Two Astrophysicists Debate Free Will
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2024
- Does free will exist? Neil deGrasse Tyson and Chuck Nice sit down with astrophysicist Charles Liu sit down to discuss the existence of free will and whether physics allows for choice in our lives.
We explore cause and effect: how does uncertainty and chaos in the universe factor into free will? How important is the illusion of free will to society? What does a society that acknowledges a lack of free will look like?
Note for the fans who caught it: the visual of the “Quarterback” evading the sack was actually of Running Back Christian McCaffrey-we’ll stick to the physics field 😉.
Check out our second channel, @StarTalkPlus
Get the NEW StarTalk book, 'To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery' on Amazon: amzn.to/3PL0NFn
Support us on Patreon: / startalkradio
FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to StarTalk:
Twitter: / startalkradio
Facebook: / startalk
Instagram: / startalk
About StarTalk:
Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!
#StarTalk #neildegrassetyson
00:00 - Introduction: Free Will
00:24 - Cause, Effect, & Chaos
4:51 - What Would You Do If Everything Was Predetermined?
6:40 - Free Win in Society
12:08 - Understanding the True Nature of Free Will - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Did you click on this video out of your own free will?
No
"Did you click on this video out of your own free will?" Answer is yes, anyone want to debate otherwise (bonus it's good for the algorithms).
Neil is a materialist hack but I still love the show. Thumbs up.
Yes
I think we're free to comment on things, or rather, to have opinions about things. but the actions are determined based on our comments. we think that free will fails when our comment isn't realized, but that doesn't mean that we can still keep the comment on things despite the impossibility to achieve. basically, if I think that flying is good for me, that's all I'm free to do. failing to fly doesn't mean that I am not free to keep thinking that I can fly. perhaps in the end, I'd end up creating the airplane, so we would attribute the invention to my freedom, yet the invention is on the side of action and stems from my comment on flying.
Bold of these gentlemen to assume that I exist in the first place.
Cogito, ergo sum
Solipsism is the lazy way out of this question and should be defined as a 4 letter word
Nothing actually exists.
😂😂😂
@@rickwilliams967 Nothing doesn't exist...
“I want to compare notes” I love that friendly way of saying let’s have a debate
Basically comparing the quality of work to see who's lacking 😂
is saying “let’s have a debate” unfriendly?
@@LikeIverson3 "debate" just has that automatic connotation that pits two people against each other so that was a nice way of phrasing it
yea fr I’m going to start using this
@@sarahchoi2657His response at 4:35 is way worse than saying let's have a debate. It's 2 v 1 to begin with, he didn't have to question his usefulness to the conversation for "comparing notes".
They seem to be saying that if you show empathy, you are exercising free will, but if you act badly, you are not. Given your genetics and environment, maybe your niceness or badness are both predetermined.
Tyson did seem to try to sway Liu away from that stance, but failed. Rather than oppose the idea outright, he began to provide opposing examples, and then he ended up not making a strong enough point. I wouldn’t say he was mollifying Liu, but he was definitely trying to keep the debate non confrontational. They discussed restorative justice as free will, but ignored the death penalty. Out of the entire discussion, the idea that just some tiny portion of what you choose is free will made the least sense to me. If we have free will, then it makes more sense that every choice is free will with options limited by our place in spacetime.
@@catgrin Thanks for your comment and accurate summary. I think they were showing some professional courtesy and respect by not being too forceful in an otherwise polarizing controversy.
Let me suggest that "some tiny portion" could make sense. Looking at this as an “all or nothing” is maybe why there are such strong opinions both ways. (Is this human nature, like political opinions?)
How would you even know when/if you are using your will? Recent studies indicate there seems to be subconscious brain activity taking place before you feel you are making a choice. Not sure if that is proof at this point but it might be indicative. Subconscious gets messy because you can also argue that subconscious is or is not making automated, mechanical calculations of some kind.
We know we do some things habitually, including some of our thought patterns. It is natural that we would like to feel like a unified, centrally controlled director of our lives. At the same time, we see all kinds of cause/effect things going on, like billiard balls bouncing around. Maybe even some of our thought patterns are automated and mechanical. Would you make the same decision if you are exhausted or angry?
So, people in different moods, emotional states, levels of impulsiveness, even using different drugs - easily make differing decisions. Is that an actual expression of will, or are they, to some extent, at the mercy of those conditions, with or without realizing it, at least some of the time? If it exists, free will would seem to have something to do with difficult and focused efforts. What about someone who is obsessive compulsive?
It might come down to perception of “self” - who is the “you” making decisions. Various meditation practices ask that question.
Lately I’m thinking about recent studies that show some people have an ongoing internal monolog (guilty here!) while others seem to think more visually or in other ways. I’m wondering if that impacts their perception of self and free will.
Sorry about the rambling rant. I’m attempting an act of will by stopping here. At least I think so, arguably. Because as much as I like cogitating, I have some work to do. Thanks for listening!
Quick addendum - we don't really know what Consciousness is. Does it somehow spontaneously arise from the proper physical structures that somehow developed or evolved? That would seem to imply a deterministic system. How could free will just pop out of an arrangement of stuff? Or, does it come from "somewhere else", whatever that means. Maybe that a particular arrangement of stuff, our brain, acts as kind of a transmitter of something from elsewhere, somehow outside our physical system. That would be a mystical perspective. No answers, just questions.
@@JohnShramko-lv2pd Hi John - Thanks for the full answer. I didn’t think you were ranting, and I apologize that this will be long. This is one of those questions that can drop anyone willing to consider it down a rabbit hole. While also commenting on a few people’s observations, I also wrote a much longer standalone comment. I’ll repeat some of that info here, but I promise this doen’t just repeat it.
I started my other long comment by explaining that I am an epileptic. Over the past 30 years I’ve had various forms of epilepsy, and have even had some interesting (?!?) responses to various anti epileptic drugs (AEDs). I’ve even been in the unique position to experience “waking” from what is effectively sleepwalking, living for days with hallucinations (toxic reaction to an AED), and then at other times having a brain that operates in an apparently totally healthy way.
In my other comment, I discussed the idea that free will may only be our perception of choice while conscious (defined most simply as “internally aware of our actions”). Here’s an example I didn’t discuss previously. A few years ago, while out for a walk, I had a febrile seizure (caused by onset of fever) which caused me to fall and break my shoulder. I then walked myself home. I only recall leaving my home for the walk, and then coming to back on my own sofa with a broken shoulder and a fever.
