@@travisbergen2223 Your soul is purely immaterial but, operates through the your brain, there are material and immaterial parts of the intellect which operates through the brain and is part of the soul, a material part of the intellect is seen in alzheimers patients, they're intellect looses the ability of the cogitative power to make relations between the things they know and their knew stimuli, you see your a woman, your brain checks with your memory who this woman is in relationship to you and it realizes it is your mother and so you interact with her following that fact, an alzheimers patient is unable to make that same relations, where they do not realize it is their mother and so cannot interact with her in that way, often alzheimers patients are able to use immaterial faculties of the intellect (the soul part) to understand that they are close to a person, or know them despite the fact that science says they do not have the machinery to do this in their brains. A part of you that is purely immaterial is your will, that is what the video describes as proved by Thomas Aquinas. You can damage these parts of yourself (immaterial intellect and will) but, no one else can because they are only damaged by the effect of your own choices (Aristotle talks about this in the Nicomachean ethics), if you make many bad choices you become conditioned to the making of bad choices and vice versa with good choices.
@@travisbergen2223I like to think the correlation between Consciousness and Brain as akin to car and road. Road can be damaged (I.e., Brain Damage) But this doesn't mean car is damaged (I.e., Consciousness/Soul) Car would only change it's path on a broken road, Wouldn't it? So yea, Basically, Consciousness can read brain path and when brain is damaged, It only behaves differently because path is damaged, Similarly how car follows different path when road is broken. Although, This analogy kind of seem dumb but this is the best analogy that comes to my mind as of now to explain correlation between consciousness and brain.
Out of the millions of people that have enternet it always amazes me that there arent way more comments. And what are the odds that we just happen to exist just as technology is just starting to really take off in the last 100 years or so.
Could you give me the source for that meditative collapse of a wave function? It seemed very interesting to me, and I would like to know the background of meditation they used.
I found the study. And the author actually mentioned that one explanation was an entanglement of the particles. But the tests were also a bit sketchy for my taste. Mainly because they were very open and honest, but were only investigating the z-score of sessions. So the raw data is hidden in a bunch of math jargon that most people shouldn’t bother to read. I’ll summarize it for you. Delta brain waves, the kind in relaxed meditative states, had the most impact on changing the individual effects of the double slit experiment. This impact was incredibly below the average (or supposedly expected) values. They did not measure the kind of meditation required, but stated that it is possible that different practices yield different results. But the instructions were to clearly and imaginatively focus one’s attention on the device to influence its results. What application does this have in your life? Probably not much, except maybe possible telepathy in the future. But that’s just my idea.
The human collapsing the wave function would mean that if our earth stopped existing or was eaten by the sun then the entire universe would cease to exist
liked the bulk of the video, but the reason the double slit experiment was like that was the fact that in order to observe the electrons, they had to physically interact with them. Sort of like how you have to have light hit your eyes to see, they needed to physically interact with the photons, thus causing different results.
I greatly appreciate your videos and the work you put into them. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on the composition of the inner man, would you say that man is dichotomous? Trichotomous? Something else?
Overall agree with this video, a couple things to note is that the double slit experiment dates back to 1909 according to Wikipedia, 1961 was the first time particles other than electrons were used. Second, science does not prove anything ever, so it can't be the case the QM proved that consciousness collaspes the wave function. Whether or not consciousness plays a roll is heavily debated. I also thought that individuals with mental disabilities were like pilots controlling a plane with damaged equipment, the plane doesn't do exactly what you intend, but the pilot is still there intact.
@@Esch-a-ton3 My understanding of science is that when theories are tested, the attempt is to falsify the theory not to prove it. If a test fails to falsely the theory then the theory gains confidence. The canonical example is Newtonian gravity. Early experiments of Newtonian gravity failed to falsify the theory. However it would have been incorrect to conclude that Newtonian gravity was precise since later it was found to be an approximation to a more general theory. Science is best when it stays humble. Only mathematicians prove things.
The word u lookin for is deductive. We understand ourselves, by understanding what we are not… but the QM/observer effect according to the internet is vague, but implys more than just observation…
Here is the actual study. d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/99431266/0feeb5216d399fb04e93e84faeef99fbe602-libre.pdf?1678004685=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConsciousness_and_the_double_slit_interf.pdf&Expires=1719283982&Signature=gYsY6ArsT1K-vCsQAzJe4ovfYweuLdWgIqiEsZhQl3dZOsxlbsVjkZx9n7jSXtXuapERbeCLxhXSsEjyz-Es0ysqgBl3LpWQ5MVVp25f1vUEvbpB7I7GP8ZVqmB2qQhHACH19gxdtqRBuekO~K5I-yNzcfSyY3t1YWPSGq3hgxDEZRmwnI64JepGPeJteMsz4E3PJzyfMOjtrp1Oc4urMpCrIBTXljeJyqHy1TEC9dVpN97lW80cBXpZq84Skz8kvGEDStBrDn~LAsVOWYhPVcUmrT9LfnZrUmL4fG6DKYWFENnJ1pTrsO~GbkPL6OnPkmL6FR0L2js488RCqKzTdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Well that's a good question, but in hylomorphic dualism, the soul is not damaged by its ability to receive and interact with the world is diminished because it's medium is the Brain.
The measurement is an interference which localises a particle meaning it doesn’t have a variable position ie not a wave and this is how its position is measured. Then Heisenberg principle changes the particle back to a wave state after the interference. An electron does not exist in the human imagination.
Your Chinese brain is a flawed analogy. It's an oversimplification of an extremely complex system. On top of that you use nodes that already has consciousness to try and make your point. The analogy also doesn't take into account self-preservation into about for micro-organisms. It is also a vastly underpower system compared to the brain 1.4 billion Vs 100 trillion. We have no concept of what would happen if we arranged that many people. (I still believe it won't produce a new consciousness) You are trying to reduce consciousness to one or two components when in reality it is influenced by a ton of factors. Free will is not the only thing that determines what we do. We are a programed machine. Free will is also not a trump all when it comes to behavior and biology. Free will is more like a rudder on a massive ship. You might be able to direct where you want to go but the is all based on a functioning ship and crew with a charter. Without those free will is just instant gratification and that is based on hormones. Neural networks aren't formed by free will. It is formed by repeated behavior. That is why we are able to force behavior in others (Humans and animals). You cannot will a Neural network into existence on will alone. The free will only directs the ship to cut a new path and to tread it out. Hope is a metaphysical concept which is directly tied to our real world experience. Our ability to picture a future gives us the ability to formulate a perceived experience which we can work towards. (steer the ship) But that is all still based on a real world, physical experience that we desire. Which is a domain determined by hormones. You cannot take each aspect and try to debunk it as a single factor. All factors interplay with each other to determine the outcome. We are not just one of those things at a time. We are all of those things at all times. Every time you make a conclusion as to why materialism fails you disregard the things that would actually point towards materialism. Nodes in a network can and never will function as individuals in a greater system. If you think consciousness is exclusive to humans then how does other animals function? If you think consciousness forms as a byproduct of a complex detection system then consciousness is a scale and not a binary switch.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, thoughtfully. I should have done a better job defining what I mean by “consciousness.” I agree at least everything living has some level of consciousness, however human consciousness surpasses this by being able to abstract concepts into universals without having to directly experience them. Our linguistics showcases this and science as a whole. So what results in consciousness? More complexity? If neurons are behind consciousness then, dogs should have the same level of consciousness we have because they same neurons in my brain are in their brain. You can say well they don't have nearly as many, but elephants have 257 billion as opposed to our 16 billion so that can’t be it either. If I take a Lego piece what do I need to make it conscious? Add more pieces making it more complex? Maybe so many that it's almost infinitely complex? Maybe make them out of flesh? Hook them up to an electrical source? Hope has to do with the future, and its impossible to experience things in the future because by definition we haven't experienced it, so therefore hope is actual the anti-thesis of a lived experience because it has to do of developing a future outcome IN SPITE OF current experience. In regards to neural networks your right. but those networks can be re routed by freewill.. If they couldn't, as stated in the video, there would be zero cases of people quiting addictions because the neural network towards the addiction would only get stronger as the only thing causing the person to go towards the addiction would be brain chemistry. Instead when people quit, we see them ignore brain chemistry by way of immaterial hypotheticals that convince them to quit… I.e. Non physical/ non sensory.
