The concept of a limited, conditional will is better. Less catchy... But "free" will carries such a common ambiguity to it, it adopts too many meanings in different contexts without indicating anything causal or explanatory. Will should be defined by what bounds it, because although it has degrees of freedom, those degrees are not known and become assumed to be fully free by that common ambiguity fallacy.
Firstly assuming we don't will what we will it doesn't matter how many degrees of freedom the will has since its just happenstance what it is we have a will to do. And secondly the degrees of freedom you speak of should be compatible with determinism, to make any sense.
@@GrantTarredus Certainly it's not a science problem. It's not totally a language problem though. Which ever way you look at it we are fated to make whichever choice we happen to make. The free will illusion is that we could have done otherwise in a way that negates that.
@@stephenlawrence4821 This is certainly my personal belief (and conviction until persuaded otherwise, which I don’t expect to happen but say because it’s possible that I’m wrong so I remain open to future science). It always seemed to be the case to me intuitively before Harris’s monograph removed any virtual doubt.
@@GrantTarredus I don't remain open. I think we can know we don't have free will from logic and from experience and that we can see where the illusion comes from. One of the problems with the scientists on this is they never define free will well enough to go looking for it. And if they did there just would be no experiment that could find it. And it matters. If we accept that which choices we get to make is a matter of our good or bad fortune, moral consequences follow.
Well done! Patrick and his colleagues have obviously made important contributions with this excellent research. He was overly redundant in describing that one hemisphere of the brain controls the opposite side of the body, but so be it..Robert seems right in his suggestion that our sense of free will is STILL illusory and emergent since the process begins X number of milliseconds BEFORE the conscious "Decision"..Whether conscious decision is contributory or not, Patrick himself correctly points out that DEEP mysteries still remain..Great show..!
It's humbling to think that we are, in fact, little more than conscious automatons. An important part of the illusion that we are free to will our behavior is the sense of self illusion: That "I" am deciding the behaviors my brain should initiate. But the intractable sense of self - what Ryle called the "ghost inside a machine" - is an autobiographical and immaterial construction to make sense of the conscious, observational experience. Immaterial agents cannot affect material systems ... to do so violates a fundamental law of physics: the conservation of energy. And if "I," too, am an illusion, what becomes of the clergymen's promise for life after death? If "I" was "never here," how could I possibly be found "over there"? Great lecture. Thanks, Lawrence.
"Conscious automaton" is an oxymoron. Neither brains nor machines are the type of physical things that can generate "illusions" or "ghosts." Physicalist are even bigger Dualists than than the Dualists.
1) You need to decide that your are going to make a decision before you make a decision. If you try to run the experiment without telling the subject that they have to make a decision, the subject will probably not make a decision to push any buttons. 2) Your consciousness needs to access random number generator(s) to engage in THESE TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS. The random number generator (1 or 0) is not part of consciousness, and there will be a delay in informing consciousness of the random number. 3) It may be the case that consciousness DECIDES to hook up the random number generator directly to the finger in THESE TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS, bypassing consciousness, in order to quicken the response!
It’s amazing that he describes the experience of watching a dubbed movie like someone who has never watched a dubbed movie. Everyone I know notices the mismatch in mouth and sound, even in well done movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Lion. It’s probably because his own mouth seems to move out of time with his speech.
What this suggest to me is that free-will is a substrate that resides in the subconscious or the part of consciousness that is closed to personal introspection and our conscious self-perception supervenes on the subconscious. In a more general sense, the deterministic nature of the physical world is undeniable. But it isn't the case that everything could not have been otherwise. I would argue that free-will occurs anytime a conscious agent effects a causal change that could have been otherwise.
When saying "free-will occurs anytime a conscious agent effects a causal change that could have been otherwise." Do you mean to say the illusion of free-will or really free-will itself?
Yeah, I don't buy his argument that we become conscious of the arm moving after the fact. Just look at the list of planned activities for the day. Nowhere on there, is a point of becoming conscious of what one has done, unless it's a consciousness of having committed a faux pas. Planning an activity precedes the activity.
What is missing in these experiments is that they are focused on very low level, physical reactions to stimuli where choice in that moment is really not of much import. Where the question of free will becomes interesting and significant in terms of the kinds of beings that we are is where reflection and analysis takes place on present and past behavior that then changes our response in similar future situations. In other words, where there is deliberation and evaluation involved. These other kinds of knee jerk laboratory measurements are interesting but don't address the areas where the question of free will really matters.
All your decisions no matter how much time you take no meditate and elaborate with past data or future projection will always end up in the simple binary end of deciding yes or no . You are not just aware of it . So free will its always 50- 50 . No matter how complicated you think or the many choices you have . You think you have many colors to choose from . When in reality you have one choice , one color and discard the rest as a whole option .
@@matrixmatico695 I will need to think further on the idea that all choices are simple binaries, but here are some initial thoughts on that. First, when considering a complex question, say for example whether to get a certain medical treatment that is not well tested but which may be less risky than what it has the potential to alleviate, there could be many things to weigh. Things like how reliable is the data, what effect would different outcomes have on those who need me, am I being too analytical rather than following my gut feeling. Where is the binary here when these and probably other things are being weighed at the same time? Second, when a decision is finally made exactly when did it happen? In some particular thousandth of a second, or were the threads of the inputs woven into a bundle that does not actually have a sudden termination? Living things are not based on 1s and 0s but are in fact complexes of continuous changes. Our brains operate on principles of electrochemical thresholds and wave-like resonances. And even in the domain of computers there can be fuzzy logic, and more deeply those quantum indeterminacies that consciousness is said to somehow collapse and resolve. We also do not know what consciousness is. Is it like or unlike the physical systems that we quantify along three dimensions plus tome? Where does the now of our experience originate, and how does it connect to causality? Is consciousness somehow outside of time? Where exactly do decisions occur? These are some of my immediate thoughts.
Your thinking makes appear complicated and non binary . When you are a child You are already a conscious being . Nothing to do with free will. You are at the mercy of others and you will start creating the illusion of free will with your internal dialogue later in life . But it will always spring out of the yes or not ,do or don't that are (precieved) presented in your life . The root dilemma in the choices of treatments narrows down to the live ( longer ) or die ( we all will) regardless of your options. Still like a child you might choose right or wrong . Touch the hot flame and get burn and learn from the experience.
@@matrixmatico695 So are you saying not only is every choice simply binary but also strictly determined, so then everything we think and do is a reaction, like billiard balls?
When looking at a car I've noticed that the gear is put into Drive/Reverse a short time before the car goes forward/backwards. So we know that the decision of the car to go either forward or backward is made somewhere in the gear of the car.
The problem with this experiment is the lack of purpose. When you decide which restaurant you want to eat at, you will go over all the known available options, then filter down to the restaurant with the best set of variables most important to you. This is the part that competibalists prefer to call free will. It's somewhat of a cop out, but it's the most workable solution.
It sounds like some parts of the brain are simply faster than other parts of the brain. What action to take may simply precede our awareness of the electro-chemical signal for the action. We often signal intentions before taking the action. Perhaps it's simply another layer of that?
Why isn't the test showing NO activity ever mentioned when the decision NOT to act is made? The decision is made (not to act) and NO activity is detected.
If there still is a problem for those who believe in free will compatibilism, this doesn't resolve it. Haggard is saying that a conscious urge precedes action. But free will means we freely choose our urges which precede our actions. Haggard doesn't show this to be the case. And how could he? For there to be free will, one would have to assume that we could turn the clock back, put the exact same person with the exact same brain state (down to the molecular or even atomic level of similar-ness in the brain) with the exact same stimulus and in the exact same situation, and expect that a different outcome is possible. Haggard doesn't say this is the case.