Seizures can disrupt the both ability to form and retain memories, so I honestly don’t/can’t know if I was aware of doing so when I walked home. There was no outside observer to later tell me if I was responding as though conscious at the time. On certain AEDs, I have had instances of witnessed absence seizures, so it’s possible that I walked back home (doing what I needed to do, short of getting myself to an ER) fully on autopilot. If that’s the case, it’s possible I made that choice while not conscious at all. My subconscious may have made a far more complex choice than typically recognized.
Having lived with this odd perspective for many years now, I am definitely a person who believes that “free will” is an idea which exists straddling both choice and determinism. That confusion seems largely based on how you choose to limit your definition of free will.
If you say “free will is our ability to make a choice from situationally limited options” then free will does seem to exist all the time and can still be bound by the flow of time. At some level, we can be aware of making some active choices, and every choice - good or bad - is still a selection between provided options.
If instead you say “free will would be the option to make any active choice, but every choice is predetermined by a multitude of preexisting influencing factors and all those factors originated from one action which began this reality” then free will may effectively not exist at all. Predeterminism is not an outrageous claim, but the argument against it would be that consciousness may act apart from physics allowing us to not simply be bounced around a billiard table.
I said that I couldn’t agree with Liu’s stance that free will might just be a 1% of the time thing (when we make what he considers good conscious choices) because that stance excludes conscious choice when making choices which someone else believes are “bad”. I don’t agree with his stance that free will must lead us to more considered and better choices. If we have free will at all, then that should mean we have the option to freely select “bad” as well as “good” 100% of the time. You can’t have purely free will without also having the option to choose poorly. If free will is defined as leading you toward making choices which only drive you toward a single “good” goal, then it’s no longer free will. At that point, we’re preprogammed to work toward “good” as we ourselves evolve.
So, I was just suggesting that the idea of free will seems to be associated with conscious choice, and every active choice - one where you actually have options and are consciously deciding between them - can be called “an act of free will”. Then the question becomes an issue of “do we really have options at all or is our movement through spacetime fully predetermined”? We know that, on some level, we do make active choices. The boundary we can’t seem to draw is whether preexisting conditions of our place in spacetime limit those choices even more than we can understand. My stance on that issue is that I’m unconcerned by it. I’m OK with just being able to appreciate whatever conscious life I’m given. With my condition, even prior to my death, I have had precious waking hours and memories stolen from me. So, even if all I am is a conscious observer and recorder, I still really appreciate being granted that experience.
@@JohnShramko-lv2pd If you haven’t already seen it, I can recommend the October 2001 Nova episode “Secrets of the Mind”. It discusses people whose rare neuro/psych disorders are useful for better understanding brain function.
One patient, Graham Young, is a man who has blindsight. He can’t consciously see. That path in his brain was damaged, but his eyes still function and a separate (evolutionarily older) path in his brain is still intact. That path allows him to still respond to stimuli which he has no conscious recognition of seeing. So he responds as though aware even though he’s not aware at a conscious level to that input.
Unfortunately, we humans tend to assign consciousness to ourselves as a sign of us being separate from “lower” animals. One contributor to conscious thought is apparently a sense of self - “cogito ergo sum”. In recent decades, science has been more accepting of that ability in other animals, even in some insects. A recent study found that elephants, which live in cooperative groups, identify other individuals by name. They use certain tones in low rumbles to address one another. One conclusion being drawn as a possible evolutionary cause for conscious thought is the benefit of being able to live cooperatively in complex societies.
Listening to these gentlemen is an addiction we all need
I'm not sure it's an addition. You OK?
@@ejlahti Maybe. The Jesuits (Gods Stormtroopers) used to argue over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. This is a little like that. What's with this freewill obsession? Too much spare time meets a sky-fairy groomed general population?
I'd be somewhat curious to have a Yes-No answer from scientists on do they believe in god. Especially these social media celebrity scientists. 70% of the humans on Earth believe some fairy story or other so the conversation is at best rarified. At worst hypocritical.
@@ejlahti ya i'm not scratching my arm or anything over this bud 😂
Not really but whatever floats your boat ig👍🏼
uhhh I think that might me a you thing ngl
I had no free will in watching this video. Every moment of my life leading up to this point left me with only one option.
Don't be disappointed then.
@@Sammasambuddha
How could I be?
And just to think that, under different life circumstances, you might have clicked on a playlist of cute kitten videos to happily binge watch for the entire day. Curse this blasted lack of free will!
@@mikel5582
I think the cat videos were destined to happen. As now based on your response I feel compelled to go watch some. ...what a cute kitty named Jocasta.
Algorithm chose for me
This is how adult conversations should go. I really enjoyed this
The only time Neil Tyson is respectful is when he's in a room with other astrophysicists. Any other time he's extremely condescending and pigheaded.
proof?
Me too!
@@NelsonLovellReally? Do you have a link to a video showing NDT being pig headed?
@NelsonLovell that's actuslly not necessarily true, Terrence Howard sent him 36 pages on an idea he had that would revolutionize mathematics and Neil did what he would do with any of his other peers. He gave him an honest peer review with many notes stating where he was wrong and where he should build more a foundation. He wasn't condescending at all. And that's towards an actor not a scientist
Excellent conversation!! Charles Liu is great at explaining/ communicating his ideas. Wonderful!
“It’s not a line of convenience, but rather a perimeter of ignorance.” That’s so eloquent and nuanced I got goose bumps! Brilliant conversation!
Charles Liu was my professor in 2015. One of the very few that left a lasting impression on me. It's good to see his enthusiasm has remained unchanged.
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Or he wasn't 🤔
This is such a good, true debate. They aren’t arguing against each other, they are testing ideas in a mutual effort to establish a truth. Beautiful
very well said! wow
Why is the fact they are being civil so important to you that you ignore commenting on the actual topic at hand?
Yeah it’s easy to have a respectful debate when you’re not debating the rights of human beings
@@ebony3406 whay are you trying to achieve with this comment?
This is how all “debates” should take place.
The Synthesis of Fate and Choice: At this summit, the synthesis occurs where predetermined paths and free will converge. This synthesis recognizes that while certain elements may be preordained, individuals still possess the agency to influence and navigate their paths. The Ten-Point Format serves as a framework for exploring and understanding this dynamic interplay.
I just gave a huge "Like" to this video. This conversation was utterly awesome! I think it is the most "down to Earth" exchange I've heard in a long time on the subject of free will. Thank you Neil, Chuck, and to your guest Charles Liu!
Charles Liu is your best guest -- he should be a regular on the show. this guy speaks with crystal clarity
100% agree
For any who don't already know: check out Charles Liu's podcast, "The Liuniverse"
i find him... strange. he believes he is right but has no arguments for that
@@HoD999xmy feelings as well.
The problem is that it can be a very heavy topic, where being in a setting like this would leave the topic less productive.
No more of the football guy! Thanks!
