universe works is possibly impossible, language is very much limiting, and for all we know there are infinite options to choose from, majority being ones of which we can't perceive, similar to how we can't see all colors.

There’s a big difference in choosing between two semi random options, which could conceivably be determined by some kind of brain random number generator, and choices between complex options that require reflection and rumination. The fMRI experiments tell us nothing about the latter. Let me know when fMRI can predict the opinions of someone after watching documentaries on a conflict.

@spooky_action

6 ай бұрын

Why would adding complexity to decisions add any amount of freedom?

@stephen-rhythm-28

5 ай бұрын

@@spooky_action because freedom requires a context. When that context is arbitrary then the decision making process is also arbitrary and therefore can be measured and then predicted. I guess the measurement and prediction system is just detecting a tendency towards sides (in the case of left vs right hand) or the tendency towards something more abstract but equally arbitrary in terms of addition or subtraction. What if free will is actually the ability to shape and modify the natural choices of our mind. Each choice, however arbitrary, is presented to us as our own decision so that we have a clear sense of self. In fact, each (non-arbitrary) choice is much more the result of many previous choices we've made combined with various values and beliefs that we hold. In fact, how free you are is a factor of the beliefs you hold, but bear in mind that someone can hold two contradictory beliefs. Ben Miles is a case in point, since he believes that free will doesn't exist, but at the same time he wants it to exist, therefore his desire contradicts his head knowledge, and those two contradictory things will fight internally when Ben is faced with decisions or value judgements that rest on our understanding of free will, such as concepts of justice. You could say that free will is truly exhibited when Ben decides to listen to his head or his heart when making such value judgements. I suspect he will listen to his heart, since that will lead him to more morally desirable and pleasurable outcomes than his somewhat mechanistic head knowledge. Scientists can have a tendency to over simplify the universe and then draw bogus conclusions. (cue spherical cow meme)

@spooky_action

5 ай бұрын

@@stephen-rhythm-28 Because the illusion of free will does exist, which is all it could ever be, an illusion, given a computational system such as a brain. Adding any amount of complex word salad won't make it any more free. For example, you say "What if free will is actually the ability to shape and modify the natural choices of our mind". Shaping and modifying things has the same problem, the process of shaping and modifying is not free. It's just another process. You can't escape the fact that the process is determined by the state of the system and the laws of physics.

@stephen-rhythm-28

5 ай бұрын

@@spooky_action Indeed, but the laws of physics are incomplete, and may remain so given that 95% of the matter and energy within the observable bounds of our universe are beyond our observation, and so called dark matter and dark energy for this reason. What I mean is, we do not know all the laws of physics, and the ones that we do know are at best a subset. Anyhow, I’m of the opinion that the wave equations governing quantum interactions are real, as otherwise how could we harness them in order to solve equations within quantum computers. Wave equations and superposition are abstract notions, so we can draw the conclusion that our universe comprises of these equations as its building blocks, and in my opinion experimentation so far confirms this (eg, such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment). Free will is also an abstract notion, therefore I do not see how our incomplete knowledge of the laws of physics is sufficiently complete to rule out the abstract notion of free will, which may be as real as wave equations. However, there is certainly a difference in kind between the two. Wave equations relate to the extremely small, whereas general relativity relates to the extremely big, and newtonian mechanics relates to ordinary scales. All of these are descriptions of physical phenomena, whereas philosophy aims to describe the metaphysical and the existence of the metaphysical requires self aware, broadly intelligent beings, capable of independent reasoning. Indeed it is the exploration of the abstract yet tangible experience of these beings that causes this conversation. This sort of investigation is qualitatively and quantitatively different to that of the physical at its three major scales: quantum, macro and relativistic. Yet, that at the quantum scale the universe is the equations that govern it, perhaps should suggest that we shouldn’t so easily dismiss other abstract notions as being illusional rather than real. This becomes especially so if we define ‘real’ to mean shared experience, since we all experience a quality we describe as freedom of choice, and though the investigation of that is certainly fascinating, it should take quite a lot of evidence to rule it out as a thing, and I’m simply arguing that we don’t have enough evidence to do that. Moreover, the whole may be more than the sum of its parts, as can be observed with the spontaneous symmetry breaking that happens in crystals, and the fact that the resulting low energy state can’t be predicted by the laws of physics although it is perfectly allowed for (it doesn’t violate these laws). Or to put that another way: laws of physics can lack predictive power in certain circumstances, and then we often formulate new laws, and this is why chemistry is a separate subject to physics. In other words, much of the phenomena that we observe in chemistry cannot be predicted by physics, although the laws of physics are not violated by these phenomena. One could argue that it is wise to apply Occam's razor and conclude that free will must be an illusion. However, the reasons against this are the very real conclusions on subjects such as justice that may follow if we firmly draw this conclusion. Or in other words, important things in life actually become worse if we conclude this. Furthermore, over application of Occam’s razor can lead us to remove things simply because they are too unknown for us. If on the other hand we posit that free will is real or could be real, then there is a great deal left to investigate and explore on this topic. Nevertheless, it is up to us to decide whether to accept free will as something real or as an illusion or conclude that we don’t know. It is kind of similar to the quantum physics discussion on whether wave equations are real or whether they are simply our own approximation for something else and in that sense are a useful illusion. As someone who is interested in mental health, I find it important to take ownership of ones own actions, and free will as a concept is a necessary part of that. I’m not a fan of theories which close of sections of possible reality, I think the cost of getting it wrong is too great while there still remains plenty of possibility that such phenomena are actually real. I’ve found a lot of positive outcomes when I follow this more open minded line of thinking! I can actually live by this and remain healthy.