You said, "But free will means we freely choose our urges which precede our actions." This is the kind of thing that Sam Harris would say. Free will is not there to "choose our urges" or to "choose what we want" it is there for us to try to "get what we want."
Free will in a relevant meaning is the outcome of a conscious process (awareness of thinking). But even a short fast picking can be an action of free will, because I allow my brain a fast gut decision.
The problem I have with the experiment they describe is the subject choses when they chose to decide to press the button. So they are determining whether you have/do not have free will to decide with which hand to press the button based on a decision you made freely about when you made the decision. You have to decide when you decided.
It's very interesting, and the results provides material of brain activity accordingly to the experiments. But I still think its not sufficient, to fully understand the processes going on in a brain. There should be more experiments done with blind-folded persons and blocked senses, that could influence the decissions. The vision as well as the other senses play a role I guess for stimulating beforehand which action will take place. That would explain the early milliseconds of decission that lightens up. Our world is upside down, since we never learned to see it right. We're looking at it from the outside in, instead from the inside out. It's maybe why, we're having a hard time answering questions.
Great experiment! Unless you believe we are a conscious soul occupying a body as separate things, it makes sense that the contra lateral brain activity and conscious decision should mirror each other, both prior to the action. IMO conscious awareness is not a binary, but a sliding scale that exists at many levels. Figure and Ground.
That is probably true. We are not consciously aware of phenomena revealed by infrared light. Some other life form is consciously aware about this, but cannot be consciously aware of scientific findings.
@@defenderofwisdom Yes... that’s true. I actually meant that our awareness of any specific thing at any one moment is not binary (on or off), but on a continuum. So, if I’m driving and having a conversation, I’m dimly aware of the scenery, the road, other cars, engine noise, the need to change gear etc. and with that awareness can make appropriate decisions, but am most focused on the conversation I’m having. So, we can make decisions without full focussed awareness, yet it’s still us making it. IMO when subjects say they ‘decided’ left or right, it is not that they were unaware before.
By measuring quantum probabilities into options, free will begins a deterministic chain that leads to natural choice in physical brain? Because the deterministic chain of options begins with free will, the character of free will is carried by the options to provide a natural choice in the brain that makes a decision?
The study of the smallest organisms able to make "internal" choices ( so no correlation with influences from the environment ) could perhaps be useful, only to notice that even there,we will probably have no clue. The introduction of a universal panpsychic field, where all living beings know how to tap into seems a way out, but how can they connect with it, if any of our instruments, don't show it's presence ? The Copenhagen interpretation seems to say that the result of the collapse of the wave function, although forced by the observer, is random but what if it's a choice, then nature would be making choices, having free will too ? ( We would also get rid of that MWI.) Of course if a particle makes choices, it's very abstract and different from how we make choices. But our own free will could have to do with the free will of particles. All the infinitesimal small "inner life" of a particle could be to have that one move, that one choice. It might sound laughable but I base this loosely on this serious existing idea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem#:~:text=The%20free%20will%20theorem%20of,Foundations%20of%20Physics%20in%202006.
Could be free will is inner subjective awareness / experience, and choice is conscious. Conscious choice acts, free will becomes inner subjective aware / experience.
Fascinating...have read the argument that if free will is illusory it is still useful and the uncertainty of this proposition is human reality (ref. Donald Hoffman)
Is the will the same as intention? There are many things to do, but why should we do them? Are we participating in intention when we exercise our will, or is intention guiding our will?
"We have to operate as if we had the illusion of free will ... The Ein Sof is like the super marketing where you will always fall where the Ein Sof has predetermined, but you do not know it, so we cannot see everything from the programmer, then what we have to see is from our position and from our position we have to see it as free will, because the consequences of not seeing reality as free will , makes a person who sees it from the predetermined can become irresponsible. Free will assures us of some responsibility.". Mario Sabán
I think to take s correct moral stance we MUST view our choices as if they are predetermined. Then we see it's only a matter of our good or bad fortune which choices we get to make. It doesn't help at all to deny this. Quite the opposite.
Spinoza (a Jew but not a Kabbalist as far as I know) held that the impression we have of acting freely results from our ignorance of the actual causes moving us to do as we do).
This particular misunderstanding, that God is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religion; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what's causing it? As long as we believe that lie, we will blame God or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are the ones responsible for our suffering. Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and negative actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering. Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite. When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not God that is at fault. God gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love. Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive for making choices that are not aligned with Love. That is the only "punishment", if we will, meted out by God. We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love. Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love. Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction. While joy tells us the opposite. If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing or doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.
Interesting series he is doing BUT they seem centered on whether the “conscious sense of will” or “volition” is or is not part of the process of the brain making a decision (see at 9:30 and 4:40). I hope he investigates HOW the brain makes a decision when a decision is necessary ... forget the involvement of conscious awareness ... focus just on whether the brain can actually choose (vanilla vs strawberry ice cream) or whether the outcome is actually pre-determined
I need help understanding this, please. Am I correct that Haggard’s findings currently suggest that at least an element of free will might not be illusory? Thanks. I follow most thinking on the subject more easily, but I’m not scientifically literate.
He is essentially saying just that friend..The RUB is, there's STILL a preparatory cascade of activity in the relevant brain hemisphere a couple hundred milliseconds BEFORE a consciousness decision is made..The free will question is more nuanced by this research but remains unresolved..A humble opinion, Peace..
@@Bill..N Thank you very much, Bill. I struggle to grasp the sciences but dyscalculia makes it a hard uphill climb, so I’m dependent on writers and presenters who are skilled at communicating with a broad lay audience (as Sagan and Asimov paved the way for Brian Greene, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others). I depend on the kindness of strangers like you, also, and I really appreciate your time.
@@Bill..N Same here. I was a member of the American Humanist Association during his presidency, and a friend of his friend Forrest J Ackerman, who dedicated an sf anthology to me which contains an Asimov story (“The Tweenie,” in Ackermanthology, 1997), but I never met or communicated with the great man. I deeply regret it!
What is the readiness potential of a general feeling for an action? Does the general readiness potential have to do with the action, the conscious experience of the action, or bridges the two?
all these scientists talk about unconscious tendencies and biases. this is something different than the decision to do something. By what meaning we define free will? of course any tendence must have an automatic mechanism behind it and many times we have opposite tendences. Are we measuring the tendeces or the final conscious decision to operate between them?
Maybe there is something in brain that causes the lateral signal in contra hemisphere making specific decision, that is conscious will or natural choice making decision?
But if you were not taken the task consciously from the instructor to choose between two options, you would not do either action and would not experience the action consciously. So first consciously task taking by mind and sending it to brain to choose freely and perform. After that what you are saying is true.
In the scenario of brain fooling person into thinking they made a conscious choice that led to action, the placement of the conscious experience of choice in between the brain activity (500 milliseconds after) and the action (200 milliseconds before) would give the feeling of making the decision before the action, while allowing the brain to do the action before and without a conscious decision?
I would expect the contralateral brain to show activity before the motor activity. Nowhere does he discuss how consciousness or volition might be an illusion. In fact, his results do not explain how the readiness potential is generated so brain causation has not been ruled out.
The problem is that yes we do make choices but we MUST be fated to select the option we do. Which ever way you look at it, that's true. And so we are not morally responsible for the choice. We can know this beyond doubt. The debate goes on, only because people will not accept the truth.
How much of the measured brain activity and variability can be related to training/experience of past responses - e.g. all the buttons ever pushed up to the test? What about testing subjects that have never seen a button or know what a button is/can do? Would the readiness potential activity be different?
