Peter Tse has to go through all these excruciating details in his explanation simply to counter the mindless refrain of the hard determinists. The woman with the question was one of those, but with a little more finesse. She might as well have just repeated the mantra, "But it's still determined, but it's still determined, but it's still determined", which is the only argument for their position. As in his example, experience and information shapes the realization of the causal forces from below. It's like saying that two sticks rubbing together caused the fire. The fire was caused by the intention of the person, but was enabled by the heat generated by the sticks. The form and realization of the effect is powered by the particle interactions, but is ultimately caused by the information. Peter is a scientist, so he has to break it down into more detail, but it's wasted on the determinists, who are as unmovable as a rock.
@Manog Shama The standard question is, could you have done something different? Determinists say no, which would preclude any possibilities, by definition. If you are a hard determinist, then you believe that the entire timeline of the universe was set down in stone with the initial conditions of the big bang. Maybe you are a compatibilist if you think you can make choices in a deterministic universe, but a determinist is a determinist.
@Manog Shama I totally agree with your view on this, but determinist do indeed believe that there is only one causal chain possible. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder on Free Will if you want to hear some hard determinism from a physicist (your people). th-cam.com/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/w-d-xo.html
@Manog Shama I think I get where you are coming from. Even if Sabine's view of causality was correct, it is untestable. I am happy with my take on consciousness and free will, but I am always open to new ideas that might steer me in another direction. No matter what, I will continue to live as if I have free will, just like the determinists do since it is a theory without consequence or usefulness. Thanks for the discussion.
28:42 “If the threshold for firing is met if and only if certain kinds of informational facts are true about the inputs; then, the mechanism underlying neuronal firing assesses not only net potential of the axon hillock, [but also] it assesses these informational facts. In this way, physical criteria placed on physical inputs can realize informational criteria placed on informational input.” To the ones who dare to ask the question ‘ can there be something besides the net potential of axon hillock for neuronal firing to cross the threshold’ ,above quotation is good as gold, not least the entire video. Thank you for the upload :)
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
Peter Tse has to go through all these excruciating details in his explanation simply to counter the mindless refrain of the hard determinists. The woman with the question was one of those, but with a little more finesse. She might as well have just repeated the mantra, "But it's still determined, but it's still determined, but it's still determined", which is the only argument for their position. As in his example, experience and information shapes the realization of the causal forces from below. It's like saying that two sticks rubbing together caused the fire. The fire was caused by the intention of the person, but was enabled by the heat generated by the sticks. The form and realization of the effect is powered by the particle interactions, but is ultimately caused by the information. Peter is a scientist, so he has to break it down into more detail, but it's wasted on the determinists, who are as unmovable as a rock.
@Manog Shama The standard question is, could you have done something different? Determinists say no, which would preclude any possibilities, by definition. If you are a hard determinist, then you believe that the entire timeline of the universe was set down in stone with the initial conditions of the big bang. Maybe you are a compatibilist if you think you can make choices in a deterministic universe, but a determinist is a determinist.
@Manog Shama I totally agree with your view on this, but determinist do indeed believe that there is only one causal chain possible. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder on Free Will if you want to hear some hard determinism from a physicist (your people).
th-cam.com/video/zpU_e3jh_FY/w-d-xo.html
@Manog Shama I think I get where you are coming from. Even if Sabine's view of causality was correct, it is untestable. I am happy with my take on consciousness and free will, but I am always open to new ideas that might steer me in another direction. No matter what, I will continue to live as if I have free will, just like the determinists do since it is a theory without consequence or usefulness. Thanks for the discussion.
Wow. Well said.
And you think you can save your god with calling "causal information" as "filtering information". It's dumb.
28:42 “If the threshold for firing is met if and only if certain kinds of informational facts are true about the inputs; then, the mechanism underlying neuronal firing assesses not only net potential of the axon hillock, [but also] it assesses these informational facts. In this way, physical criteria placed on physical inputs can realize informational criteria placed on informational input.”
To the ones who dare to ask the question ‘ can there be something besides the net potential of axon hillock for neuronal firing to cross the threshold’ ,above quotation is good as gold, not least the entire video. Thank you for the upload :)
There is no known mechanism by which something called "free will" can happen.