Hmm this is interesting. I think everything is likely predetermined, but you still have control over the choices you make. So “the universe” already knows what choices will be presented and made, and the results that will come from them before you’re even born.

The laws of physics that we know of are not even consistent with each other. Quantum theory says space is Euclidean, i.e., flat, and independent of time, whereas general relativity says it is curved and tangled with time. So it's clear that at least one of them is incorrect at least some of the time. Given that our best theories disagree with each other, it's not a coherent statement to say that they fully determine everything. Besides, how would you ever know? You don't have sensors everywhere to tell you if some law has been violated.

I'm happy with discounted will, it doesn't have to be free... (apparently, I had no choice, it was inevitable that I would respond that way). 😁

Now considering this to be true, which given the evidence, it is fully sound imo an interesting idea to consider is how life again assembles this to transcend the limitation imposed by this. With the development of group dynamics through gradually developing individual psychological brain-wirings via evolution, a compounding effect may be created. Similar to the state-saving-nature of assembly theory new iteratively improving wirings may be developed, which in turn enable individuals to influence eachother. At this stage a new collective governance influences the actions of the species as a whole. At that point again however it can again be described as a single unit, a sorr of distributed system. Still no free will though. However its necessity stems from the need of life(forms) to be best adapted or perish. In a sort of confirmation bias we are now here and have as a species have run this evolution so far that there is nothing left but to be able to look back at ourselves. Full circle? BTW I still believe in the many worlds theory on a quantum level. There’s always a frame of possibilities that determines the amount of branches and certainly branching would happen on a micro rather than a macro level but overall the idea that all outcomes of the wavefunction exist simultaneously through quantum decoherence is very sound to me.

Consciousness or awareness is also something we can't find through studying particle physics, should we say then that consciousness doesn't exist as well?

Please correct me if I'm wrong -- but you didn't define what is this "free will" that you are trying to prove exists or doesn't exist. It appears to me you've proven that all decisions we make are made causally... but that's not much of a surprise, is it? On what other grounds would we make a decision?

What? 0:25 they've shown there is a randomness to the expression of atoms at the smallest levels. It's certainly one thing to say that our free will is PRIMED by the world around us, but there is choice there

How are you defining free will, that’s one thing that hasn’t been defined at all in this thought experiment. A person has a multitude of choices that can be made, at any given moment of a day; you can’t possibly think that all of those choices are already pre-determined. Thats simply mad!

Would it be a good argument to say we can't talk about free will unless we know how to explain consciousness because matter and subjective experiences couldn't be of different kinds.

How about we can will/control the universe 😮

Love your channel! Cool videos! Had my take on this topic though because poets, philosophers, and artists seem to be missing a category … the most important would be what God has to say or if your skeptical of that what theologians say. They’ve studied that question quite a bit ”I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,“ ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭19‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ”And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”“ ‭‭Joshua‬ ‭24‬:‭15‬ ‭ESV‬‬ But just as light is both wave and particle we have free will and God commands us ”So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭16‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I litterly was watching something about free will eariler, now seeing this is nuts. The irony is indeed heavy.

@askedofgod9067

6 ай бұрын

Not irony, but destiny…😂

While the hypothesis suggesting quantum processes in brain microtubules influencing consciousness and free will is rooted in scientific principles, its testability and empirical support remain subjects of debate within the scientific community.

Hi Ben. A couple of things… in quantum mechanics, it is fundamental that certain events are deterministically decoupled. So atom-based life is nowhere near deterministic. Also, you are confounding consciousness and free will. Just because the conscious mind learns of certain kinds of decisions well after they are made, this does not mean that the sub conscious mind cannot have free will. In fact, it doesn’t even mean that the conscious mind cannot command the unconscious mind that it is now time to make a choice, which could be a form of free will exercised by the conscious mind.

@DrBenMiles

6 ай бұрын

Interesting idea, that free will runs on deeper circuitry in the brain - I'd argue that its even more likely to be deterministic and out of our control in that case

If all that is true does that mean we cannot create anything instead we can only discover it and also we cannot not discover it instead we must discover it whether we wanted to or not?

I know watching this subject will depress me, but I guess I really can't help it. I never thought science would show me that fate is real and we're, for all intents and purposes, playing out "God's plan." Maybe not the plan of sentient being, per se, but definitely a sequence of events set in motion we're powerless to alter. I'm glad the collection of particles that make up "me" finally stopped drinking nine years ago, and I hope they keep doing that. Just sucks knowing I don't have a say in whether they do or not.