Studying when I have the perception of having exercised free will does not give any insight about its existence. It could help to disprove the notion that the perception of free will follows an action (which is what this guy seems to be studying). The argument against free will is fairly simple and airtight. If events in the universe are determined by what comes before them, then there can be no free will. If not, then the universe would be random chaos, anything could happen without cause; it seems unlikely that life could exist in such a chaotic world. The notion that our brains operate on principles completely different from the rest of the universe is very odd. Still, if science could study that, we might get some useful insights. The problem with that is that science assumes causation; nothing else makes any sense.
Life uses reliable causation to act and respond, this is indeed different than the rest of the universe which passively reacts to whatever affects it. The laws aren't different, but the outcome is. An atom does not determine what happens in a molecule. A hydrogen atom is just as happy to make hydrogen peroxide as H2O. It's what is happening at the higher level that determines the outcome, even as the atoms power the reaction. You could just as easily say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are deterministic, but if there is a live turtle and a dead turtle of exactly the same size and color sitting on a log in the sun, the living creature will have a higher internal temperature after an hour or so. If you applied the laws of thermodynamics like you do causation, then there would be no difference in internal temperature since it was all determined and outside the control of the individual.
So a man truly has his feet on the ground when he jumps? IT ISNT before he jumps? Or is he in the air when he jumps? Seems like that is after he jumped.
What? So we decide things before light even reaches us??? Then afterwards we are tricked into thinking we are about to decide? A double delay is reality! I was uncomfortable about just 1 delay :0
Probably only on volunteer college students looking for a class credit. One would think there would be a million diversified experiments in this area by now.
My brain hurts! Have I got this right? One part of my brain makes a decision, then I consciously decide, then another part of my brain does the action? And if so, does that suggest that consciousness emerges from the brain, as a delayed reflection of what the brain is doing?
Could the lateral part then a few hundred milliseconds before be the decision (specific), while the general part a second or more before provides options?
I recall twice in my life when i've lied. Both times i felt ... potential social persecution ... rising like a hot red tide and then witnessed myself tell a blatant lie. Actual speech coming out my mouth; not complicated, "no". And then i just went with it. I forgot the first one cuz it was over 40yrs ago, until someone brought it up. Actually witnessed, and then wondered where the hell that came from, and then remember the red tide.
Yes to Me, Free Will is a Function of Our DNA Journey, Past and Present DNA. This May Well Explain Instincts. But also the Importance of Education and Knowledge. Therefore I Say Your Free Will is Limited by the Times but also Limited by Your Knowledge Level. The Limited Knowledge Level Partially Reflects How Much Thinking You have Done and Your Access to Thinking Material. Hence Everything going Well, The Internet Should Raise the Levels of Free Will across the Entire Human Population. However Certainly Interesting to Listen to How Our Inherited DNA Brain Works.
The whole discussion is completely wrong since it just focuses on the short times (milliseconds) which are supposed to be used by a brain when deciding to do either a first or a second action. This is wrong: free will relates instead to very LONG times, in which you forge your vision of the world, of the moral you intend to follow. Then an evil person will in milliseconds ALWAYS decide to respond in an evil manner to an external stimulus. No real decision is made in those few milliseconds, decisions were already made before!
In Physics there is Schrödinger's cat. Among those of us who know what Consciousness consists of, there is "the monkey that reads" to refer to the subject of free will. The point is that the words we use when we speak are chosen by the monkey that inhabits us, and we only become aware of them when we are using them; moments ago they were chosen by the unconscious.
@@cosmikrelic4815 To know about that, you have to know what Consciousness is, and to know about it you must read here facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050618470453
Good speaker, but he doesn't get us any nearer to the solution for Free will V Determinism. What does however is your talk with Julian Barbour where he discusses the dual arrow of time. We can then say that both propositions hold true for any given set of circumstances. Free will applies according to one arrow of time and determinism, according the other arrow of time. The same answer applies to understanding Quantum Mechanics. The apparent ability of the observer to determine outcomes in QM, is not correct. QM does not operate in the same time mode as Classical Mechanics. QM operates in backward time, classical mechanics/relativity in forward time. Therefore when we make observations in forward time, this has an effect on the world in backward time. Entanglement being an example. In fact all these considerations prove the existence of the dual arrow of time.
This with the „arm up“ is total crap. I decide today that I go to tomorrows event and then I go there and you will see me there. Nothing with milliseconds or delayed realising.
The interpretation of the libet experiment is nonsensical. How would it explain the fact that I can predict my future actions? For example, I can say that I know that I will touch my index finger to my nose in about ten seconds, and then I can go ahead and do this. This runs counter to the interpretation to the libet experiment, which says that we confabulate an interpretation of our action after our action happens.
I think that what we call spiritual people are really those who practice free will. I think that there are no evil spiritual people. If you serve the health of the universe, then you gain free will. Evil people, they fail to do this, and give in to un-healthy patterns and behaviours that exist in the body. These patterns the Gnostics call egos, and if you give in to them, I guess that you symbolically develop an ego, which is the experience that you exist in your head, rather than simply being your physical body. And it is the most ugly thing. I think that the idea of determinism is a result of evil people. They simply give in, create an experience that feels very deterministic, and then try to tell the world that there is no free will. I think that the energy that is created is generally quite hard, and thus the stone symbolises en ego, I think. In this world, that is ruled by evil, we are often told that there is such a thing as unconditional love. It doesn't exist. Love is only for those who deserve it. It is simply a tactic by evil to make good people depressed. When we break free from evil and start practicing free will, we begin the spiritual path. It is very dangerous, and thus spiritual teachers exist to guide you and help you survive. If you begin the spiritual path, you develop what evil call psychosis. You start hearing voices, seeing things etc. This is exactly as it should be. If it happens, try not to appear as a threat to anyone else or yourself. This is imposible however, so they will give you "medication" to slow down your progress, unless forced medication is prohibited. I think that I am on the spiritual path, and what I can say, is to trust your instincts. Suffering is real, and if you fall, you die. Or to speak symbolically, if you walk over an abyss on a thin thread, you better not pull a joke. Nothing is created out of determinism. Everything that exists is the result of choices. In this world, evil may be spoken of as ego, however, in reality, the demons are supposed to be the evil ones, and the angels the good ones. But thanks to the Arcturians, everything is messed up Maybe freedom is really spiritual mastery?
Freewill is the ability to chose from all possibilities that exist. Depending on your common sense, reason, logic, knowledge, wisdom and spiritual acuity you'll have differing amounts of choices. All possibilities that exists for all intents and purposes are infinite and have already been accounted for (aether, akashic record, spiritus sanctus) by God, Creator, the monad, mother nature or the universe whatever you chose to call it. (See what I did there).
I'm with you on this as well, would we even know what a choice is without free will? Check out Michael Egnor video " the case against materialism" he refutes the brain being the cause of free will.
@@cosmikrelic4815 Dr Jeffrey M Schwartz, in his book " the mind and the brain " proved that by his treatment with patients who suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder that by use of what he calls " mental force " his patients rewired their brains by use of their mental force impelled by their free will to overcome their disorder. He proved this by cat scans taken before and after images of his patients brains. Maybe Robert should interview him that would be an interesting interview.
But this is basic evolution - imagine being in the jungle being stalked by a Lion or Tiger - if you waited until you consciously identified the Lion and made a move it might be too late So sub-consciously we see the threat and react quickly & later the brain catches up to it But it is STILL we that are doing it Another easy example - I type these letters - ask me where the letter e is located, which finger I need to use to type it, and I would have no clue yet I am doing it without effort No outside agent is needed - there is nothing unconscious about it
Agreed. Evolving gut feelings and nervousness from unseen factors in the environment would favor the creatures who don't wish to be eaten. We have electro-chemical brains and an electro-chemical cosmos full of energy to work with. Additional steps of magic and pre-programming are simply not needed. It seems like it's potentially just a natural survival function.