I love this conversation! I was diagnosed with epilepsy at a young age and was told I was using drugs before finally being diagnosed 3 years later, I Was the outcast and was diagnosed with a lot of these struggles yet I’ve worked on myself to get to where I am today. I had free will/power within myself even though I wasn’t showed much compassion. Healing is possible!! Our minds can become limitless! Everything happens for a reason!!
Very good thanks for sharing that with us❤❤❤
Hi! I’m also an epileptic, and I have also been misdiagnosed by more than one hospital. For safety, I now carry a note from my neurologist wrapped around my insurance i.d. cards. Congratulations on sticking with it and getting through the dark times. Life really is beautiful! 💖👍
I am happy for you bro but I'm confused if we had free will. Why give us the bible with laws if we had free will? I don't get it
@@blackallday the Bible’s laws are or can be considered man made to people. Free will is we have a choice to follow those laws are not. We have free will to live a life we want to live doesn’t mean it’s gonna be easy or perfect or just go the way we plan yet that’s life. It’s much bigger than free will
I was extremely excited to watch this!!! I’ve been having this internal debate with myself for a long time, the idea of free will vs predestination ❤ Thank you for always making me think about subjects larger than myself.
i think this was a very interesting debate! i think the idea of free will existing not for OURSELVES but how we influence the world around us is very interesting. I find myself siding with your argument for most of it, I think the idea of “a moving goalpost vs a perimeter of ignorance” is also EXTREMELY interesting and I can absolutely see how both arguments can be made.
There really seemed to be a "negative things show no freewill" and "positive things show freewill" assumption. Charles repeatedly would say there was free will to help someone but never seemed to consider the possibility that people who "choose" to help someone had no more ability to make that decision than the person on the other side of the example.
yes, even I felt that he assumed if someone has a positive thought that contradicts their negative actions, it is an example of free will, which is clearly an incorrect way to think about this whole concept
Totally agree. Compassion and selfishness can both easily be caused through genetic predisposition and reinforced environmental and sociological conditions. Cooperation is a successful survival strategy for evolution.
Obviously, everyone would Like to think they have free will.
Take a look at the concepts of Egodeath and the Frozen Time Block theories of determinism. Above all, apply critical thinking and work things through in your own mind rather than parroting "experts"
That is a very interesting way to look at it. Furthermore, our judgement on right and wrong actions is not even free.
The nature of will is positive. It’s a force, that’s why it’s called will power. If you chose to remain still, that’s a choice and you are exercising free will, but not in any demonstrable way. You not moving is indistinguishable from you not having the free will to move. Hence, it’s pointless to discuss ‘negative’ free will.
@@pablolasha238Weren't they speaking about positive and negative in terms of morality or preference (right and wrong, good and bad)? As in trying to say that good actions were more aligned with free will whereas bad actions were deterministic.
In this way you can adequately have both positive and negative expressions of free will. Of course, this is regardless of whether you believe in it as a true mechanism for behavior
Chuck really became part of the conversation tbh, instead of in the early days just being comic relief. He actually adds useful perspectives and engages with the matter that is a unique but contributing perspective.
yup, a much needed improvement, it elevates the show to a new level
Thanks Chuck ... still appreciate your funny side though ❤
Chuck has come a long way. He still adds comedy here and there and it's the perfect amount.
The ONLY cringe part is when they bring up politics, but they rarely do that
Not nearly enough improvement to have him there. Just Neil and someone else would be absolutely amazing, Chuck is just a distraction.
@@otaldobet That's just a nasty thing to say. If you don't like the show, nobody's forcing you to watch. Plenty people don't mind the light entertaining aspect of Star Talk. There are plenty other channels on YT if you prefer plain old boring.
The entertaining factor is attracting people who would otherwise probably not even watch anything science minded. If you care anything about it, you should just appreciate that more and more people are getting educated in areas they would otherwise not have a clue about and just go on your own merry way.
@@jakke1975 imagine if all talk shows let their side kick chime in whenever they wanted. The guy in the middle is a hindrance on this clip whether you like it or not.
"And that's why: you always leave a note"
Thanks for another great talk! Love these
Her?
I want more conversations like these! ❤
Two Astrophysicists Debate RNG
RNG??
@@pressurewashingwithkoolfel9738Random Number Generation
Facts
What do you mean by that?
Y’all know what he means
Arthur Schopenhauer said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
woah
Bingo.
Ive for a while now believed that there is a distinct difference between free will, and will power, in that we do have will power, but we do not have free will.
@@elementalds... So what would be the advantage of having a strong will power, if you didn't have free will to exercise it.
@@elementalds Yes, that seems quite reasonable. Will power enables life to fight through struggles and continue to live and reproduce, thus carrying on the genes that lead to those behaviors. It's perhaps the most fundamental requirement of ecological success.
Evolution can also select for the capacity to make choices with higher and higher levels of sophistication; but evolution can't endow a species with the ability to defy natural laws and suddenly have a ghost in the machine.
I much prefer Charles Liu's perspective. Why tell yourself you and everyone else doesn't have free will? That just locks you down to making the most safe/comfortable choices. We as people have the potential to challenge ourselves and take risks, we just need that self-belief that we can be different
It's obvious everyone does have the ability to change. I find it absurd and useless to claim to people that there is no free will.
People make the same argument you are here to advance the idea that their particular brand of religion is true.
If free will doesn't exist, then the people who were going to challenge themselves and takes risks will do so anyway because they can't choose to do otherwise. In that scenario, the thing "locking people down" is not the action of telling them that free will doesn't exist... but rather that they are locked down by the absence of free will in the first place.
@@bobwilliams4895 But are those changes themselves the result of prior causes that people have no control over?
What if our "choices" to change are inevitable, predetermined outcomes that come from the particular state/configuration of neurons in our brain? If you didn't choose the exact configuration/placement of every neuron and electrical signal in your brain that's making those choices... then your choices are being made by something you don't control.
Our brains may be like an algorithm where given some input, it will always return the same output. But given the complexity of the algorithm, combined with the fact that the algorithm is being constantly changed in response to prior causes, it may give the illusion of choice.
It would be very interesting if we could somehow take a digital snapshot of someone's brain in the moments prior to them feeling as if they made a choice... and then run a simulation where you feed the snapshot the same choices over and over again. Something like, "pick a number between 1 and 1000". My guess is that no matter how many times you run it, it will always pick the same number.
It's one of those questions I don't think can ever be proven with 100% certainty, but believing that you don't have the ability to change is is a destructive mindset, be it a preordained mindset or not. I personally like to think it's sort of a mixture of both. Genetics and environment write most of your story but you still have some ability to recondition your mind to overcome the effects of those factors. If that's the case i still feel like those two factors can still limit the expression of free will. A lot of people are more robotic and go with the weather, while others are much more individualistic in their thought. If it exists it's probably on a spectrum.