Hey man, with all due respect, it really seems like you don’t understand nearly enough about neuroscience to make claims like this. The cilantro and water examples from the video demonstrate that pretty well. You are either ignoring or underestimating the unfathomable complexity of brains. It’s very reasonable for a physicalist to think that a surprise bucket of water will have a different effect than a pre-planned shower. Why? Because the nervous system is so complex that it can cause a variety of dispositions in one individual - I know, wild! If one person is more ticklish than another, are they just willing themselves to be that way? It’s the “same stimulus” right? No! Do you actually know what stimulus means? It’s very complicated, and two stimuli being called the “same” does not mean that the exact same chain and sequence of chemical reactions must occur. Everyone’s body is different every second of every day, it’s not like we’re rocks 😂 we are (according to a physicalist) complicated ever-changing physical objects Also FYI it’s not “Philosophy of Science of Mind.” Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science are independent fields. You gotta do more research before you post vids like this man this is practically misinformation 🤦♂️ How are you gonna say this is “the latest information in The Philosophy of Science of Mind” (again: not the name of any significant branch of philosophy) when the Mind-Body problem has been around since Plato?! The fact that you present this like it’s something only a select few academic elites know about is astonishing. The Mary’s Room thought experiment shows up in Ex Machina: a movie that made $36.8 million in theaters 😂 it’s pretty well-known to the public man trust me I really appreciate that you had the curiosity to learn about this, but you have to delve deeper and do your due diligence with this type of stuff. This vid is a quintessential example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I sincerely hope (for your own sake) that you come around to realizing that. It genuinely appears like you skimmed a few internet/wikipedia articles for 15-30 minutes, decided who was right and who was wrong, then made this video. This multi-millennia debate is a bit more complicated than that :/
@@Esch-a-ton32 minutes in you gobsmack me with antiscience reasoning that you should at least be trying to provide evidence for. At least try to not use your misunderstanding as a proof for your own argument
I would like to write a commentary on the entirety of this video. Before I do I would just like to clarify that I have no vendetta against you as a creator or your personal views. Paragraph 1: Its could be said that we in fact are nothing but chemicals, according to most confirmed science. Paragraph 2: According to what I have understood from the example you have given; regarding China's population using guns, it may be seen as inconsistent. Individuals do not work in the same way as cells. The neural network is highly evolved and is spread throughout the entire human body. The cells are not sentient, but are a mode of sentience. the example of humans could be correct in some way if we were connected with the earth and the earth were a living, breathing organism. Paragraph 3: Humans are learning beings, who take things into contexts differently; according to what they have learnt, their genetics, childhood experiences and other possible stimuli. A masochist has learnt differently than another; who experiences nothing but pain. genetics play their part in this too, along with their childhood and other experiences; as mentioned prior. Same is for Cilantro. Paragraph 4: When somebody throws water at you, it will obviously trigger a flight or flight response; since somebody is literally "dousing" you with water, baths are self chosen and do not do so. Throwing water is an assault, which anybody would be triggered by. "Will" are the decisions we make; from our past learnt experiences. While yes, we are in control of what we choose, we choose based on the premise of what we have learnt. How am I typing this right now? because due to my past experiences of delving in philosophical data, I have not only learnt about the idea of self will, and what "will" is itself, but due to my evolution, and the evolution of the human species till this point, we have developed a self-consciousness which has allowed us to question and be aware of affairs such as this. Paragraph 5: As I've mentioned in my argument against paragraph four, we have evolved to be aware of affairs such as this. Just because we are self -conscious about something does not mean that we can immediately put it on a huge pin on this fact, and tie a red string to it being "divine" or "immaterial". We are aware of neuroplasticity, and we are taking advantage of that awareness by putting it to use. Paragraph 6: "Apart from childhood experiences, traumas in adulthood also influence our hope. Loss of a loved one, separation, emotional or psychological violence in relationships or friendships, financial difficulties, bankruptcy, unemployment, serious illness - all of these can affect our hope. Even if you are a naturally hopeful person, it is normal to lose hope after a severe experience. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, hope is a cognitive process. It is something we can achieve by working on it, by training our minds." This paragraph explicitly states that prior learnt experiences affect people's perspectives of hope, and faith. These feelings are derived from our evolving as a race. as I've said before, these things do not imply any "divineness". As for love, love is; in simple word, literally created so that we can reproduce. and I know lots of people are going to say "but what about familial love?" Familial love is love evolved from the care tribes used to take of their residents. We have come a very long way from that age. "For example, most genes that have undergone recent evolution are associated with smell, reproduction, brain development, skin pigmentation and the way the immune system protects against pathogens." Paragraph 7: The apples mentioned are just posing as a mere example. Solutions are derived from problems. When the apple fell on Isaac, thats when he had to find a solution to a problem which he interpreted due to his past experiences. Isaac didn't just immediately know that. Paragraph 8: Thomas Aquinas did not have any proof for the statements he made. he believed in the divine and there is no chance that he performed a lobotomy in the year 1250 determining that this is true. Dementia is a mental illness of decay. and there are other that work in a similar way, with the points I have given regarding the "immaterial" substances mentioned in the video prior and Thomas's "guessing game' there is no way we can take his word seriously. Paragraph 9: A basic wikipedia search will show that Wilder's observations had no intention of uncovering some type of "true will" or anything of the latter in this experiment. He only intended to see how the location in the mind worked. and even with this, his hypothesis was revised way back in 1970. Paragraph 10: It is not observation which affects the quantum particle, but the machine or magnets it is passed through in the experiment. The quantum particle is not multiple things at once, and does not exist in multiple states at once. it exists on a spectrum which is difficult to grasp. I would recommend Wikipedia for a more clear answer, and as well as The Science Asylum, who gave an amazing explanation on this affair. The point is, our consciousness does not affect anything. Paragraph 11: I am not promoting the idea that there is nothing but us Humans in this lonely universe. I do believe that there is probably an almighty being who is out of anything we as humans can imagine or pervcieve, and who we could refer to as a "god" in our eyes. And I also strongly believe the there are many things that are considered supernatural and exist, such as Djinns. But that does not change the fact that no matter what exists, we are made of atoms, and are confined by chemical processes. And just because that is true doesnt mean that reality could be nothing but a bleak, lonely sine wave. Reality is reality. It just is. "I think, there for I am." .