If the future exists you don't have free will, if the past exists that means the future does as we are it, then you don't have free will. But didn't you make those choices in the first place? Not being able to change them might be frustrating but my life is great so I do not care.

I always say, we are just co-piloting a machine that does 99% of things on its own. But as long as we don't understand what gives us consciousness, it does not make sense to try to differentiate between "free will" and something our brain has decided. I even wonder if consciousness is even signalling back anything at all. But since we are aware that we are conscious, there has to be some sort of feedback, because it seems unlikely that the brain would go through the effort of simulating free will for no reason at all. Or maybe it is all just just a simulation anyway... and we are just players in a MMORPG that is not even realistic, but by blocking access to our real personality and memories the experience becomes absolutely real and convincing.

Trying to understand free will and determinism makes my head hurt

@sravasaksitam

4 ай бұрын

to me it's not even useful to think about. in either possiblity nothing changes

Are you not forgetting about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the Planck length which necessarily introduces indeterminism?

@divyanshkashyap3938

3 ай бұрын

If it is random it still isn't your choice

@donaldcharlong9586

2 ай бұрын

That is an assumption and the randomness removes determinism. Who says that the randomness can't be guided buy my free will.@@divyanshkashyap3938

So many misunderstandings here that I think I should finally write a short article to address them each.

I had a conversation with a familliar a few years back at a dinner party. I argued that free will doesn't exist, but I needed better arguments, it seems. but your first argument is rock solid I think. I'll use that in my next discussion about the existance of free will. Thanks :) Also, I'm glad you were "desperate" to somehow justify how free will could exist. But I also see it very unlikely, but you gave it a fair run for it's money I think, not being a nuclear physisist or anything.

16:44 they could say that because they are ashamed of not knowing why they stood up, I think I would say "I have no idea why I stood up, you tell me" and then they tell me that I stood up because they told my other half of the brain to do so. I can well imagine how someone would fish for excuses, because that's what humans do all the time anyway, so it probably was muscle memory, because if they really needed to stretch their legs, they would know, as it is a very specific feeling to have the urge to stretch legs

We don't understand where consciousness comes from at all. It it has dimensional properties like it or not because people can visualize objects and their brain does not change shape to visualize objects somewhere in The laws of physics consciousness exists and we have no understanding of that whatsoever, so I find it to be incredibly irrational to make claims of free will when we don't have the slightest comprehension of The physics of consciousness or whatever we're calling it may be sentience or whatever this fascinating multidimensional properties of physics is. And as long as we don't have any understanding of the properties of consciousness, I find it absurd to make claims in favor or against Free will, without taking account of that

"What you do with that information is your choice..." beautifully absurdly hilarious freedom within Dom free 😂

I appreciate your point of view on a very complex and abstract idea, and I think there is a very strong argument for this theory. However, presenting it as "proof" is inaccurate as you use quite a bit of conjecture throughout the video. I believe that free will is something we're not capable of entirely grasping with our current knowledge, but it is still interesting to share ideas. In general, I think it is good practice to interpret all sides to an idea, especially when it comes to science. It should never be the goal of a scientist to "prove" something, but be open to the possibility of something being likely while still carefully examining contrary ideas. Great video though interesting to watch!

One rule for life: If a scientist tells you something the opposite of what is self evidently so, then they are probably asking the wrong question. Free will is not a thing, free will is an attribute, a prerequisite for curiosity, invention, deduction, innovation, creativity and therefore, research. Therefore research is impossible without free will, and the scientist who asserts its non-existence needs to explain the existence of their own occupation first. Here, they are not even asking the wrong question, they are disobeying the first rule of any philosophical discourse: first, define your terms.

@Zafe_f

5 ай бұрын

Isso não faz sentido. Dentro da lógica da inexistência do livre arbítrio a pessoa só está pesquisando sobre o livre arbítrio, porquê, obviamente, ela não tinha o poder de não fazê-lo. Em outras palavras, uma série de acontecimentos passados, e reações químicas em cadeia e interações neurais do indivíduo o levaram à esses questionamentos.

@nicktecky55

5 ай бұрын

@@Zafe_f Just in case others read this, you've written: "It makes no sense. Within the logic of the non-existence of free will, the person is only researching free will, because, obviously, they did not have the power not to do so. In other words, a series of past events, chemical chain reactions and neural interactions led the individual to these questions." You are simply asserting your result as fact beforehand. Any such assertion requires a thought experiment. That experiment requires the selection of an infinitesimally small point in space/time to establish the initial conditions. Then you need to come forward in time with only deterministic effects acting on the thought experiment. Good luck with that. Você está simplesmente afirmando seu resultado como um fato de antemão. Qualquer afirmação desse tipo requer um experimento mental. Esse experimento requer a seleção de um ponto infinitesimalmente pequeno no espaço/tempo para estabelecer as condições iniciais. Então você precisa avançar no tempo com apenas efeitos determinísticos agindo sobre o experimento mental. Boa sorte com isso.