I thoroughly enjoy the 'testing of ideas' among these gentlemen. I really like the perspectives offered by Dr. Charles Liu.
What I conclude from this debate is the best way to live life is for each individual to assume that they have free will to change things (Liu's perspective) will but also assume that nobody else does (Neil's perspective)
This is honestly the best takeaway from compatibilism I've ever seen.
💯
Makes you god though...
If free will does not exist, then laws shouldn't exist because people cannot be held accountable for their actions
@@sepg5084I have no choice but to say laws should stay in place
I love how calm and passionate these legends being, damn
Hindu spotted @JinnDima39605
love these types of conversations. Very captivating dialogue..
These debates often play out this way and it is a mistake because one person is arguing (a) absolute free will. Which means if you're not aware of every possible thing then how can you possibly decide because you're only deciding on that which you are aware of vs (b) effectively free will, which is that decisions are being made consciously and subconsciously. They both make great points and never come close to touching each others true argument.
I loved this!
This is what debating should be like more often: leaving the egoes at the door, listening intently and openly to what one another are saying, respecting each other, and also genuinely trying to better understand the subject at hand vs. one-upping the other person.
I found the conversation very interesting and entertaining. Thanks y'all!
There’s some moments Neil Degrasse Tyson interrupted Charles Liu and Chuck Nice instead of letting them finish. And you can see Neil’s face tense up and he’s pinching his thumb.
They're not really debating they're just agreeing and adding upon a topic
Brandon Melo!
Neil still shows a lot of hubris.
Yes, your extremely low bar for finding discussions "incredible" is that they don't insult each other
I think it's probably true that we technically don't have "free will," because our choices are always the result of everything that has ever happened to, within, and around us previously. However, that set of factors ("everything that has ever happened to, within. and around us previously") is so *_unimaginably_* complex that it's impossible in practical terms to predict or unravel it with perfect accuracy, so in the world as actually experienced by humans, the illusion of free will is unlikely to ever fall apart for us.
Right. It may be impossible to predict outcomes, because of the high amount of variables, but complexity does not give rise to true randomness or free will.
It may be impossible to predict outcomes (to quote Ryan), but that doesn't mean it's not deterministic.
So, I don't know how to calculate the outcome but I know the outcome could be calculated.
For me, that meant being free from my sense of guilt and overwhelming responsibility.
It's like it turned out in a "belief" of "not believing" in free will which made my life better.
@@RyanJesseParsons We still have free will. You are just referring to things we can't control outside our scope. It is what we have control over that is our free will.
You may be able to calculate the future in theory, but the calculation would involve the exact same complexity as playing out the sequence of events that would happen in reality. So yes, deterministic but unpredictable in advance of the events actually happening. Only retrospectively predictable.
@@akinibitoye7908 "We still have free will. You are just referring to things we can't control outside our scope." You mean like the very nature of existence, the very rules you cannot even comprehend to disobey? Because that still don't particularly look like free will to me.
"It is what we have control over that is our free will." Yes, and the main argument is that we have no control over anything that has not already been a direct consequence of something outside our control. You coming to be as you are has 13 billion years of history at a minimum (if not infinitely more) preluding the very notion of control.
Choose? The elementary particles building up that very thought process seem to disagree, as they've had no choice but exist as themselves with their interactions exactltly the same as they have for the 13 billion years prior of them being apart of that set of chemicals and neurons. Can't add up to 0 of you only have positive integers.
I appreciate
It when they discuss the serious free will concept. You know you should not torture someone who has hurt you - we know we should not - cause it's not a good human action - however we have free will to do it without feeling remorse. We choose not to do bad however we have free will to do bad. Then there is the scorpion and frog analogy. And then there is extraordinary friendships between wild dangerous animals who do not hurt their human friend etc
"I want to surround myself with these incredible individuals who bring joy and create memorable moments through engaging conversations, without any expectations or ulterior motives."
Watching these two (Neil and Charles, and even to a great extent this time, Chuck) discuss the differences between their opinions is like watching two enormous beings, gigantic in their intellect, awesome in the thoroughness that they thought things through, and inspiring in their articulation, pitting all of their knowledge, understandings, and skills in communication, in a titanic effort to overcome one another. Yet, in the end, they shook hands in unadulterated respect for one another, because while neither has managed to defeat their opponent, both have learned great things from the encounter.
"There is uncertainty in the universe, and I embrace it" - Charles Liu, 2024.
What a lovely quote and discussion!
@@mikeonthetube79 Uncertainty surrounds us everyday. All the measurements of planetary and celestial motion, atmospheric conditions, even the functions within our own body all have a degree of uncertainty. There is no way we can accurately measure anything EXACTLY.
Edward Lorenz learned this, when simulating a weather system with a minuscule rounding error on his computer back in the 60s. This accident led to the birth of chaos theory. With it, the idea that no matter how small the difference between the initial conditions of two systems (e.g. a single flap of a butterfly's wings), given enough time, the two systems will diverge in behavior, so much so that nobody would have ever thought they once shared an almost identical state.
Combine this with the notion that was brought up at the beginning of the video, the idea of 'stochastic uncertainty'. There exists a degree of randomness in the universe. Our understanding of quantum physics supports this with the discovery we can never know the position of an electron around a nucleus precisely, and are better described as "cloud-like regions of probability" with predictions for where the electron may reside.
I admit that I may have brought you more questions than answers, but I do not think that we can so readily assume that free will exists or does not exist. The history of science and philosophy reveal to us that often ideas sprout with a thesis (e.g. Free will exists), which an antithesis opposes (e.g. Free will does not exist), to ultimately fuse together in a synthesis (e.g. Existence is governed by spaces of determinism and spaces of free will interacting with one another).
Going back to chaos, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the visualizations of the Mandelbrot set. Beautiful stuff. The Mandelbrot set is defined by a recursive function, and for every set of initial conditions as input, the plot is color coded. Black regions denotes those initial conditions that never 'escape to infinity' during the recursion, and the colored regions denote how quickly a point reaches the escape point (an absolute value greater than 2). As you delve into deeper detail into the Mandelbrot set, a beautiful and complex fractal pattern emerges. No matter how fine the detail, you will infinitely encounter pockets of 'black' spaces (points which do not escape to infinity) and pockets of colored points (points which do escape to infinity) that consistently repeat earlier motifs in the pattern. These fractal patterns tend to feel very organic and mimic the natural world and universe in many ways, so much so that these recursive fractal equations are used in computer generated graphics that try to resemble nature. They can even describe natural dynamical processes such as population growth over time or the dynamics of the flow of fluid through a medium.