Just pay attention and it becomes apparent constantly that we share a mind. Either naturally or artificially, telepathy exists... I believe in both. It's so insane to think of yourself as separate victim against the entire universe... But that's part of it I guess.
Being able to collapse the wave function in your mind doesn’t make sense. Do you know what that imagination would look like. It would just be a still particle…
Bruh... Consciousness is so simple you can't even over-complicate it. Literally we have free will. So does everything outside of us. Sure we may get mad, and we want to punch someone. However, you have the choice to do so, or not do so. You seeing it yet? Free will is guided chance. You can guide yourself to do something with the chance of a result happening. People over-complicate everything. Know yourself and you will know other's. People really need to be more introspective: especially scientists. They look too much into the outside world for answers that can be easily solved looking and feeling and experiencing within. Looking outside of ourselves can only tell you the blocks. Looking into yourself will show you the spirit. Looking at both will give you what's needed for understanding how everything runs. People will never wake-up without both inquiries.
The types of choices people make all depend on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves. And how wise, how caring and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. So if someone happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to be wise and caring and to have good control over themselves then they will not punch someone unless there's a good enough reason to punch someone. But if someone unfortunately happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to not be very wise and to not be very caring and to not have very much control over themselves, then they might punch someone just because they feel like it.
a person that's wise and caring and in good enough control over themselves would never play the knock out game. But someone that's not those ways would be just fine with playing the knock out game.
@@kayamann321 Free will is a paradox just like everything else that is worth knowing. The present is the cause and also the effect. If it was illusory, it would require a first cause, which is ridiculous... But so is eternity. It's all ridiculous and not answerable.
People are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life. For example hypothetically if you would have been born with the type of genetics that caused you to have down syndrome and if you would have had other types of life experiences then those things would have forced you to think and do other types of things throughout your life. Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life and the only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible.
While, genetics play a huge role in influence on a decision, they don’t cause the decision. If they did, every single person pre-disposed to alcoholism would be an alcoholic however, that’s not the case. There are countless specific genes, as arbitrary as a taste for cilantro that can be present in a person, yet not manifest. By saying that we have ABSOLUTE free will is not what I mean by free will. Obviously we don’t have complete say over every aspect of our lives. Yet, we do have say over how we act or what we accept or reject given our circumstances.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Genetics just play a role in what people think and do, but both the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that someone happens to have is what forces them to think and do the types of things that they think and do throughout their life. For example hitler unfortunately happened to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that forced him to choose to do horrible things. And hypothetically if he would have been born with another type of genetics, like for example if he would have been born with the type of genetics that caused him to have williams syndrome and if he would have had other types of life experiences then those things would have forced him to think and do other types of things throughout his life and that wouldn't have been his fault that he existed and happened to be that way either.
@@Esch-a-ton3 People are also not free to believe whatever they want to. People are only able to believe in the things that they become convinced of being true and real.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The types of choices people make all depend on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves. And how wise, how caring and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. So if someone happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to be wise and caring and to have good control over themselves then they will not punch someone unless there's a good enough reason to punch someone. But if someone unfortunately happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to not be very wise and to not be very caring and to not have very much control over themselves, then they might punch someone just because they feel like it.
@@Esch-a-ton3 a person that's wise and caring and in good enough control over themselves would never play the knock out game. But someone that's not those ways would be just fine with playing the knock out game.
There are too many causes and conditions to say that a will is free, or conscious decision is free. Not only the causes and conditions of the present moment, but the innumerable causes and conditions of the past. Free will is also unbiblical.
I’m at 5:10 you say free will exist because addicts can quit smoking or whatever addiction, but you than say this is because of hope love and faith, and than associate it with “good” words like beauty or goodness, so what was war? Further more you state that logic was another way to argue against materialism, however I’d discount this as logic is taking one’s own perspective or stance on a subject and than applying to what you yourself has already seen or experienced in order to verify or invalidate the claim in your own mind. Experiences are tangable things, they did happen, at least that way in that persons mind. Of course you can argue schizophrenia, but when that person than collects a multitude of accounts that than either verify or discredit the claim or claims made they get a more accurate picture of what happened, of course unless the case was that they did see what happened correctly but everyone else had the wrong story, but that wrong story became truth and than later history, however that is another topic
If logic is based on ones personally experience a square could be a circle to me and not to you. Up could be down. 2+2 could equal 5 That's an easy one, logic isn't subjective its objectives. And what does war have to do it? Your not addressing the argument that if all we were was Brian chemistry no one could quit their addiction.
You also say “same neural receptors” but they’re not, they are two neural receptors in two different people, which means in order for your idea to work, they would have to live the exact same life with their brain firing the exact same way and experience the world from the exact same perspective, and I’m 1:14 in and this is the second contradiction you’ve made
The neurons in my brain are the same neurons in your brain materially. If your alluding to the fact that the experience of a live lived affects the brain, then that's not materialism because something non physical influences the workings of the brain.
It's all physicall deep to cells and DNA,.. also everything we dwell on is a projection of what we perceive and perceived with our 5 senses.. As Camus say the mission of the absurd man is to experience and describe not to solve!! There is no freewill!
For you to even make that claim, negates it. Because if we don’t have freewill that means you’ve never perceived it which means you can’t dwell on it. Also, if you are correct humans have no capacity for knowledge because all scientific inquiry would be a result of physics and you couldn’t do anything to get a right or wrong answer because it’s all determined by physics. Nothing can be solved if all our actions are the result of mere physics…So based off your claim, knowledge is impossible yet we do have knowledge, so unfortunately, it’s false.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Everything is physical deep to the axioms of consciousness.. we don't have control over the things that come our way.. Even in the most doubtful moments of our lives we already did make the choice..
@@ionfeld so our genes figure everything out? How do you know that? If you’re making that assumption based off the physics of genetics that there’s no way to tell if that assumption is actually right or wrong.
"If take the population of China and arrange them like a neural network [...] would this lead to a unified consciousness?" Johnathon Pageau has entered the chat.
The only will that is free is the will of God, we dont have any ounce of free will. Lets take into consideration the idealistic perspective, that Consciousness is the root of the physical world, and everything is inside consciousness. If we had free will, and free will was a core ability of consciousness we could create physical objects and things just with will power, since we cant, that means we dont have free will.
It’s not our consciousness that is the root of the physical world. That’s a very weird train of thought I have to say… not sure if you’re a Christian and your basis for God is abrahamic or if you’re a sort of pantheist. But 1 Timothy states God wills all men to be saved, if we had no free will then all men would be saved.
If you have to choose jesus and make the decision to be a Christian then, according to christianity, you have free will. Goes the same for any religion at all that had any sense of conversion. And if that's not the case and you are right then either all men would be "saved" as the original poster has said above or the Christian god pre determines innocent people before they're born to go to hell which would make it a real POS.
So my question than is, how does that make any sense at all bro. If you could turn a square into a triangle we have free will? But the triangle would still feel like a square, because that’s what it is. You can form atoms to make a different shape and still have the same shape.