Still "we" do it? You know the self doesn't exist. I always see the same argument for people who want freewill so much because it fix and answer most thier questions. If someone shot you with a gun is that free? The same goes with mental stuff, your belief/desires control most of your actions, and believe me you nither control this or that, even if you want to change a desire or a belief that itself is a desire or a belief that your belief/desire needs to be changed, so don't give me that "we are still free" (A man can do what he will but he cannot will what he will)
@@karemsaied1754 That made no sense - who wrote these words that you typed? A genie? Free will applies to yourself - you are free to do whatever you want but you can't control others Your point about someone shooting me is silly - I don't control him We live in this world - there are certain constrains upon us that helps us survive A person can go around killing and raping but society can't survive if they let him do that - you are saying since he can't kill and rape he is not free? That is stupidity at its finest
Professor Haggard asserts that neuroscience *proves* that physicalism is true: mind must somehow arise from the physics of the brain. But this is incorrect. Although contemporary neuroscience operates within a paradigm of physicalism, and all neuroscientists are physicalists, this cannot prove that physicalism (a metaphysical system) is true. Although there are neural correlates of consciousness, one cannot prove causation one way or another. Professor Haggard claims that causation acts in the direction of brain-state to mental-state (an experience of volition). But this assertion relies on subjects’ self-reports of the timing, and even temporal ordering of their experiential states. Elsewhere, however, he says that such timings are unreliable. Of course, non-physicalists are under an obligation to try to develop their ideas in a manner consistent with the empirical findings of neuroscience. This is extremely difficult; but not such a Hard Problem as to give a rational physicalist account of mind.
I just planned my holidays for next summer , pondering one hour if to go to Normandy or Bretagne ... I assume the theory of this "scientist" is already debunked . I really dont know how someone can come up with these silly theories and still have a work .
it's an idea, nobody knows what causes the feeling or the reality of free will. but you know it's nonsense so you must have studied quite a lot and done many experiments yourself. could you tell us a bit about that?
@@cosmikrelic4815 You actually experiment yourself every day of your life. And you also know that every other scientist have his own idea (HAmeroff, Hoffman , Chalmers, Tononi, Harris, Penrose ...). But they are not obliged to come with a silly idea so they can write a book or give an interview. To be different .
@@cosmikrelic4815 it was written in your brain that you would have answered "what ?" , you brains knew ... It's a "what" ...you are just a tool of the "what ?" And you had no other choices ...So "what ?" will be. pfffffff
There is no instant in time where Free Will begins. One's entire existence is an act of Free Will with many subroutines of "free willing" embedded within it.
If brain is creating an illusion, the great brains talking on this show are also subject to it. So, there is no original thought process to learn on this channel 😅
I "think" the ultimate experiment of true free will is not possible- one would have to take the test subject, copy or fork him into two identical universes and do the same experiment and compare the left/right button results. I "think" they would be identical at first hundreds of tries, after that- quantum effects would cause a divergence. No fundamental free will, whatever that is at all.
I can't see how your proposed "experiment" of forking the universe would really prove anything. In every universe you would do what you want presumably, so if you predict that the choice would change from one universe to another identical universe, then what you are looking for is random will, not free will. Only random will would change if you ran it enough times. There's no result that would actually give you the answer you need. I think this is because the hypothesis is flawed, that's why you can't get a solid result even from magical experiments.
@@caricue "Random will"? That is new to me, slightly comparable to "free". But yes- no solid result can be obtained if the question is not solid. Free will is not solid.
@@ketanovas If I say that free will means that an organism will choose from the available options based on local conditions, that's pretty solid. It's not good enough for some people, but it is something that is easily observable and doesn't really require any elaborate testing apparatus or parallel universes. When the determinists counters with "the organism could not have done differently", this is as "not solid" as you can get. This is some bizarre metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe and causality. Try testing that!
@@caricue That is what I meant in my first comment- I am not superdeterministic, but brain is a highly deterministic system as it does not work in a supercooled environment or in near vacuum. Hell, quantum uncertainties are not a product or a cause for free will, they just add uncertainties. This is not a bizarre claim about causality, this is causality in a nutshell. ""not solid" as you can get" is your opinion, mine is "quite solid". The hypothetical multiverse experiment is just hypothetical, though a positive correlation would prove my point and a null one I guess would approach yours.
I thought that our thoughts could be "read" prior to them being spoken. With Human to human brain computer interface in combo to Deep Brain Stimulation and Kinesiology....many things can be done. Even EVIL.
Lol. Agreed. I've recently talked with people on these threads that believe everything is an illusion. Time itself, the capacity to make choices, etc. At the end of the day all I can think of is, "How does it change anyone's life?" People still succumb to the passing of time and they still make choices. I don't believe anyone who thinks life is just a program in the matrix stays in bed and gives up or acts or feels as if they're just a piece of code. All those people still respond to life as if it's real. That's what I'm going with. I think feelings provide a great insight.
It can't be, it's the thing you call the experience you have. So consciousness is real, but the question is free will an illusion? Which should be yes, I couldn't quite follow everything in the video, but ultimately everything is just particles that obey the laws of physics, so I see no room for free will.
@@colinjava8447 Are you suggesting because the effects of gravity causes our Earth to orbit the sun, there can be no free will? And that thoughts are made up of particles?
This is by far the best conversation on this subject i've ever listened to in my life. Patrick Haggard is a genius.
I don’t understand what anyone is saying in these episodes but I like to listen to them before I go to sleep. It’s like a nerd white noise machine.
My wife used to say that to me. She'd say: "I'm not listening but keep on talking" as she fell asleep.
@@knowitall1694 i wish i had a girlfriend so that no one could listen to me, too
I really like that he explained the experiment and the interpretation of the results in such detail. I really enjoyed this video.
The concept of a limited, conditional will is better. Less catchy... But "free" will carries such a common ambiguity to it, it adopts too many meanings in different contexts without indicating anything causal or explanatory. Will should be defined by what bounds it, because although it has degrees of freedom, those degrees are not known and become assumed to be fully free by that common ambiguity fallacy.
Could these difficulties actually be problems of language rather than of science?
Firstly assuming we don't will what we will it doesn't matter how many degrees of freedom the will has since its just happenstance what it is we have a will to do. And secondly the degrees of freedom you speak of should be compatible with determinism, to make any sense.
@@GrantTarredus
Certainly it's not a science problem. It's not totally a language problem though. Which ever way you look at it we are fated to make whichever choice we happen to make. The free will illusion is that we could have done otherwise in a way that negates that.
@@stephenlawrence4821 This is certainly my personal belief (and conviction until persuaded otherwise, which I don’t expect to happen but say because it’s possible that I’m wrong so I remain open to future science). It always seemed to be the case to me intuitively before Harris’s monograph removed any virtual doubt.
@@GrantTarredus
I don't remain open. I think we can know we don't have free will from logic and from experience and that we can see where the illusion comes from.
One of the problems with the scientists on this is they never define free will well enough to go looking for it. And if they did there just would be no experiment that could find it.
And it matters. If we accept that which choices we get to make is a matter of our good or bad fortune, moral consequences follow.
Excellent explanation of a difficult and technically complex subject; thanks!
Well done! Patrick and his colleagues have obviously made important contributions with this excellent research. He was overly redundant in describing that one hemisphere of the brain controls the opposite side of the body, but so be it..Robert seems right in his suggestion that our sense of free will is STILL illusory and emergent since the process begins X number of milliseconds BEFORE the conscious "Decision"..Whether conscious decision is contributory or not, Patrick himself correctly points out that DEEP mysteries still remain..Great show..!