While we do not have sufficient observation to understand and declare with certainty whether free will exists or not, I think the answer is likely a synthesis of the two opposing points of view. Just like in the Mandelbrot set, there infinite recursive pockets of points which do not escape to infinity and points that do with varying degrees of quickness. My hypothesis is that the nature of free will is similar, in that, there are pockets of reality and the universe in which determinism rules absolutely, while there are other areas in which the free will of conscious beings such as ourselves, can influence.
I hope this sparks great thought and that you had as much fun reading that as I did writing it!
Cheers :)
@mikeonthetube79 Uncertainty surrounds us everyday. All the measurements of planetary and celestial motion, atmospheric conditions, even the functions within our own body all have a degree of uncertainty. There is no way we can accurately measure anything EXACTLY.
Edward Lorenz learned this, when simulating a weather system with a minuscule rounding error on his computer back in the 60s. This accident led to the birth of chaos theory. With it, the idea that no matter how small the difference between the initial conditions of two systems (e.g. a single flap of a butterfly's wings), given enough time, the two systems will diverge in behavior, so much so that nobody would have ever thought they once shared an almost identical state.
Combine this with the notion that was brought up at the beginning of the video, the idea of 'stochastic uncertainty'. There exists a degree of randomness in the universe. Our understanding of quantum physics supports this with the discovery we can never know the position of an electron around a nucleus precisely, and are better described as "cloud-like regions of probability" with predictions for where the electron may reside.
I admit that I may have brought you more questions than answers, but I do not think that we can so readily assume that free will exists or does not exist. The history of science and philosophy reveal to us that often ideas sprout with a thesis (e.g. Free will exists), which an antithesis opposes (e.g. Free will does not exist), to ultimately fuse together in a synthesis (e.g. Existence is governed by spaces of determinism and spaces of free will interacting with one another).
Going back to chaos, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the visualizations of the Mandelbrot set. Beautiful stuff. The Mandelbrot set is defined by a recursive function, and for every set of initial conditions as input, the plot is color coded. Black regions denotes those initial conditions that never 'escape to infinity' during the recursion, and the colored regions denote how quickly a point reaches the escape point (an absolute value greater than 2). As you delve into deeper detail into the Mandelbrot set, a beautiful and complex fractal pattern emerges. No matter how fine the detail, you will infinitely encounter pockets of 'black' spaces (points which do not escape to infinity) and pockets of colored points (points which do escape to infinity) that consistently repeat earlier motifs in the pattern. These fractal patterns tend to feel very organic and mimic the natural world and universe in many ways, so much so that these recursive fractal equations are used in computer generated graphics that try to resemble nature. They can even describe natural dynamical processes such as population growth over time or the dynamics of the flow of fluid through a medium.
While we do not have sufficient observation to understand and declare with certainty whether free will exists or not, I think the answer is likely a synthesis of the two opposing points of view. Just like in the Mandelbrot set, there infinite recursive pockets of points which do not escape to infinity and points that do with varying degrees of quickness. My hypothesis is that the nature of free will is similar, in that, there are pockets of reality and the universe in which determinism rules absolutely, while there are other areas in which the free will of conscious beings such as ourselves, can influence.
I hope this sparks great thought and that you had as much fun reading that as I did writing it!
Cheers :)
@@mikeonthetube79you don't need to have full understanding of your consequences or the situation to have free will.
I can start swimming in the Pacific and not know how long I will last until I die. It's still a decision taken with freedom of will.
Is it full of uncertainty, though?
@@hazesummer8328 The point is why is that something you would want to do? Why did you choose that example in the first place? Why wasn’t it I could start to walk through a desert? Why specifically the Pacific Ocean, Why not the Atlantic? Why did you comment at all? It’s all causality, the brain makes the choice based on what it knows and wants and is shaped by outside causality. Not trying to change your opinion, I just disagree.
What a high level debate, and I agree with the final take of Neil. I tend to think as well that everything is cause and effect but the fact of thinking like that might be fighting against the little free Will that we have . Great video to watch while at the bus to work
I love this episode! Wonderful conversation! 🥰
I missed the definition of 'free will' - and I think sometimes it changed during the conversation.
In Carlos Castaneda's books it is defined that your energy level provides the possibility of options in reacting. And the unknown 'fate' may drive you to success or disaster, one cannot choose that. But a person always has the freedom to choose how they experience it, in other words the 'freedom lies in the reaction'.
But one needs to know about it and practise the desired response. As it was mentioned in the conversation, a lot of practice is needed to be able to react in the best possible way! Most people do not meke the effort, thus are unable to react with their best.
Interestingly, most of us have an immediate and crystal clear judgement on our reaction though!!!
I would be interested in the ideas about the above mentioned, especially from Neil, Charles and Chuck but from anyone with friendly and clarifying thoughts.
It’s so refreshing to see three grownups sitting together and having a civil discussion about a complex and nuanced topic.
If only society could be more like this.
@@tomwozne because it’s rare to find debates that are discussed this way now lmao ofc people are gonna be shocked
@@tomwozne You felt the need to argue with the original commenter and other commenters like them, even though they weren’t presenting an argument. Behavior like yours is the reason people fawn over a civil discussion.
They're more than grownups, they are senior citizens.
For a lot of people, the goal of a debate is to "win" and make the other person feel like an idiot, no matter whos right or wrong. A civilized debate is meant to fill knowledge gaps from both parties, because both sides know at least a few things the other doesnt. Even if one side is completely wrong, they (hopefully) have arguments that help the other learn something. Often times however, opinions become identities and debates turn into yelling competitions, and whoever is louder "wins" despite learning absolutely nothing.
I thought it said "Free Wifi"
😁😁😁
😂
i'm disappointed too, i already have a free nelson mandela.
You just feel like you have free wifi, but you're actually being puppeteered by your provider. Your wifi is predetermined 😉
Neil lives in Manhattan. Free wifi is the last of his problems
One of the best videos StarTalk has! Great conversation and point of views. Neil's conclusion at the end was perfect also. Somethings are free will and others are out of our control
You all have filled my heart with joy. Thank you for your kind words!
I like how they were so civil and are still friends even though they kind of disagreed and then came to a sort of agreement at the end
i wanted a punch up. oh well.
I mean, this isn't something that srs
That's what usually happens when educated people have discussions or debates. They are guided by mutual respect for each other's input and the possibility of learning from each other, instead of being driven by ego or emotions.
@@WillieTaggettand usually also are able to hold on to their own belief while still accepting it could be wrong.
How old are you? This is a conversation between adults, what else do you expect?