Which ones? A argument that says the brain is controlled by chemical hormones and the fact that an addict can ignore those hormones and quit the addiction is baseless. Its empirical.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Not sure what you mean. The brain is a chemical computer of sorts, but it's main conscious role is to respond to external stimuli. The balance of "chemicals" sometimes affects the outcome but this often isn't the main driver of our thoughts.
@@Esch-a-ton3 "then it's not all material" - is an assertion. And I'm not sure you really know what you mean, it isn't clear to me. You ask where are your baseless asseretions. Well for example you talk early on about different responses to the same "receptors" as if they are unexplainable. You just assert that the receptors are the same, but receptors do differ in structure between individuals, resulting in different responses between individuals. This is a material ie physical difference. You just gloss over this inconvenient fact, failing to acknowledge that such real differences in out brain structure could account for differences in behaviours and experiences. I could go on, but from where I stand, I just see a succession of grand statements using vague, undefined terms and. in these days of solid scientific research and information, a disappointing lack of supporting data.
@@Esch-a-ton3 I think it’s fine as long as it’s proven evidence and facts behind it. But I would never strictly trust a philosopher when it come to science.
The institution of science as we know it is perpetuated by the same institutions that deceive the world for profit. Science keeps the deception in place.
@DaRkStAr317 there is no fully grounded scientific understanding of the human consciousness, so what do you do? You cant deny consciousness because you are experiencing it right now. Humans historically will try to rationalize in what is the collective unknown, that is why we turn to philosophy.
I would like to write a commentary on the entirety of this video. Before I do I would just like to clarify that I have no vendetta against you as a creator or your personal views. Paragraph 1: Its could be said that we in fact are nothing but chemicals, according to most confirmed science. Paragraph 2: According to what I have understood from the example you have given; regarding China's population using guns, it may be seen as inconsistent. Individuals do not work in the same way as cells. The neural network is highly evolved and is spread throughout the entire human body. The cells are not sentient, but are a mode of sentience. the example of humans could be correct in some way if we were connected with the earth and the earth were a living, breathing organism. Paragraph 3: Humans are learning beings, who take things into contexts differently; according to what they have learnt, their genetics, childhood experiences and other possible stimuli. A masochist has learnt differently than another; who experiences nothing but pain. genetics play their part in this too, along with their childhood and other experiences; as mentioned prior. Same is for Cilantro. Paragraph 4: When somebody throws water at you, it will obviously trigger a flight or flight response; since somebody is literally "dousing" you with water, baths are self chosen and do not do so. Throwing water is an assault, which anybody would be triggered by. "Will" are the decisions we make; from our past learnt experiences. While yes, we are in control of what we choose, we choose based on the premise of what we have learnt. How am I typing this right now? because due to my past experiences of delving in philosophical data, I have not only learnt about the idea of self will, and what "will" is itself, but due to my evolution, and the evolution of the human species till this point, we have developed a self-consciousness which has allowed us to question and be aware of affairs such as this. Paragraph 5: As I've mentioned in my argument against paragraph four, we have evolved to be aware of affairs such as this. Just because we are self -conscious about something does not mean that we can immediately put it on a huge pin on this fact, and tie a red string to it being "divine" or "immaterial". We are aware of neuroplasticity, and we are taking advantage of that awareness by putting it to use. Paragraph 6: "Apart from childhood experiences, traumas in adulthood also influence our hope. Loss of a loved one, separation, emotional or psychological violence in relationships or friendships, financial difficulties, bankruptcy, unemployment, serious illness - all of these can affect our hope. Even if you are a naturally hopeful person, it is normal to lose hope after a severe experience. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, hope is a cognitive process. It is something we can achieve by working on it, by training our minds." This paragraph explicitly states that prior learnt experiences affect people's perspectives of hope, and faith. These feelings are derived from our evolving as a race. as I've said before, these things do not imply any "divineness". As for love, love is; in simple word, literally created so that we can reproduce. and I know lots of people are going to say "but what about familial love?" Familial love is love evolved from the care tribes used to take of their residents. We have come a very long way from that age. "For example, most genes that have undergone recent evolution are associated with smell, reproduction, brain development, skin pigmentation and the way the immune system protects against pathogens." Paragraph 7: The apples mentioned are just posing as a mere example. Solutions are derived from problems. When the apple fell on Isaac, thats when he had to find a solution to a problem which he interpreted due to his past experiences. Isaac didn't just immediately know that. Paragraph 8: Thomas Aquinas did not have any proof for the statements he made. he believed in the divine and there is no chance that he performed a lobotomy in the year 1250 determining that this is true. Dementia is a mental illness of decay. and there are other that work in a similar way, with the points I have given regarding the "immaterial" substances mentioned in the video prior and Thomas's "guessing game' there is no way we can take his word seriously. Paragraph 9: A basic wikipedia search will show that Wilder's observations had no intention of uncovering some type of "true will" or anything of the latter in this experiment. He only intended to see how the location in the mind worked. and even with this, his hypothesis was revised way back in 1970. Paragraph 10: It is not observation which affects the quantum particle, but the machine or magnets it is passed through in the experiment. The quantum particle is not multiple things at once, and does not exist in multiple states at once. it exists on a spectrum which is difficult to grasp. I would recommend Wikipedia for a more clear answer, and as well as The Science Asylum, who gave an amazing explanation on this affair. The point is, our consciousness does not affect anything. Paragraph 11: I am not promoting the idea that there is nothing but us Humans in this lonely universe. I do believe that there is probably an almighty being who is out of anything we as humans can imagine or pervcieve, and who we could refer to as a "god" in our eyes. And I also strongly believe the there are many things that are considered supernatural and exist, such as Djinns. But that does not change the fact that no matter what exists, we are made of atoms, and are confined by chemical processes. And just because that is true doesnt mean that reality could be nothing but a bleak, lonely sine wave. Reality is reality. It just is. "I think, therefore I am." .
Seems to me that we are souls piloting meat mechs on a miraculous rock being yeeted through space, so id say you aint wrong
🤣
If we have souls that are attached to a physical body would our soul be damaged by brain injury for eternity or whats going on there?
@@travisbergen2223 Your soul is purely immaterial but, operates through the your brain, there are material and immaterial parts of the intellect which operates through the brain and is part of the soul, a material part of the intellect is seen in alzheimers patients, they're intellect looses the ability of the cogitative power to make relations between the things they know and their knew stimuli, you see your a woman, your brain checks with your memory who this woman is in relationship to you and it realizes it is your mother and so you interact with her following that fact, an alzheimers patient is unable to make that same relations, where they do not realize it is their mother and so cannot interact with her in that way, often alzheimers patients are able to use immaterial faculties of the intellect (the soul part) to understand that they are close to a person, or know them despite the fact that science says they do not have the machinery to do this in their brains. A part of you that is purely immaterial is your will, that is what the video describes as proved by Thomas Aquinas. You can damage these parts of yourself (immaterial intellect and will) but, no one else can because they are only damaged by the effect of your own choices (Aristotle talks about this in the Nicomachean ethics), if you make many bad choices you become conditioned to the making of bad choices and vice versa with good choices.