It's humbling to think that we are, in fact, little more than conscious automatons. An important part of the illusion that we are free to will our behavior is the sense of self illusion: That "I" am deciding the behaviors my brain should initiate. But the intractable sense of self - what Ryle called the "ghost inside a machine" - is an autobiographical and immaterial construction to make sense of the conscious, observational experience. Immaterial agents cannot affect material systems ... to do so violates a fundamental law of physics: the conservation of energy. And if "I," too, am an illusion, what becomes of the clergymen's promise for life after death? If "I" was "never here," how could I possibly be found "over there"? Great lecture. Thanks, Lawrence.
"Conscious automaton" is an oxymoron. Neither brains nor machines are the type of physical things that can generate "illusions" or "ghosts." Physicalist are even bigger Dualists than than the Dualists.
1) You need to decide that your are going to make a decision before you make a decision. If you try to run the experiment without telling the subject that they have to make a decision, the subject will probably not make a decision to push any buttons.
2) Your consciousness needs to access random number generator(s) to engage in THESE TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS. The random number generator (1 or 0) is not part of consciousness, and there will be a delay in informing consciousness of the random number.
3) It may be the case that consciousness DECIDES to hook up the random number generator directly to the finger in THESE TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS, bypassing consciousness, in order to quicken the response!
It’s amazing that he describes the experience of watching a dubbed movie like someone who has never watched a dubbed movie. Everyone I know notices the mismatch in mouth and sound, even in well done movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Lion. It’s probably because his own mouth seems to move out of time with his speech.
What this suggest to me is that free-will is a substrate that resides in the subconscious or the part of consciousness that is closed to personal introspection and our conscious self-perception supervenes on the subconscious. In a more general sense, the deterministic nature of the physical world is undeniable. But it isn't the case that everything could not have been otherwise. I would argue that free-will occurs anytime a conscious agent effects a causal change that could have been otherwise.
determinism is undeniable but free will affects a causal change? isn't that a bit contradictory?
@@cosmikrelic4815 No, because that's not what I said.
When saying "free-will occurs anytime a conscious agent effects a causal change that could have been otherwise." Do you mean to say the illusion of free-will or really free-will itself?
Yeah, I don't buy his argument that we become conscious of the arm moving after the fact. Just look at the list of planned activities for the day. Nowhere on there, is a point of becoming conscious of what one has done, unless it's a consciousness of having committed a faux pas. Planning an activity precedes the activity.
Just because we have an overlay telling a story on the thin veneer of consciousness does not say anything about the nature of a deeper self
What is missing in these experiments is that they are focused on very low level, physical reactions to stimuli where choice in that moment is really not of much import. Where the question of free will becomes interesting and significant in terms of the kinds of beings that we are is where reflection and analysis takes place on present and past behavior that then changes our response in similar future situations. In other words, where there is deliberation and evaluation involved. These other kinds of knee jerk laboratory measurements are interesting but don't address the areas where the question of free will really matters.
All your decisions no matter how much time you take no meditate and elaborate with past data or future projection will always end up in the simple binary end of deciding yes or no . You are not just aware of it . So free will its always 50- 50 . No matter how complicated you think or the many choices you have . You think you have many colors to choose from . When in reality you have one choice , one color and discard the rest as a whole option .
@@matrixmatico695 I will need to think further on the idea that all choices are simple binaries, but here are some initial thoughts on that.
First, when considering a complex question, say for example whether to get a certain medical treatment that is not well tested but which may be less risky than what it has the potential to alleviate, there could be many things to weigh. Things like how reliable is the data, what effect would different outcomes have on those who need me, am I being too analytical rather than following my gut feeling. Where is the binary here when these and probably other things are being weighed at the same time?
Second, when a decision is finally made exactly when did it happen? In some particular thousandth of a second, or were the threads of the inputs woven into a bundle that does not actually have a sudden termination? Living things are not based on 1s and 0s but are in fact complexes of continuous changes. Our brains operate on principles of electrochemical thresholds and wave-like resonances. And even in the domain of computers there can be fuzzy logic, and more deeply those quantum indeterminacies that consciousness is said to somehow collapse and resolve.
We also do not know what consciousness is. Is it like or unlike the physical systems that we quantify along three dimensions plus tome? Where does the now of our experience originate, and how does it connect to causality? Is consciousness somehow outside of time? Where exactly do decisions occur?
These are some of my immediate thoughts.
Your thinking makes appear complicated and non binary . When you are a child You are already a conscious being . Nothing to do with free will. You are at the mercy of others and you will start creating the illusion of free will with your internal dialogue later in life . But it will always spring out of the yes or not ,do or don't that are (precieved) presented in your life . The root dilemma in the choices of treatments narrows down to the live ( longer ) or die ( we all will) regardless of your options. Still like a child you might choose right or wrong . Touch the hot flame and get burn and learn from the experience.
@@matrixmatico695 So are you saying not only is every choice simply binary but also strictly determined, so then everything we think and do is a reaction, like billiard balls?
They should do difficult integrals.
When looking at a car I've noticed that the gear is put into Drive/Reverse a short time before the car goes forward/backwards.
So we know that the decision of the car to go either forward or backward is made somewhere in the gear of the car.
The problem with this experiment is the lack of purpose. When you decide which restaurant you want to eat at, you will go over all the known available options, then filter down to the restaurant with the best set of variables most important to you. This is the part that competibalists prefer to call free will. It's somewhat of a cop out, but it's the most workable solution.
So what causes the brain waves to lateralize to one hemisphere? The brain does it or decides by itself automatically ?
That was really hard and really interesting.
That's what she said
It sounds like some parts of the brain are simply faster than other parts of the brain. What action to take may simply precede our awareness of the electro-chemical signal for the action. We often signal intentions before taking the action. Perhaps it's simply another layer of that?
Why isn't the test showing NO activity ever mentioned when the decision NOT to act is made? The decision is made (not to act) and NO activity is detected.
If there still is a problem for those who believe in free will compatibilism, this doesn't resolve it. Haggard is saying that a conscious urge precedes action. But free will means we freely choose our urges which precede our actions. Haggard doesn't show this to be the case. And how could he? For there to be free will, one would have to assume that we could turn the clock back, put the exact same person with the exact same brain state (down to the molecular or even atomic level of similar-ness in the brain) with the exact same stimulus and in the exact same situation, and expect that a different outcome is possible. Haggard doesn't say this is the case.
You said, "But free will means we freely choose our urges which precede our actions." This is the kind of thing that Sam Harris would say. Free will is not there to "choose our urges" or to "choose what we want" it is there for us to try to "get what we want."
Free will in a relevant meaning is the outcome of a conscious process (awareness of thinking). But even a short fast picking can be an action of free will, because I allow my brain a fast gut decision.
The problem I have with the experiment they describe is the subject choses when they chose to decide to press the button. So they are determining whether you have/do not have free will to decide with which hand to press the button based on a decision you made freely about when you made the decision. You have to decide when you decided.
It's very interesting, and the results provides material of brain activity accordingly to the experiments. But I still think its not sufficient, to fully understand the processes going on in a brain. There should be more experiments done with blind-folded persons and blocked senses, that could influence the decissions.
The vision as well as the other senses play a role I guess for stimulating beforehand which action will take place. That would explain the early milliseconds of decission that lightens up.
Our world is upside down, since we never learned to see it right. We're looking at it from the outside in, instead from the inside out.
It's maybe why, we're having a hard time answering questions.
Great experiment! Unless you believe we are a conscious soul occupying a body as separate things, it makes sense that the contra lateral brain activity and conscious decision should mirror each other, both prior to the action. IMO conscious awareness is not a binary, but a sliding scale that exists at many levels. Figure and Ground.
That is probably true. We are not consciously aware of phenomena revealed by infrared light. Some other life form is consciously aware about this, but cannot be consciously aware of scientific findings.