I love the demeanour of Charles!! Please have him on more often! Great conversations fellas!!
One of my most enjoyed episodes. I find the intertwining of physics, biology, and philosophy fascinating and interesting.
one of the best debates i have ever seen
10:48 “individuals who haven’t been able to recover from a bombed joke”
Great callback!
Hey, Neil. I'm Sabian, cognitive scientist. I also lean towards determinism, because based on all the research and testing that I've done, from psychology to sociology, therapy, hypnosis, physics, and more, I'm currently putting together a "Standard Model of Consciousness" (among other things) that details how information deterministically travels through the "mind" as thoughts & emotions and comes back out as behaviours, all in a predictable (if still chaotic) way, without requiring any "free will".
But as with any abstract concept, it depends on how you define "free will". Is it "the ability to make independent decisions"? Then what exactly is a "decision"? Is it a thought or idea, is it an emotion (e.g. confidence in an idea), or is it a behaviour (e.g. acting upon an idea)? And what is "independent"? Is it one "person"? Then what is a "person"? Is it the entire body of a human? Is it just the brain? Or is it even just a part of the brain? Or maybe there are multiple "people" inside one brain and the "person" we observe is actually an amalgamation of them? How many neurons and firing patterns are needed to cause this lump of electric fat to finally qualify as a "person"? Is there even a line, or is it a gradient? If it is, then what does that mean?
Focusing back on "free will", I think we (and I use "we" very broadly, for more than just humans) are only able to think and act based on the information we have and the situations in which we find ourselves at any moment; the idea that we are explicitly choosing what we do is an illusion, and that this illusion is only reinforced by confirmation bias; we are organic machines taking in complex inputs (senses), processing them in complex ways (thoughts), and spitting out complex outputs (behaviours), where, just like the particles of physics are interacting and combining in complex ways to form atoms, stars, galaxies, molecules, cells, and animals, we as "people" are cycling information within and between our neurons, our nervous systems, the people around us, and our environment, forming a larger and more complex "consciousness" from which greater and greater things are emerging.
I'm super fascinated by all of this, so if you, Neil, or anyone, wants to chat, let me know.
Agreed, compatibilists often commit conflation and reification fallacy as well as adding an unwarranted metaphysical assumption that is absent from the body of evidence when they presuppose free-will exists. Self-reflection isn't decision making, but we fool ourselves into thinking it is based on all the evidence from neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophical logical coherence in Theory of the Mind. Our self-reflective strange loops, if that is what compatibilists are reifying as 'decision making' don't equate to free-will, even in the compatibilist sense from any logically coherent argument I have found in any of the research. Sam Harris so eloquently argued, "Our thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.", I struggle to find anything that would be an exception to this rule.
I think we have the capacity to make choices. That being said, all choices we make seem to be bound by internal processes and external events outside of our control. Our desires, whatever they may be, are the root cause of our choices, yet it seems to be the case that we cannot "freely" choose our desires. It simply is the case that I like cheeseburgers. I cannot force myself to hate cheeseburgers and like eating chicken feet. In the words of Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". Do you agree?
This would be cool
Very cool to think about. I’m no expert but isn’t quantum mechanics currently probabilistic and not deterministic. Unless you have some sort of higher dimensional mathematical framework in mind.
And you said predictable, but that’s still probabilistic. Determinism is not the same thing as approximate predictability. Even if most of the time you know the outcome, there’s still a degree of uncertainty. I think that’s what Dr. Liu was refering to. And chaotic systems are unpredictable look at the n-body problem.
I’d love to look at some of your work though. Where’s the best place to find it?
I’m by no means an expert on any of this I just like to think about this stuff. My intuition would tell me that quantum entanglement and energy are 2 key areas in this problem. If the thought is like potential energy and the action is kinetic energy, and nature prefers to minimize the difference between these quantities over time, then maybe that can explain some sort of predictability. But adding a second brain to the equation likely makes it way more complicated which is why we humans seem to be free will machines. Because humans can affect other humans and overrule natures preference to choose that path of least action.
The thought about entanglement came from an idea I had that the appeared predictable nature of the local universe is a result of all systems being entangled with each other. And unpredictable behavior or “free will” is the result of disentangled states.
@@YvngHomieRyanhow do you account for knowledge in determinism? Are you surrendering ethics because in this worldview, there is no grounding for ethics. No truth or falsehood. No good or bad. Answer that for me please. Do you believe knowledge is possible in this world?
Great conversation
Thought provoking brilliant debate....gratitude for the food for thought💫
I love how Chuck provides really nice comedic relief when tensions get high. Lightens the mood immediately
Chuck has incredible insight and skill paired with incredible discipline over his own ego, which allows him to play whatever role makes the moment successful, including the fool. Immense respect for that.
@@avrenna agreed!
This is the most civil debate I've seen online 🔥👏🏾
Now THAT is an intelligent conversation! I love listening to people with the ability to express ideas and consider them with other people.
The free will debate is spoiled by a lack of exact definitions.
Bingo
and the mutual acknowledgement of what would be necessary for free will to exist....like they can't even agree on what they are looking for. the base is just a generic "could i have done otherwise"?
another thing is people talk about it in terms of absolutes. you either ALWAYS have it or you NEVER have. but the way i see it, the addict INITIALLY has far more a sense of choice than AFTER he's become addicted. when faced with a decision, you'll bring to mind a lot of relevant data, some of which are personal things (like your own value system). but in reflecting, are YOU determining (free will is synonymous with self-determination, which is a theory in psychology regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivations) which data to consider and which to ignore?
another part of the problem is how you define the self...the "I". but doesn't the who depend on what, like who is epigenetic (i'm interested in how this relates to consciousness as the emergent function of the neural system) relating to the what...the genome, where consciousness is like a theater (experiences) that plays out your drives, beliefs, etc
basically, freewill is a concept that is dependent on relativity rather than absolutes. would something like open-mindedness on the big 5 play a factor, where people with low scores are less likely to have choices while those with higher scores are more likely out of sheer curiosity that something doesn't have to be what my preconceptions think it should be? the irony is that conservatives are likely to express belief in freewill, while never really allowing it (the "moral majority" and their dependence on things like tradition) while progressives are the ones that allow it politically, but are the ones telling you it doesn't exist.
for it to be scientifically sound, should not the hard determinists have to show that they can predict what someone will say or do (and regarding things like fear of the dark, they might be predictable, where other things would be less so)? and why is it not always the same? sure, i can have coffee today. last week i "choice" tea. what explains the inconsistence of "choices" if they are determined? how far does determinism go before you just call it fate? is an asteroid predetermined to crash into something, or does it just fly in direction x until it encounters something which brings about an event that can be interpreted as "determined"?
how do various systems of thought and experiences play out (think of multiple chains of determinism that interact simultaneously within a single system...you...)? if you are also your subconscious (if you are also unconscious things, like your skeleton), does it have to come into awareness to count as a choice? does the urgency of a "choice" affect anything (such as your answers to existential questions vs more mundane things, like chocolate vs vanilla...your existential answers are things you tend to hold far more closely. you see this is things religious fundamentalism, which they consider their answers not to be just highly important, but the entire point of living)?
i used to be a determinist, but i also became a little disillusioned with the entire debate. i think it's too shallow and narrowly focused on generalizations with the idea that you either always have it or you never do
That came to light several years ago in the Harris/Dennett written exchange on the topic.