@@travisbergen2223I like to think the correlation between Consciousness and Brain as akin to car and road. Road can be damaged (I.e., Brain Damage) But this doesn't mean car is damaged (I.e., Consciousness/Soul) Car would only change it's path on a broken road, Wouldn't it? So yea, Basically, Consciousness can read brain path and when brain is damaged, It only behaves differently because path is damaged, Similarly how car follows different path when road is broken. Although, This analogy kind of seem dumb but this is the best analogy that comes to my mind as of now to explain correlation between consciousness and brain.
your channel is amazing bro
Thanks, brotha 🙏🏽
Out of the millions of people that have enternet it always amazes me that there arent way more comments. And what are the odds that we just happen to exist just as technology is just starting to really take off in the last 100 years or so.
#preach
Are you sure it hadn’t taken off before then? Do not be so certain of yourself, the were WMD’s in WW1 for example.
@@orangepotato9188 which still fits into the last 100 years. So
Could you give me the source for that meditative collapse of a wave function? It seemed very interesting to me, and I would like to know the background of meditation they used.
I found the study. And the author actually mentioned that one explanation was an entanglement of the particles. But the tests were also a bit sketchy for my taste. Mainly because they were very open and honest, but were only investigating the z-score of sessions. So the raw data is hidden in a bunch of math jargon that most people shouldn’t bother to read.
I’ll summarize it for you. Delta brain waves, the kind in relaxed meditative states, had the most impact on changing the individual effects of the double slit experiment. This impact was incredibly below the average (or supposedly expected) values.
They did not measure the kind of meditation required, but stated that it is possible that different practices yield different results. But the instructions were to clearly and imaginatively focus one’s attention on the device to influence its results. What application does this have in your life? Probably not much, except maybe possible telepathy in the future. But that’s just my idea.
The human collapsing the wave function would mean that if our earth stopped existing or was eaten by the sun then the entire universe would cease to exist
liked the bulk of the video, but the reason the double slit experiment was like that was the fact that in order to observe the electrons, they had to physically interact with them. Sort of like how you have to have light hit your eyes to see, they needed to physically interact with the photons, thus causing different results.
I greatly appreciate your videos and the work you put into them.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on the composition of the inner man, would you say that man is dichotomous? Trichotomous? Something else?
Overall agree with this video, a couple things to note is that the double slit experiment dates back to 1909 according to Wikipedia, 1961 was the first time particles other than electrons were used. Second, science does not prove anything ever, so it can't be the case the QM proved that consciousness collaspes the wave function. Whether or not consciousness plays a roll is heavily debated. I also thought that individuals with mental disabilities were like pilots controlling a plane with damaged equipment, the plane doesn't do exactly what you intend, but the pilot is still there intact.
Glad we have some agreement. What do you mean science doesn't prove anything “ever.”?
@@Esch-a-ton3 My understanding of science is that when theories are tested, the attempt is to falsify the theory not to prove it. If a test fails to falsely the theory then the theory gains confidence. The canonical example is Newtonian gravity. Early experiments of Newtonian gravity failed to falsify the theory. However it would have been incorrect to conclude that Newtonian gravity was precise since later it was found to be an approximation to a more general theory. Science is best when it stays humble. Only mathematicians prove things.
The word u lookin for is deductive. We understand ourselves, by understanding what we are not… but the QM/observer effect according to the internet is vague, but implys more than just observation…
The self can not be a bunch of chemical reactions. The "I" is too simple to be material.
can i get the source for the meditation collapsing the wave function study please?
Of course. th-cam.com/video/nRSBaq3vAeY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=1Bq9uaPFU-QKR_Zg
Here is the talk.
Here is the actual study.
d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/99431266/0feeb5216d399fb04e93e84faeef99fbe602-libre.pdf?1678004685=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConsciousness_and_the_double_slit_interf.pdf&Expires=1719283982&Signature=gYsY6ArsT1K-vCsQAzJe4ovfYweuLdWgIqiEsZhQl3dZOsxlbsVjkZx9n7jSXtXuapERbeCLxhXSsEjyz-Es0ysqgBl3LpWQ5MVVp25f1vUEvbpB7I7GP8ZVqmB2qQhHACH19gxdtqRBuekO~K5I-yNzcfSyY3t1YWPSGq3hgxDEZRmwnI64JepGPeJteMsz4E3PJzyfMOjtrp1Oc4urMpCrIBTXljeJyqHy1TEC9dVpN97lW80cBXpZq84Skz8kvGEDStBrDn~LAsVOWYhPVcUmrT9LfnZrUmL4fG6DKYWFENnJ1pTrsO~GbkPL6OnPkmL6FR0L2js488RCqKzTdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
If we have souls that are attached to a physical body would our soul be damaged by brain injury for eternity or whats going on there?
Well that's a good question, but in hylomorphic dualism, the soul is not damaged by its ability to receive and interact with the world is diminished because it's medium is the Brain.
I feel like you could find your love for hot Cheetos in your brain.
The measurement is an interference which localises a particle meaning it doesn’t have a variable position ie not a wave and this is how its position is measured. Then Heisenberg principle changes the particle back to a wave state after the interference.
An electron does not exist in the human imagination.
6:15
so. . . basically Neo platonism. Great video, I love your TH-cam channel.
Thank you! Glad you enjoy it!
Your Chinese brain is a flawed analogy. It's an oversimplification of an extremely complex system. On top of that you use nodes that already has consciousness to try and make your point. The analogy also doesn't take into account self-preservation into about for micro-organisms. It is also a vastly underpower system compared to the brain 1.4 billion Vs 100 trillion. We have no concept of what would happen if we arranged that many people. (I still believe it won't produce a new consciousness)
You are trying to reduce consciousness to one or two components when in reality it is influenced by a ton of factors. Free will is not the only thing that determines what we do. We are a programed machine. Free will is also not a trump all when it comes to behavior and biology. Free will is more like a rudder on a massive ship. You might be able to direct where you want to go but the is all based on a functioning ship and crew with a charter. Without those free will is just instant gratification and that is based on hormones.
Neural networks aren't formed by free will. It is formed by repeated behavior. That is why we are able to force behavior in others (Humans and animals). You cannot will a Neural network into existence on will alone. The free will only directs the ship to cut a new path and to tread it out.
Hope is a metaphysical concept which is directly tied to our real world experience. Our ability to picture a future gives us the ability to formulate a perceived experience which we can work towards. (steer the ship) But that is all still based on a real world, physical experience that we desire. Which is a domain determined by hormones. You cannot take each aspect and try to debunk it as a single factor. All factors interplay with each other to determine the outcome. We are not just one of those things at a time. We are all of those things at all times.
Every time you make a conclusion as to why materialism fails you disregard the things that would actually point towards materialism. Nodes in a network can and never will function as individuals in a greater system.
If you think consciousness is exclusive to humans then how does other animals function?
If you think consciousness forms as a byproduct of a complex detection system then consciousness is a scale and not a binary switch.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, thoughtfully.
I should have done a better job defining what I mean by “consciousness.” I agree at least everything living has some level of consciousness, however human consciousness surpasses this by being able to abstract concepts into universals without having to directly experience them.
Our linguistics showcases this and science as a whole.
So what results in consciousness? More complexity?
If neurons are behind consciousness then, dogs should have the same level of consciousness we have because they same neurons in my brain are in their brain. You can say well they don't have nearly as many, but elephants have 257 billion as opposed to our 16 billion so that can’t be it either.