@@defenderofwisdom Yes... that’s true. I actually meant that our awareness of any specific thing at any one moment is not binary (on or off), but on a continuum. So, if I’m driving and having a conversation, I’m dimly aware of the scenery, the road, other cars, engine noise, the need to change gear etc. and with that awareness can make appropriate decisions, but am most focused on the conversation I’m having. So, we can make decisions without full focussed awareness, yet it’s still us making it. IMO when subjects say they ‘decided’ left or right, it is not that they were unaware before.
By measuring quantum probabilities into options, free will begins a deterministic chain that leads to natural choice in physical brain? Because the deterministic chain of options begins with free will, the character of free will is carried by the options to provide a natural choice in the brain that makes a decision?
There is no problem, nobody ever has seen freedom empiricly, because freedom is never in abstracto!
The study of the smallest organisms able to make "internal" choices ( so no correlation with influences from the environment ) could perhaps be useful, only to notice that even there,we will probably have no clue. The introduction of a universal panpsychic field, where all living beings know how to tap into seems a way out, but how can they connect with it, if any of our instruments, don't show it's presence ? The Copenhagen interpretation seems to say that the result of the collapse of the wave function, although forced by the observer, is random but what if it's a choice, then nature would be making choices, having free will too ? ( We would also get rid of that MWI.) Of course if a particle makes choices, it's very abstract and different from how we make choices. But our own free will could have to do with the free will of particles. All the infinitesimal small "inner life" of a particle could be to have that one move, that one choice. It might sound laughable but I base this loosely on this serious existing idea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem#:~:text=The%20free%20will%20theorem%20of,Foundations%20of%20Physics%20in%202006.
Could be free will is inner subjective awareness / experience, and choice is conscious. Conscious choice acts, free will becomes inner subjective aware / experience.
Fascinating...have read the argument that if free will is illusory it is still useful and the uncertainty of this proposition is human reality (ref. Donald Hoffman)
Free will exist
Is the will the same as intention? There are many things to do, but why should we do them? Are we participating in intention when we exercise our will, or is intention guiding our will?
Ever stub your toe and yell "OW!" before the pain hits?
Or even if it isn't actually painful
"We have to operate as if we had the illusion of free will ... The Ein Sof is like the super marketing where you will always fall where the Ein Sof has predetermined, but you do not know it, so we cannot see everything from the programmer, then what we have to see is from our position and from our position we have to see it as free will, because the consequences of not seeing reality as free will , makes a person who sees it from the predetermined can become irresponsible. Free will assures us of some responsibility.".
Mario Sabán
I think to take s correct moral stance we MUST view our choices as if they are predetermined. Then we see it's only a matter of our good or bad fortune which choices we get to make. It doesn't help at all to deny this. Quite the opposite.
Spinoza (a Jew but not a Kabbalist as far as I know) held that the impression we have of acting freely results from our ignorance of the actual causes moving us to do as we do).
This particular misunderstanding, that God is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religion; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what's causing it?
As long as we believe that lie, we will blame God or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are the ones responsible for our suffering.
Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and negative actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering.
Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite.
When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not God that is at fault. God gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love.
Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive for making choices that are not aligned with Love. That is the only "punishment", if we will, meted out by God.
We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love.
Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love.
Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction. While joy tells us the opposite.
If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing or doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.
Interesting series he is doing BUT they seem centered on whether the “conscious sense of will” or “volition” is or is not part of the process of the brain making a decision (see at 9:30 and 4:40). I hope he investigates HOW the brain makes a decision when a decision is necessary ... forget the involvement of conscious awareness ... focus just on whether the brain can actually choose (vanilla vs strawberry ice cream) or whether the outcome is actually pre-determined
I need help understanding this, please. Am I correct that Haggard’s findings currently suggest that at least an element of free will might not be illusory? Thanks. I follow most thinking on the subject more easily, but I’m not scientifically literate.
He is essentially saying just that friend..The RUB is, there's STILL a preparatory cascade of activity in the relevant brain hemisphere a couple hundred milliseconds BEFORE a consciousness decision is made..The free will question is more nuanced by this research but remains unresolved..A humble opinion, Peace..
@@Bill..N Thank you very much, Bill. I struggle to grasp the sciences but dyscalculia makes it a hard uphill climb, so I’m dependent on writers and presenters who are skilled at communicating with a broad lay audience (as Sagan and Asimov paved the way for Brian Greene, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others). I depend on the kindness of strangers like you, also, and I really appreciate your time.
@@GrantTarredus I grew up reading Asimov's work..Both his sci-fi AND science books were an inspiration to generations, as you noted..Later Sagan too..
@@Bill..N Same here. I was a member of the American Humanist Association during his presidency, and a friend of his friend Forrest J Ackerman, who dedicated an sf anthology to me which contains an Asimov story (“The Tweenie,” in Ackermanthology, 1997), but I never met or communicated with the great man. I deeply regret it!
What is the readiness potential of a general feeling for an action? Does the general readiness potential have to do with the action, the conscious experience of the action, or bridges the two?
Patrick Haggard forgot the conscious free decision of the subject in consciously deciding to join the experiment.
how do you know the decision was free?
Maybe they needed money
all these scientists talk about unconscious tendencies and biases. this is something different than the decision to do something. By what meaning we define free will? of course any tendence must have an automatic mechanism behind it and many times we have opposite tendences. Are we measuring the tendeces or the final conscious decision to operate between them?
My God I can nearly follow all this :) I must be unconscious lol
You can't follow because they are talking complete nonsense.
@@LauraPerez-kr8bn I got a feeling we have a Jesus freak on our hands...
The experience of conscious will is correlated with lateral part in contra hemisphere making specific decision?
Maybe there is something in brain that causes the lateral signal in contra hemisphere making specific decision, that is conscious will or natural choice making decision?
But if you were not taken the task consciously from the instructor to choose between two options, you would not do either action and would not experience the action consciously. So first consciously task taking by mind and sending it to brain to choose freely and perform. After that what you are saying is true.
Anyone else see the thumbnail and think it was Dennis from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia?
In the scenario of brain fooling person into thinking they made a conscious choice that led to action, the placement of the conscious experience of choice in between the brain activity (500 milliseconds after) and the action (200 milliseconds before) would give the feeling of making the decision before the action, while allowing the brain to do the action before and without a conscious decision?
I would expect the contralateral brain to show activity before the motor activity. Nowhere does he discuss how consciousness or volition might be an illusion. In fact, his results do not explain how the readiness potential is generated so brain causation has not been ruled out.
If you think in terms of consciousness being ab extra of the body that would explain the lag in movement vs. realization of movement.
The problem is that yes we do make choices but we MUST be fated to select the option we do. Which ever way you look at it, that's true. And so we are not morally responsible for the choice.
We can know this beyond doubt. The debate goes on, only because people will not accept the truth.
How much of the measured brain activity and variability can be related to training/experience of past responses - e.g. all the buttons ever pushed up to the test? What about testing subjects that have never seen a button or know what a button is/can do? Would the readiness potential activity be different?
My left brain tells me I’m free; my right tells me I’m not.
Studying when I have the perception of having exercised free will does not give any insight about its existence. It could help to disprove the notion that the perception of free will follows an action (which is what this guy seems to be studying). The argument against free will is fairly simple and airtight. If events in the universe are determined by what comes before them, then there can be no free will. If not, then the universe would be random chaos, anything could happen without cause; it seems unlikely that life could exist in such a chaotic world. The notion that our brains operate on principles completely different from the rest of the universe is very odd. Still, if science could study that, we might get some useful insights. The problem with that is that science assumes causation; nothing else makes any sense.
Life uses reliable causation to act and respond, this is indeed different than the rest of the universe which passively reacts to whatever affects it. The laws aren't different, but the outcome is. An atom does not determine what happens in a molecule. A hydrogen atom is just as happy to make hydrogen peroxide as H2O. It's what is happening at the higher level that determines the outcome, even as the atoms power the reaction.