Yep! My inital comment is a long talk all about how both stances can be correct just based on what you believe free will is.
@@jeromyrutter729 Imagine a combination lock with millions of possible combinations. Even if the combination to open the lock is predetermined (deterministic view), if you don't know the combination (inability to predict), it's practically impossible to open the lock on your first try. In this way, determinism might not deny free will entirely, but it suggests a very limited kind of free will where the illusion of choice arises from the sheer complexity of the causal chain.
For example we may never be able to perfectly predict weather patterns but that in no way refutes determinism.
Summary, our ability to predict something is not required for it to be determined, however you are correct that science may require it to claim it is true, that doesn't mean it isn't true without that evidence.
If i missed the point entirely go easy on me.. i'm new to thinking about this.
I gotta say, Chuck Nice is great. Ive followed Star Talk since it was a TV show set in The Hayden Planetarium and Chuck was always there but my guy has brought so much to the podcast since then, big ups to my guy. Keep going guys
So from what I understood. The debate isn't whether people make their own choices. Its whether or not in a moment in time, if people can make more than one type of decision. If you cloned reality and played the exact moment in time in both. Would you ever see two different outcomes precipitating forward from there. Or would they continue to play as exact clones of one another.
I don't think same outcome is proof that there is no free will and different outcome is proof that there is free will.
There could be "something" random that occurs prior to what's generating thoughts and actions but that doesn't mean we are in control of it. So if we played back the cloned reality and there is a random component to it, we would see different results but we wouldn't say free will was the cause of a different outcome.
@@tothespace2122 I think thats an exciting idea as well. I didn't necessarily go into it in my comment, because a lot of it is beyond me. But I definitely agree that there is some... inate randomness in the universe. Either quantum mechanics or otherwise. Certainly just because something different *does* happen, doesn't mean its free will.
Thank you guys for this episode. It meant so much to me. It gave me solace and made me feel better. More optimistic
Herr Tyson, have you noticed how much Chuck have advanced in science department from the moment he started working with you on this channel ? That is INCREDIBLE !!!
So true!! It's awesome to see
His gained experience has informed his decision to instead of make jokes he is now more inclined to engage in the theory 😂
Chuck is a genius he just plays silly for the camera. He is obviously VERY smart and had a degree before being on the show
He’s gotten to a level I never thought possible. He’s an active participant in debates. Very impressive!
Osmosis. Like my mother us to say: "you can often tell a person by the company they keep"...
What an awesome guest! Even better discussion between the three. I think we’re all happy with their final resolution
Great discussion.
I watched this about 3 times and commented on my own free will.🤔🤔
I believe the most important energy/entity is balance.
Finding the balance between chaos and control within your environment, society and life is a goal not many can (if ever) achieve
Yes but I can argue that it wasn’t free will that you commented. It was simply all those neurons in your brain firing that could have been pre determined. There is essentially an infinitely complex equation that could be calculated of all the interactions and events and emotions in your life that would calculate that you would have commented. Everything has a cause and effect.
Chuck is such a great teacher, I love when he joins the program
Excellent conversation guys, thank you!!
Most mesmerizing thing in this startalk is that exquisite hair line of Chuck.
Man's always on point...
This show reminded me of a time when my son was young standing next to his dad and the both stood the same way. Later I saw a photo of his great grandfather and he was standing the exact pose.
that's more due to genetics
Stance can be changed by putting in a small effort to stand differently if they really want to as they have the free will to change their actions according to how their conscious decides
great topic, ive thought around that mode, but never really had anyone to ask what is this and get a significant answer to it................
I love when Dr. Lou is on because you discuss subjects I normally do not ponder. Thank you.
I've thought about free will at least once a week for 30 years. If I had free will, I would make myself stop. Believe me
Pure love Charles Neil and Chuck, please continue
Omg this is one of my favorite episodes and I have so many already but damn this was so good. If only I could have seen this in person.
Its really cool to see how much more educated Chuck became over time on these subjects.
A heated AND respectful discussion. Enjoyed watching it. Thank you.
This was one of the best, most relatable discussions I've ever needed to see.
What a respectful discussion
This was beautiful to listen to!
What an amazing StarTalk episode. Really loved this one.
This has been my favorite TH-cam video in a very long time.
Absolutely brilliant!
Awesome debate but you should kick out the one in the middle ^^
I dont really understand the physics world wiew (i am a house builder) but i really like the way charles liu talks about free will.
Wow, great debate! I wish it was a longer session, More please
I'm LOVING the Dr. Liu and Hayden Planetarium vidoes!
I use to have panic attacks and used the freewill to choose to learn meditation and it helped me tremendously. Yes one could say well the panic attacks drove me to it. i had the choice to deal with the problem or ignore it. i freely chose to not ignore it. God bless
Very nice conclusion...
It feels nice and fulfilling to listen to this conversation.
Great discussion! I'm a long-time fan of this show and a newly minted Charles Liu fan. Great work, all!
There are no choices. Nothing but a straight line. The illusion comes afterwards, when you ask "why me?" and "what if?". When you look back and see the branches, like a pruned bonsai tree, or forked lightning.
how can you say so absolutely that there are no choices?
You should also discuss it with philosophers and theologians!! Could be really interesting.
The first explanation of causality , if taken serious, can really put a halt in the response of correlation usually given when people make arguments for cause.
You 3 rocked this conversation.
From my experience in life, doing the good or right thing is often the hardest because it requires a deliberate choice. Are most natural inclination is just to take the easiest path but we can choose to go against the current, delay gratification, make sacrifices and push ourselves to become better or improve. None of that is possible without free will imo.
That was a good ending I like how they slowly but surely understood one another as opposed to just blocking one out
Loved the approach to this conversation!
Well said! I always love this conversation!