If I take a Lego piece what do I need to make it conscious? Add more pieces making it more complex? Maybe so many that it's almost infinitely complex? Maybe make them out of flesh? Hook them up to an electrical source?
Hope has to do with the future, and its impossible to experience things in the future because by definition we haven't experienced it, so therefore hope is actual the anti-thesis of a lived experience because it has to do of developing a future outcome IN SPITE OF current experience.
In regards to neural networks your right. but those networks can be re routed by freewill.. If they couldn't, as stated in the video, there would be zero cases of people quiting addictions because the neural network towards the addiction would only get stronger as the only thing causing the person to go towards the addiction would be brain chemistry. Instead when people quit, we see them ignore brain chemistry by way of immaterial hypotheticals that convince them to quit… I.e. Non physical/ non sensory.
Hey man, with all due respect, it really seems like you don’t understand nearly enough about neuroscience to make claims like this. The cilantro and water examples from the video demonstrate that pretty well.
You are either ignoring or underestimating the unfathomable complexity of brains. It’s very reasonable for a physicalist to think that a surprise bucket of water will have a different effect than a pre-planned shower. Why? Because the nervous system is so complex that it can cause a variety of dispositions in one individual - I know, wild!
If one person is more ticklish than another, are they just willing themselves to be that way? It’s the “same stimulus” right? No! Do you actually know what stimulus means? It’s very complicated, and two stimuli being called the “same” does not mean that the exact same chain and sequence of chemical reactions must occur. Everyone’s body is different every second of every day, it’s not like we’re rocks 😂 we are (according to a physicalist) complicated ever-changing physical objects
Also FYI it’s not “Philosophy of Science of Mind.” Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science are independent fields. You gotta do more research before you post vids like this man this is practically misinformation 🤦♂️
How are you gonna say this is “the latest information in The Philosophy of Science of Mind” (again: not the name of any significant branch of philosophy) when the Mind-Body problem has been around since Plato?! The fact that you present this like it’s something only a select few academic elites know about is astonishing. The Mary’s Room thought experiment shows up in Ex Machina: a movie that made $36.8 million in theaters 😂 it’s pretty well-known to the public man trust me
I really appreciate that you had the curiosity to learn about this, but you have to delve deeper and do your due diligence with this type of stuff. This vid is a quintessential example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I sincerely hope (for your own sake) that you come around to realizing that. It genuinely appears like you skimmed a few internet/wikipedia articles for 15-30 minutes, decided who was right and who was wrong, then made this video. This multi-millennia debate is a bit more complicated than that :/
@@Esch-a-ton32 minutes in you gobsmack me with antiscience reasoning that you should at least be trying to provide evidence for. At least try to not use your misunderstanding as a proof for your own argument
I call myself an organic Robot personally...
I would like to write a commentary on the entirety of this video. Before I do I would just like to clarify that I have no vendetta against you as a creator or your personal views.
Paragraph 1: Its could be said that we in fact are nothing but chemicals, according to most confirmed science.
Paragraph 2: According to what I have understood from the example you have given; regarding China's population using guns, it may be seen as inconsistent. Individuals do not work in the same way as cells. The neural network is highly evolved and is spread throughout the entire human body. The cells are not sentient, but are a mode of sentience. the example of humans could be correct in some way if we were connected with the earth and the earth were a living, breathing organism.
Paragraph 3: Humans are learning beings, who take things into contexts differently; according to what they have learnt, their genetics, childhood experiences and other possible stimuli. A masochist has learnt differently than another; who experiences nothing but pain. genetics play their part in this too, along with their childhood and other experiences; as mentioned prior. Same is for Cilantro.
Paragraph 4: When somebody throws water at you, it will obviously trigger a flight or flight response; since somebody is literally "dousing" you with water, baths are self chosen and do not do so. Throwing water is an assault, which anybody would be triggered by. "Will" are the decisions we make; from our past learnt experiences. While yes, we are in control of what we choose, we choose based on the premise of what we have learnt. How am I typing this right now? because due to my past experiences of delving in philosophical data, I have not only learnt about the idea of self will, and what "will" is itself, but due to my evolution, and the evolution of the human species till this point, we have developed a self-consciousness which has allowed us to question and be aware of affairs such as this.
Paragraph 5: As I've mentioned in my argument against paragraph four, we have evolved to be aware of affairs such as this. Just because we are self -conscious about something does not mean that we can immediately put it on a huge pin on this fact, and tie a red string to it being "divine" or "immaterial". We are aware of neuroplasticity, and we are taking advantage of that awareness by putting it to use.
Paragraph 6: "Apart from childhood experiences, traumas in adulthood also influence our hope. Loss of a loved one, separation, emotional or psychological violence in relationships or friendships, financial difficulties, bankruptcy, unemployment, serious illness - all of these can affect our hope. Even if you are a naturally hopeful person, it is normal to lose hope after a severe experience. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, hope is a cognitive process. It is something we can achieve by working on it, by training our minds."
This paragraph explicitly states that prior learnt experiences affect people's perspectives of hope, and faith. These feelings are derived from our evolving as a race. as I've said before, these things do not imply any "divineness". As for love, love is; in simple word, literally created so that we can reproduce. and I know lots of people are going to say "but what about familial love?" Familial love is love evolved from the care tribes used to take of their residents. We have come a very long way from that age.
"For example, most genes that have undergone recent evolution are associated with smell, reproduction, brain development, skin pigmentation and the way the immune system protects against pathogens."
Paragraph 7: The apples mentioned are just posing as a mere example. Solutions are derived from problems. When the apple fell on Isaac, thats when he had to find a solution to a problem which he interpreted due to his past experiences. Isaac didn't just immediately know that.
Paragraph 8: Thomas Aquinas did not have any proof for the statements he made. he believed in the divine and there is no chance that he performed a lobotomy in the year 1250 determining that this is true. Dementia is a mental illness of decay. and there are other that work in a similar way, with the points I have given regarding the "immaterial" substances mentioned in the video prior and Thomas's "guessing game' there is no way we can take his word seriously.
Paragraph 9: A basic wikipedia search will show that Wilder's observations had no intention of uncovering some type of "true will" or anything of the latter in this experiment. He only intended to see how the location in the mind worked. and even with this, his hypothesis was revised way back in 1970.
Paragraph 10: It is not observation which affects the quantum particle, but the machine or magnets it is passed through in the experiment. The quantum particle is not multiple things at once, and does not exist in multiple states at once. it exists on a spectrum which is difficult to grasp. I would recommend Wikipedia for a more clear answer, and as well as The Science Asylum, who gave an amazing explanation on this affair. The point is, our consciousness does not affect anything.
Paragraph 11: I am not promoting the idea that there is nothing but us Humans in this lonely universe. I do believe that there is probably an almighty being who is out of anything we as humans can imagine or pervcieve, and who we could refer to as a "god" in our eyes. And I also strongly believe the there are many things that are considered supernatural and exist, such as Djinns. But that does not change the fact that no matter what exists, we are made of atoms, and are confined by chemical processes. And just because that is true doesnt mean that reality could be nothing but a bleak, lonely sine wave. Reality is reality. It just is.
"I think, there for I am."
.