You could just as easily say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are deterministic, but if there is a live turtle and a dead turtle of exactly the same size and color sitting on a log in the sun, the living creature will have a higher internal temperature after an hour or so. If you applied the laws of thermodynamics like you do causation, then there would be no difference in internal temperature since it was all determined and outside the control of the individual.
Is the brain activity programmed and then how?
So a man truly has his feet on the ground when he jumps? IT ISNT before he jumps? Or is he in the air when he jumps? Seems like that is after he jumped.
As long as my brain is deciding what I do, I have free will
There is no your brain, your brain possess ego not the other way round.
What if someone hacked your brain and made you do things that you would not do. Will you call that free will?
@robertos: how do you know it is your brain deciding? that is whole question of where consciousness is generated, this is still not known.
Its will but not free
@@cosmikrelic4815 precisely
The lateral specific part then sends a signal for action from the brain to the hand, in this case from the right hemisphere to left hand?
What? So we decide things before light even reaches us??? Then afterwards we are tricked into thinking we are about to decide? A double delay is reality! I was uncomfortable about just 1 delay :0
Has this experiment been reproduced on people who have had good experience in meditation?
Probably only on volunteer college students looking for a class credit. One would think there would be a million diversified experiments in this area by now.
My brain hurts! Have I got this right? One part of my brain makes a decision, then I consciously decide, then another part of my brain does the action? And if so, does that suggest that consciousness emerges from the brain, as a delayed reflection of what the brain is doing?
Yes
And what causes the bilateral preparatory frontal brain waves to appear in the first place?
Could the lateral part then a few hundred milliseconds before be the decision (specific), while the general part a second or more before provides options?
I recall twice in my life when i've lied. Both times i felt ... potential social persecution ... rising like a hot red tide and then witnessed myself tell a blatant lie. Actual speech coming out my mouth; not complicated, "no". And then i just went with it. I forgot the first one cuz it was over 40yrs ago, until someone brought it up. Actually witnessed, and then wondered where the hell that came from, and then remember the red tide.
You’ve lied twice?
@@epicbehavior Twice that i recall.
@@mediocrates3416 wow
@@epicbehavior I'll be 60 next week.
@@mediocrates3416 congrats on making it that far
Yes to Me, Free Will is a Function of Our DNA Journey, Past and Present DNA.
This May Well Explain Instincts.
But also the Importance of Education and Knowledge.
Therefore I Say Your Free Will is Limited by the Times but also Limited by Your Knowledge Level.
The Limited Knowledge Level Partially Reflects How Much Thinking You have Done and Your Access to Thinking Material. Hence Everything going Well, The Internet Should Raise the Levels of Free Will across the Entire Human Population.
However Certainly Interesting to Listen to How Our Inherited DNA Brain Works.
What if I push both buttons?
So what determines the preconscious firing.
The brain is an interface device, it is critical for using a physical body. But it is not the User.
how do you know?
The answer is......nobody knows, not me, not you. NO human being.
@@paulweston2267 but you just claimed you do.
You basically have two brains that are connected by nerves; so it’s a collaboration between two brains; you never know which will dominate.
Feelings like I'm taking a sign language class.
Is a hypnotized person exercising free will? We are all hypnotized to a degree.
Believers live in their right brain; doubters live in their left.
The whole discussion is completely wrong since it just focuses on the short times (milliseconds) which are supposed to be used by a brain when deciding to do either a first or a second action. This is wrong: free will relates instead to very LONG times, in which you forge your vision of the world, of the moral you intend to follow. Then an evil person will in milliseconds ALWAYS decide to respond in an evil manner to an external stimulus. No real decision is made in those few milliseconds, decisions were already made before!
In Physics there is Schrödinger's cat. Among those of us who know what Consciousness consists of, there is "the monkey that reads" to refer to the subject of free will. The point is that the words we use when we speak are chosen by the monkey that inhabits us, and we only become aware of them when we are using them; moments ago they were chosen by the unconscious.
you're another one that "knows". what has schrodingers cat got to do with anything?
@@cosmikrelic4815 To know about that, you have to know what Consciousness is, and to know about it you must read here facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050618470453
@@guillermobrand8458 i wasted time reading this once before, it is rubbish.
@@cosmikrelic4815 maybe you lack the ability to read comprehension
@@guillermobrand8458 you don't read comprehension, you comprehend reading.
Conscious natural choice informed with options measured from quantum probabilities by conscious free will?
If I’m in my right brain, I open to suggestions.
I have no choice but to believe I have free will.
Anyone this deep into the meaning of fee will has had an easy life. Just my opinion.
Good speaker, but he doesn't get us any nearer to the solution for Free will V Determinism. What does however is your talk with Julian Barbour where he discusses the dual arrow of time. We can then say that both propositions hold true for any given set of circumstances. Free will applies according to one arrow of time and determinism, according the other arrow of time. The same answer applies to understanding Quantum Mechanics. The apparent ability of the observer to determine outcomes in QM, is not correct. QM does not operate in the same time mode as Classical Mechanics. QM operates in backward time, classical mechanics/relativity in forward time. Therefore when we make observations in forward time, this has an effect on the world in backward time. Entanglement being an example. In fact all these considerations prove the existence of the dual arrow of time.
This with the „arm up“ is total crap. I decide today that I go to tomorrows event and then I go there and you will see me there. Nothing with milliseconds or delayed realising.
The interpretation of the libet experiment is nonsensical. How would it explain the fact that I can predict my future actions? For example, I can say that I know that I will touch my index finger to my nose in about ten seconds, and then I can go ahead and do this. This runs counter to the interpretation to the libet experiment, which says that we confabulate an interpretation of our action after our action happens.
I think that what we call spiritual people are really those who practice free will. I think that there are no evil spiritual people. If you serve the health of the universe, then you gain free will. Evil people, they fail to do this, and give in to un-healthy patterns and behaviours that exist in the body. These patterns the Gnostics call egos, and if you give in to them, I guess that you symbolically develop an ego, which is the experience that you exist in your head, rather than simply being your physical body. And it is the most ugly thing. I think that the idea of determinism is a result of evil people. They simply give in, create an experience that feels very deterministic, and then try to tell the world that there is no free will. I think that the energy that is created is generally quite hard, and thus the stone symbolises en ego, I think.
In this world, that is ruled by evil, we are often told that there is such a thing as unconditional love. It doesn't exist. Love is only for those who deserve it. It is simply a tactic by evil to make good people depressed.
When we break free from evil and start practicing free will, we begin the spiritual path. It is very dangerous, and thus spiritual teachers exist to guide you and help you survive. If you begin the spiritual path, you develop what evil call psychosis. You start hearing voices, seeing things etc. This is exactly as it should be. If it happens, try not to appear as a threat to anyone else or yourself. This is imposible however, so they will give you "medication" to slow down your progress, unless forced medication is prohibited.
I think that I am on the spiritual path, and what I can say, is to trust your instincts. Suffering is real, and if you fall, you die. Or to speak symbolically, if you walk over an abyss on a thin thread, you better not pull a joke.
Nothing is created out of determinism. Everything that exists is the result of choices.
In this world, evil may be spoken of as ego, however, in reality, the demons are supposed to be the evil ones, and the angels the good ones. But thanks to the Arcturians, everything is messed up
Maybe freedom is really spiritual mastery?
Freewill is the ability to chose from all possibilities that exist. Depending on your common sense, reason, logic, knowledge, wisdom and spiritual acuity you'll have differing amounts of choices. All possibilities that exists for all intents and purposes are infinite and have already been accounted for (aether, akashic record, spiritus sanctus) by God, Creator, the monad, mother nature or the universe whatever you chose to call it. (See what I did there).