Strange, when I watched Arrival I experienced it differently. I saw that through the "language" of the extraterrestrial, the brains/consciousness of humans was rewired so that past, present and future could be experienced within the same sphere of existence. And it is in that experience that our sense of humanity deepened, our empathy for ourselves, for one another, for all life. And in that way we exercised free will even more so, as we saw the trajectories of our lives, the choices we made/make. The film itself with its elliptical editing and amazing composition/sound track, Jóhann Gunnar Jóhannsson, embodied that concept, rewiring my brain as I experienced the film.
Dr. Liu reached the logical conclusion and then tossed it aside for the position that he *_wanted_* to believe.
It reminds me of a time in graduate school where a different lab head asked me to collect data using a speciized technique we'd developed to test his strongly held hypothesis. We ran the experiment and the results contradicted his hypothesis. A few months went by and then he shared a draft manuscript stating how our data supported his hypothesis. I then had to do extra work to convince him that his hypothesis needed some revision. 🤷♂️
Enlightening anecdote! (But I don't believe that's exactly what Dr Liu did here, but I'll rewatch for clarification)
@@TheNickarnett Rewatch about 0:25 into the video.. His following "but" affects determinism but not free will.
This is exactly what he did. Chaos/randomness does not lead to free will. If something is random, you had no control over it
I also found Liu's logic to be quite odd. He freely admits that nearly all personal decisions are deterministic but then asserts that there are outliers that demonstrate free will but never provides any coherent logical explanation or example. To me his position can be paraphrased as "Almost all decisions are deterministic except the few that aren't. These outliers are examples of free will because......society and chaos theory". Theses examples are essentially 2+2 = 5 bc reasons🤷
@@TheNickarnett Also at the end talking about the "line/god of the gaps" bit. When he says the shooter made the decision to write the note, completely ignoring that that "decision" was just another output based on all of that guys prior inputs. Charles talks about that "1% of the time when you can use free will" rather than just react. But there's really nothing different about that 1% of the time other than the time limit being less of a limiting factor, letting your brain take more time to mull over its "choice", but the inputs are still there determining that choice. He's confusing "time to decide" with "actually CHOOSING".
Sometimes I just get excited when I get the notification.. running from work to watch the full video..I don't even know which video I have missed😅😅..totally brilliant
Me too. I could watch, debate, and think about Star Talk all day! I love it!
love when Chuck is on StarTalk
Yeah that discussion absolutely needs more points of view. I recommend reading David Hawkins and you will learn the answer really is yes, we do have free will (mainly in choosing whether to do things out of self-interest or to help others) and no, we should not punish people making wrong decisions anyhow because they will punish themselves (or "the universe" will punish them, if you will).
Neil’s position - that we have gradually found biological reasons for behaviors, and pushed the line for free will back over time again and again for various behaviors, and so we should be compassionate rather than judgmental - is basically the thesis of the book Determined by Robert Sapolsky, a previous StarTalk guest.
It's a very common view among many scientists, I have come across very few accomplished scientists who believe in free will, did you actually have a point?
My point was, “if you liked this discussion, search for the Star Talk episode with Sapolsky for a lot more of it.”
@@jackwhitbread4583 Yes, Poo Poo Point
As soon as Neil brought up the epilepsy point, I could tell immediately that Sapolsky had a huge impact on his thinking. Sapolsky is an awesome guy, so that was great to see.
Neil, a great anthropological commentary on what you guys are talking about in the context of psychiatric illness and society’s response to it. The second chapter of Crazy Like Us talks about the emotional impact of free will and religious redetermination on the course of illness. It’s very informative.
An interesting take on free will when it comes to people is that most work to eliminate it through the practice of a hobby or their work. I've noticed that when I practice and study tablature on my guitar and become proficient in it, I no longer have to think about it when I play, my hands just do what I've trained them to do. In essence, its become "second nature" it's difficult to consciously make mistakes when you've worked toward perfection. You've essentially eliminated free will through practice. It's most people's desire to become so good at a job that they no longer have to think about it. Others achieve this without thinking about it solely through repetition, all of humanity is collectively working towards the elimination of their own free will by just living.
Very impressed with Luis’ responses
I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. This is the topic that got me into journaling. I come back to it every so often and I still haven’t come to a conclusion. But, I like their final thoughts-it doesn’t have to be absolute in either direction. Thank you having and sharing this discussion. 🙏🏼
This whole discussion feels so primitive if you have understood the "Karma Theory".. The concept of Sanchita Karma, Prarabdha Karma[ Druda Prarabdha Karma(Fate-that which cannot be changed), Adruda Prarabdha Karma( certain destined circumstances where Free will can be asserted easily] and Druda-Adruda Prarabdha Karma(Alterable destiny with limited success)) and Kriyamāṇa Karma/Aagāmi karma.
I think there are two interesting case points that don’t get explored enough when talking about this. It seems we focus a lot on free will as it applies to one fully developed person. Okay, so how about a new born? What data predicates the exploration and ambulation of a child? Is that only a genetic disposition? Secondly, what about free will of the human collective? If every constituent part of the human collective has some level of free will, we would expect to see this on a larger scale. Is it free will that the whole scientific community generally gave up on Ether once a better explanation was proposed? Was it free will that a country benefiting from slavery also decided to end it? Was it free will that gave women the right to vote?
The idea that a powerful system might give up some level of power to reach a more equitable state, and that a child with no predicate information gravitates towards one thing or another are the best cases of free will. However like God, there won’t be definitive proof or proof against in the foreseeable future - all we can do is use inductive reasoning to try and figure out which is more likely.
I don’t think there digging deep enough here. The question is are we making any decisions at all? Does my conscious thought come first or is the thought or action already formulated and in action then we consciously observe it and are then tricked into believing we made that happen? I believe our conscious experience is only a byproduct of our massively complex brain system making the decisions and those decisions are just chemical reaction to the stimulus coming in.
@@rand0mletters1 I don't understand your point. People who did good things in history did it for themselves. I don't believe in true altruism. Every altruistic act of a person is a selfish act because doing something good for others makes them feel good. A baby gravitating towards some specific thing is just a result of genes, evolution, environment and at the most basic level just a result of physics, chemistry and mathematics.
@@vernerireinikainen200 right what you postulate about altruism is true maybe of the individual person, this is the selfish gene explanation of Richard Dawkins. However, there are higher order human activities, like countries, towns etc. Some things countries have done ‘altruistically’ can’t be said to have been done to their own benefit. How do you explain these higher order decisions from an evolutionary point of view.
Absolute fascinating topic, please discuss it further
A topic that has been discussed for thousands of years, and -- assuming humanity would somehow still go on -- would _still_ be discussed for thousands of years more.
At its core it seems like a person's free will regarding making decisions in the face of an _unknown_ situation is pretty much a game of probabilities. When faced with _known_ situations, a person's behaviour and probable action would be easy to guess. Facing the unknown however...