Just pay attention and it becomes apparent constantly that we share a mind. Either naturally or artificially, telepathy exists... I believe in both.
It's so insane to think of yourself as separate victim against the entire universe... But that's part of it I guess.
I yeet therefore I am
Yeetito, ergo sum
I'm a meat robot, but I'm not being yeeted.
Yeet, or be yeeted.
I’m yeet meat.
Being able to collapse the wave function in your mind doesn’t make sense. Do you know what that imagination would look like. It would just be a still particle…
Bruh... Consciousness is so simple you can't even over-complicate it. Literally we have free will. So does everything outside of us. Sure we may get mad, and we want to punch someone. However, you have the choice to do so, or not do so. You seeing it yet? Free will is guided chance. You can guide yourself to do something with the chance of a result happening. People over-complicate everything. Know yourself and you will know other's. People really need to be more introspective: especially scientists. They look too much into the outside world for answers that can be easily solved looking and feeling and experiencing within. Looking outside of ourselves can only tell you the blocks. Looking into yourself will show you the spirit. Looking at both will give you what's needed for understanding how everything runs. People will never wake-up without both inquiries.
The types of choices people make all depend on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves.
And how wise, how caring and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. So if someone happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to be wise and caring and to have good control over themselves then they will not punch someone unless there's a good enough reason to punch someone. But if someone unfortunately happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to not be very wise and to not be very caring and to not have very much control over themselves, then they might punch someone just because they feel like it.
a person that's wise and caring and in good enough control over themselves would never play the knock out game. But someone that's not those ways would be just fine with playing the knock out game.
Bruh, it’s simple. Free will is an illusion. Don’t over complicate it.
@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn I is that how it works everywhere?
@@kayamann321 Free will is a paradox just like everything else that is worth knowing. The present is the cause and also the effect. If it was illusory, it would require a first cause, which is ridiculous... But so is eternity. It's all ridiculous and not answerable.
This video title is great 😂
new like and sub. great work, good quality thoughtful, deserves more subs
Much appreciated!
Will of the gaps?😂
"so what you're saying is......there's a chance?!" lOl
but so, how is today's science adapting and advancing with these findings, #or.....?
I’d look up Donald Hoffman. Probably the leading intellectual in this field.
@@Esch-a-ton3 👌
People are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life.
For example hypothetically if you would have been born with the type of genetics that caused you to have down syndrome and if you would have had other types of life experiences then those things would have forced you to think and do other types of things throughout your life.
Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life and the only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible.
While, genetics play a huge role in influence on a decision, they don’t cause the decision. If they did, every single person pre-disposed to alcoholism would be an alcoholic however, that’s not the case. There are countless specific genes, as arbitrary as a taste for cilantro that can be present in a person, yet not manifest.
By saying that we have ABSOLUTE free will is not what I mean by free will. Obviously we don’t have complete say over every aspect of our lives. Yet, we do have say over how we act or what we accept or reject given our circumstances.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Genetics just play a role in what people think and do, but both the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that someone happens to have is what forces them to think and do the types of things that they think and do throughout their life.
For example hitler unfortunately happened to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that forced him to choose to do horrible things. And hypothetically if he would have been born with another type of genetics, like for example if he would have been born with the type of genetics that caused him to have williams syndrome and if he would have had other types of life experiences then those things would have forced him to think and do other types of things throughout his life and that wouldn't have been his fault that he existed and happened to be that way either.
@@Esch-a-ton3 People are also not free to believe whatever they want to. People are only able to believe in the things that they become convinced of being true and real.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The types of choices people make all depend on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves.
And how wise, how caring and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. So if someone happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to be wise and caring and to have good control over themselves then they will not punch someone unless there's a good enough reason to punch someone. But if someone unfortunately happens to have the type of genetics and the types of life experiences that causes them to not be very wise and to not be very caring and to not have very much control over themselves, then they might punch someone just because they feel like it.
@@Esch-a-ton3 a person that's wise and caring and in good enough control over themselves would never play the knock out game. But someone that's not those ways would be just fine with playing the knock out game.
Good vids 👍
There are too many causes and conditions to say that a will is free, or conscious decision is free. Not only the causes and conditions of the present moment, but the innumerable causes and conditions of the past. Free will is also unbiblical.
sure
I’m at 5:10 you say free will exist because addicts can quit smoking or whatever addiction, but you than say this is because of hope love and faith, and than associate it with “good” words like beauty or goodness, so what was war? Further more you state that logic was another way to argue against materialism, however I’d discount this as logic is taking one’s own perspective or stance on a subject and than applying to what you yourself has already seen or experienced in order to verify or invalidate the claim in your own mind. Experiences are tangable things, they did happen, at least that way in that persons mind. Of course you can argue schizophrenia, but when that person than collects a multitude of accounts that than either verify or discredit the claim or claims made they get a more accurate picture of what happened, of course unless the case was that they did see what happened correctly but everyone else had the wrong story, but that wrong story became truth and than later history, however that is another topic
If logic is based on ones personally experience a square could be a circle to me and not to you. Up could be down. 2+2 could equal 5
That's an easy one, logic isn't subjective its objectives.
And what does war have to do it? Your not addressing the argument that if all we were was Brian chemistry no one could quit their addiction.
You also say “same neural receptors” but they’re not, they are two neural receptors in two different people, which means in order for your idea to work, they would have to live the exact same life with their brain firing the exact same way and experience the world from the exact same perspective, and I’m 1:14 in and this is the second contradiction you’ve made
The neurons in my brain are the same neurons in your brain materially. If your alluding to the fact that the experience of a live lived affects the brain, then that's not materialism because something non physical influences the workings of the brain.
It's all physicall deep to cells and DNA,.. also everything we dwell on is a projection of what we perceive and perceived with our 5 senses..
As Camus say the mission of the absurd man is to experience and describe not to solve!! There is no freewill!
For you to even make that claim, negates it. Because if we don’t have freewill that means you’ve never perceived it which means you can’t dwell on it.
Also, if you are correct humans have no capacity for knowledge because all scientific inquiry would be a result of physics and you couldn’t do anything to get a right or wrong answer because it’s all determined by physics. Nothing can be solved if all our actions are the result of mere physics…So based off your claim, knowledge is impossible yet we do have knowledge, so unfortunately, it’s false.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Everything is physical deep to the axioms of consciousness.. we don't have control over the things that come our way.. Even in the most doubtful moments of our lives we already did make the choice..
@@ionfeld not sure what that means because if we “already did make that choice” we have free will..
@@Esch-a-ton3 our genes did, now we are here just to find out why..
@@ionfeld so our genes figure everything out? How do you know that? If you’re making that assumption based off the physics of genetics that there’s no way to tell if that assumption is actually right or wrong.
"If take the population of China and arrange them like a neural network [...] would this lead to a unified consciousness?"
Johnathon Pageau has entered the chat.
😂
No
Yes👀
The only will that is free is the will of God, we dont have any ounce of free will.
Lets take into consideration the idealistic perspective, that Consciousness is the root of the physical world, and everything is inside consciousness. If we had free will, and free will was a core ability of consciousness we could create physical objects and things just with will power, since we cant, that means we dont have free will.
It’s not our consciousness that is the root of the physical world.