Bingo. I'm with you on this.
@john Z: no i don't see what you did. saying it's god explains nothing.
I'm with you on this as well, would we even know what a choice is without free will? Check out Michael Egnor video " the case against materialism" he refutes the brain being the cause of free will.
@@williamburts5495 so it's the will of god is it?
@@cosmikrelic4815 Dr Jeffrey M Schwartz, in his book " the mind and the brain " proved that by his treatment with patients who suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder that by use of what he calls " mental force " his patients rewired their brains by use of their mental force impelled by their free will to overcome their disorder. He proved this by cat scans taken before and after images of his patients brains. Maybe Robert should interview him that would be an interesting interview.
But this is basic evolution - imagine being in the jungle being stalked by a Lion or Tiger - if you waited until you consciously identified the Lion and made a move it might be too late
So sub-consciously we see the threat and react quickly & later the brain catches up to it
But it is STILL we that are doing it
Another easy example - I type these letters - ask me where the letter e is located, which finger I need to use to type it, and I would have no clue yet I am doing it without effort
No outside agent is needed - there is nothing unconscious about it
Agreed. Evolving gut feelings and nervousness from unseen factors in the environment would favor the creatures who don't wish to be eaten.
We have electro-chemical brains and an electro-chemical cosmos full of energy to work with.
Additional steps of magic and pre-programming are simply not needed. It seems like it's potentially just a natural survival function.
But we still don't know why!
Still "we" do it? You know the self doesn't exist.
I always see the same argument for people who want freewill so much because it fix and answer most thier questions.
If someone shot you with a gun is that free? The same goes with mental stuff, your belief/desires control most of your actions, and believe me you nither control this or that, even if you want to change a desire or a belief that itself is a desire or a belief that your belief/desire needs to be changed, so don't give me that "we are still free"
(A man can do what he will but he cannot will what he will)
@@karemsaied1754 Hey, who wrote this? You don't exist.
@@karemsaied1754 That made no sense - who wrote these words that you typed? A genie?
Free will applies to yourself - you are free to do whatever you want but you can't control others
Your point about someone shooting me is silly - I don't control him
We live in this world - there are certain constrains upon us that helps us survive
A person can go around killing and raping but society can't survive if they let him do that - you are saying since he can't kill and rape he is not free?
That is stupidity at its finest
Great stuff
So your brain activity plans to move your hand….what else would you expect?
The cerebral organ is not an activity of any sort, but an instinctive capacity. Something else is an activity, but not the brain.
Professor Haggard asserts that neuroscience *proves* that physicalism is true: mind must somehow arise from the physics of the brain. But this is incorrect. Although contemporary neuroscience operates within a paradigm of physicalism, and all neuroscientists are physicalists, this cannot prove that physicalism (a metaphysical system) is true.
Although there are neural correlates of consciousness, one cannot prove causation one way or another. Professor Haggard claims that causation acts in the direction of brain-state to mental-state (an experience of volition). But this assertion relies on subjects’ self-reports of the timing, and even temporal ordering of their experiential states. Elsewhere, however, he says that such timings are unreliable.
Of course, non-physicalists are under an obligation to try to develop their ideas in a manner consistent with the empirical findings of neuroscience. This is extremely difficult; but not such a Hard Problem as to give a rational physicalist account of mind.
The brain's instinctive capacities are very mistaken when it is refer as psychic force activities.
I just planned my holidays for next summer , pondering one hour if to go to Normandy or Bretagne ... I assume the theory of this "scientist" is already debunked . I really dont know how someone can come up with these silly theories and still have a work .
it's an idea, nobody knows what causes the feeling or the reality of free will. but you know it's nonsense so you must have studied quite a lot and done many experiments yourself. could you tell us a bit about that?
@@cosmikrelic4815 You actually experiment yourself every day of your life. And you also know that every other scientist have his own idea (HAmeroff, Hoffman , Chalmers, Tononi, Harris, Penrose ...). But they are not obliged to come with a silly idea so they can write a book or give an interview. To be different .
@@francesco5581 what?
@@cosmikrelic4815 it was written in your brain that you would have answered "what ?" , you brains knew ... It's a "what" ...you are just a tool of the "what ?" And you had no other choices ...So "what ?" will be. pfffffff
You wasted an hour
And addiction and free will?
Kudos
What a long winded explanation that our minds are always predicting outcomes(our own behavior and the behavior of everything we experience).
There is no instant in time where Free Will begins. One's entire existence is an act of Free Will with many subroutines of "free willing" embedded within it.
If brain is creating an illusion, the great brains talking on this show are also subject to it. So, there is no original thought process to learn on this channel 😅
Yout comment itself came from an illusionist brain: )
I "think" the ultimate experiment of true free will is not possible- one would have to take the test subject, copy or fork him into two identical universes and do the same experiment and compare the left/right button results. I "think" they would be identical at first hundreds of tries, after that- quantum effects would cause a divergence. No fundamental free will, whatever that is at all.
I can't see how your proposed "experiment" of forking the universe would really prove anything. In every universe you would do what you want presumably, so if you predict that the choice would change from one universe to another identical universe, then what you are looking for is random will, not free will. Only random will would change if you ran it enough times. There's no result that would actually give you the answer you need. I think this is because the hypothesis is flawed, that's why you can't get a solid result even from magical experiments.
@@caricue "Random will"? That is new to me, slightly comparable to "free". But yes- no solid result can be obtained if the question is not solid. Free will is not solid.
@@ketanovas If I say that free will means that an organism will choose from the available options based on local conditions, that's pretty solid. It's not good enough for some people, but it is something that is easily observable and doesn't really require any elaborate testing apparatus or parallel universes. When the determinists counters with "the organism could not have done differently", this is as "not solid" as you can get. This is some bizarre metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe and causality. Try testing that!
@@caricue That is what I meant in my first comment- I am not superdeterministic, but brain is a highly deterministic system as it does not work in a supercooled environment or in near vacuum. Hell, quantum uncertainties are not a product or a cause for free will, they just add uncertainties. This is not a bizarre claim about causality, this is causality in a nutshell. ""not solid" as you can get" is your opinion, mine is "quite solid". The hypothetical multiverse experiment is just hypothetical, though a positive correlation would prove my point and a null one I guess would approach yours.
I thought that our thoughts could be "read" prior to them being spoken. With Human to human brain computer interface in combo to Deep Brain Stimulation and Kinesiology....many things can be done. Even EVIL.
Good conversation, but it had a lot of redundancy. I feel like the same thing could have been said in 5 minutes without losing anything.
Ahhh...the binding problem of consciousness.
It's an amalgamation of before and after
You wanna get closer to truth? The truth is nobody knows the truth and that's the truth
I hope consciousness is not just an illusion!
Lol. Agreed. I've recently talked with people on these threads that believe everything is an illusion. Time itself, the capacity to make choices, etc. At the end of the day all I can think of is, "How does it change anyone's life?" People still succumb to the passing of time and they still make choices. I don't believe anyone who thinks life is just a program in the matrix stays in bed and gives up or acts or feels as if they're just a piece of code. All those people still respond to life as if it's real. That's what I'm going with. I think feelings provide a great insight.
keep your hopes , listening those silly scientists makes clear that is just not an illusion :D
@@francesco5581 Science is how truth emerges.
It can't be, it's the thing you call the experience you have.
So consciousness is real, but the question is free will an illusion?
Which should be yes, I couldn't quite follow everything in the video, but ultimately everything is just particles that obey the laws of physics, so I see no room for free will.
@@colinjava8447 Are you suggesting because the effects of gravity causes our Earth to orbit the sun, there can be no free will?
And that thoughts are made up of particles?
Why does this man look like Lez Weintrobe, my Science teacher (Biology) in sixth form.