That’s a very weird train of thought I have to say… not sure if you’re a Christian and your basis for God is abrahamic or if you’re a sort of pantheist. But 1 Timothy states God wills all men to be saved, if we had no free will then all men would be saved.
If you’re a pantheist, and we have no free will than you’d have to attribute evil to God.
If you have to choose jesus and make the decision to be a Christian then, according to christianity, you have free will. Goes the same for any religion at all that had any sense of conversion. And if that's not the case and you are right then either all men would be "saved" as the original poster has said above or the Christian god pre determines innocent people before they're born to go to hell which would make it a real POS.
The type of people that believe in a religion usually believe in the type of religion that they're mostly exposed to.
So my question than is, how does that make any sense at all bro. If you could turn a square into a triangle we have free will? But the triangle would still feel like a square, because that’s what it is. You can form atoms to make a different shape and still have the same shape.
Just a bunch of baseless assertions and logical fallacies
Which ones?
A argument that says the brain is controlled by chemical hormones and the fact that an addict can ignore those hormones and quit the addiction is baseless. Its empirical.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Not sure what you mean. The brain is a chemical computer of sorts, but it's main conscious role is to respond to external stimuli. The balance of "chemicals" sometimes affects the outcome but this often isn't the main driver of our thoughts.
@@alanG3806 then it’s not all material.
Where are my baseless assertions and fallacies?
@@Esch-a-ton3 "then it's not all material" - is an assertion. And I'm not sure you really know what you mean, it isn't clear to me.
You ask where are your baseless asseretions. Well for example you talk early on about different responses to the same "receptors" as if they are unexplainable. You just assert that the receptors are the same, but receptors do differ in structure between individuals, resulting in different responses between individuals. This is a material ie physical difference. You just gloss over this inconvenient fact, failing to acknowledge that such real differences in out brain structure could account for differences in behaviours and experiences.
I could go on, but from where I stand, I just see a succession of grand statements using vague, undefined terms and. in these days of solid scientific research and information, a disappointing lack of supporting data.
Yuh, this guy got it
First off people are not neurons, and vise versa, trying to compare the two to discredit materialism as you put it, would just be ignorant
Trusting philosophers over scientists is ridiculous.
What about scientists who believe the same stuff as the philosophers 👀 * law and order noise*
@@Esch-a-ton3 I think it’s fine as long as it’s proven evidence and facts behind it. But I would never strictly trust a philosopher when it come to science.
The institution of science as we know it is perpetuated by the same institutions that deceive the world for profit.
Science keeps the deception in place.
@DaRkStAr317 there is no fully grounded scientific understanding of the human consciousness, so what do you do? You cant deny consciousness because you are experiencing it right now. Humans historically will try to rationalize in what is the collective unknown, that is why we turn to philosophy.
@@dunkawunka2278 I don’t deny consciousness bro but u can’t just trust a philosopher without the proper evidence
I would like to write a commentary on the entirety of this video. Before I do I would just like to clarify that I have no vendetta against you as a creator or your personal views.
Paragraph 1: Its could be said that we in fact are nothing but chemicals, according to most confirmed science.
Paragraph 2: According to what I have understood from the example you have given; regarding China's population using guns, it may be seen as inconsistent. Individuals do not work in the same way as cells. The neural network is highly evolved and is spread throughout the entire human body. The cells are not sentient, but are a mode of sentience. the example of humans could be correct in some way if we were connected with the earth and the earth were a living, breathing organism.
Paragraph 3: Humans are learning beings, who take things into contexts differently; according to what they have learnt, their genetics, childhood experiences and other possible stimuli. A masochist has learnt differently than another; who experiences nothing but pain. genetics play their part in this too, along with their childhood and other experiences; as mentioned prior. Same is for Cilantro.
Paragraph 4: When somebody throws water at you, it will obviously trigger a flight or flight response; since somebody is literally "dousing" you with water, baths are self chosen and do not do so. Throwing water is an assault, which anybody would be triggered by. "Will" are the decisions we make; from our past learnt experiences. While yes, we are in control of what we choose, we choose based on the premise of what we have learnt. How am I typing this right now? because due to my past experiences of delving in philosophical data, I have not only learnt about the idea of self will, and what "will" is itself, but due to my evolution, and the evolution of the human species till this point, we have developed a self-consciousness which has allowed us to question and be aware of affairs such as this.
Paragraph 5: As I've mentioned in my argument against paragraph four, we have evolved to be aware of affairs such as this. Just because we are self -conscious about something does not mean that we can immediately put it on a huge pin on this fact, and tie a red string to it being "divine" or "immaterial". We are aware of neuroplasticity, and we are taking advantage of that awareness by putting it to use.
Paragraph 6: "Apart from childhood experiences, traumas in adulthood also influence our hope. Loss of a loved one, separation, emotional or psychological violence in relationships or friendships, financial difficulties, bankruptcy, unemployment, serious illness - all of these can affect our hope. Even if you are a naturally hopeful person, it is normal to lose hope after a severe experience. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, hope is a cognitive process. It is something we can achieve by working on it, by training our minds."
This paragraph explicitly states that prior learnt experiences affect people's perspectives of hope, and faith. These feelings are derived from our evolving as a race. as I've said before, these things do not imply any "divineness". As for love, love is; in simple word, literally created so that we can reproduce. and I know lots of people are going to say "but what about familial love?" Familial love is love evolved from the care tribes used to take of their residents. We have come a very long way from that age.
"For example, most genes that have undergone recent evolution are associated with smell, reproduction, brain development, skin pigmentation and the way the immune system protects against pathogens."
Paragraph 7: The apples mentioned are just posing as a mere example. Solutions are derived from problems. When the apple fell on Isaac, thats when he had to find a solution to a problem which he interpreted due to his past experiences. Isaac didn't just immediately know that.
Paragraph 8: Thomas Aquinas did not have any proof for the statements he made. he believed in the divine and there is no chance that he performed a lobotomy in the year 1250 determining that this is true. Dementia is a mental illness of decay. and there are other that work in a similar way, with the points I have given regarding the "immaterial" substances mentioned in the video prior and Thomas's "guessing game' there is no way we can take his word seriously.
Paragraph 9: A basic wikipedia search will show that Wilder's observations had no intention of uncovering some type of "true will" or anything of the latter in this experiment. He only intended to see how the location in the mind worked. and even with this, his hypothesis was revised way back in 1970.
Paragraph 10: It is not observation which affects the quantum particle, but the machine or magnets it is passed through in the experiment. The quantum particle is not multiple things at once, and does not exist in multiple states at once. it exists on a spectrum which is difficult to grasp. I would recommend Wikipedia for a more clear answer, and as well as The Science Asylum, who gave an amazing explanation on this affair. The point is, our consciousness does not affect anything.
Paragraph 11: I am not promoting the idea that there is nothing but us Humans in this lonely universe. I do believe that there is probably an almighty being who is out of anything we as humans can imagine or pervcieve, and who we could refer to as a "god" in our eyes. And I also strongly believe the there are many things that are considered supernatural and exist, such as Djinns. But that does not change the fact that no matter what exists, we are made of atoms, and are confined by chemical processes. And just because that is true doesnt mean that reality could be nothing but a bleak, lonely sine wave. Reality is reality. It just is.
"I think, therefore I am."
.