If there is no free will, then I HAD to write this and you HAD to read it. We could not have done otherwise. So nobody is really responsible for anything. Blame it all on the laws of physics.
10:04 Another thought on this study; I've heard that there are many studies that show that physiology changes seconds prior to an unexpected stimulus. It seems to me that having a person make a mental note of when a thought occurred to them by watching a clock hand rotate and remembering that number the hand pointed to, and then perform an action related to that thought, won't produce any sensical information.
Why it would not? I mean what is the reason for your claim .. visual perception is 1/12th of second even if we account for that it doesn't account for the gap
Infinite… Nice observation. [I suppose we could ask someone to count down internally, and make a decision at reaching 0. If the countdown itself could be detected, directly in the cortex, some of the measurement delay might be reduced. Our friends in the brain science and neurology departments have a long way to go.]
Yes. Our decisions are not quantum scale events. I think absolute free will is obviously impossible for lots of reasons. We (whatever _that_ means) are not the sole authors of our thoughts, but we definitely deserve a writing credit.
@@b.g.5869 *"are not the sole authors of our thoughts"* indeed, we are the authors of our beliefs. that the authorship is deterministic in its nature does not divorce it from the author. KEvron
@@KEvronista No, we're not "the authors" of our beliefs either. For all the time spent debating free will nobody has ever really advanced the discussion beyond Schopenhauer's observation that we _want_ what we choose but don't _choose_ what we want, and he came to this insight without the benefit of modern neuroscience. I don't think the idea that "absolute free will", also known as "libertarian free will", doesn't exist is particularly bothersome to most people or even particularly controversial. _You_ have particular likes and dislikes and desires and aversions, but you have no control over much of what makes you _you_ . I get the sense that some people, particularly those who either have nihilistic inclinations or are irritated by those that they deem insufficiently skeptical, in apparent frustration at the general lack of concern over the non-existence of _absolute_ free will, resort to arguing that there is _absolutely_ no free will whatsoever, which is ridiculous. While much of who we are and what we want is determined beyond our control, we nevertheless do have a considerable degree of autonomy.
@@b.g.5869 *"No, we're not "the authors" of our beliefs either."* of course, we are. beliefs are a product of mind. we produce belief via experience. that the process is deterministic does not divorce the author from his products. we produce our own beliefs; nothing else does this for us. *"we nevertheless do have a considerable degree of autonomy."* that autonomy is the product of deterministic factors. determinism doesn't mean one lacks will, but that will is the product of deterministic factors. KEvron
@@KEvronista The issue isn't "will"; almost nobody argues that "will" doesn't exist. The contentious thing is _free_ will. But as I've been saying, it's really only absolute or libertarian free will that most agree doesn't exist, and it's lack of existence doesn't bother most people nearly as much as some wish.
Free will exist. Its amazing to see people denying it. Its just a tad better than denying ones existence. The experiments done just show that I process things without attention. I often catch things I drop without anything other than automation so to speak. Ur unconscious is clearly much more active than we like to think. But it does not prove free will to be an illusion. In fact.. your evidence your daily evidence for free will is so great that no experiment someone might say they done can affect anyone but very bad Bayesians. I promise.
The macroscopic world is deterministic in that if I drop my bottle of beer, I know that it will fall according to Newton's law with negligible probabilities and errors. But, technically, the macroscopic world is not deterministic. I think the best example of this is the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters; according to our current theories, those are due to random quantum mechanical fluctuations soon after the big-bang. When we eventually realize a singular, comprehensive quantum theory, I believe it will definitively demonstrate that determinism at the macro level is an illusion.
If free will did not exist (and our consciousness is just an observer of an underlying deterministic system) evolution would never have gone through the complex selection process for producing rewarding pleasure when we taste energy, or have sex, or socialize. Evolution clearly indicates these decisions are the result of free will, and evolution produced mechanisms to drive our decision making towards these important behaviors. If free will did not exist our minds would simply perform these behaviors, no conscious altering effect necessary.
An even more clever approach would have been " of course I DON'T have free will....because I don't even have the freedom of choice ".... Also would have been CORRECT lol
@Mark Smith if there is ANY randomness or arbitrary uncertainty, where is any freedom of will... We can will what we choose, but not freely will what it is we will or truly "choose" what we choose...
If free will is illusion which is stupid to even ask the question then please knock down all the prisons across the world. It’s not their fault. Where is the empathy for our fellow man.
Dear Mr. Kuhn, There is no meaning in all these concepts I analyse, viz. "Free will, consciousness, Truth, ... ", so long as I haven't defined "I" as a particular sequence of particles and specify a definite criterion of proof related to satisfaction of my needs to verify the acuracy of the theory I assume as to the origin of those particles.
If we understand what we are, we see the multifold, and that is the essence of the problem... awareness. Thought is simply the collective of memory. Thought cannot approach any problem without that inherent limitation. So what to do? Observe completely. Within that there is no seeking, no direction, no process. Within that there is freedom. So many are stuck within the known, but that is far from knowing.
There seems to be a broad strawman argument implied by several interview subjects to the effect that if you think free will exists, you must believe in Cartesian dualism (i.e. that there's an immaterial mind that triggers the brains thoughts). That's not at all necessarily entailed by free will. I personally lean towards Dennett's compatibilist view of free will, but even a non compatibilist view of free will doesn't necessarily entail dualism.
I would argue that most determinists seem to still fundamentally buy into Catersian dualism, as Dennett himself often criticizes Harris for. The Determinist argument is "You didn't do that, your brain did", or "You didn't choose your own nature". But what are we if not our brains and our nature?
@@reconbravo104 Harris is typically a solid thinker on a broad range of subjects, but he's surprisingly weak with respect to free will. Harris' views on free will are unfortunately very strongly influenced - for the worse - by his meditative practice. He's very much into meditation, and in that context there is a lot of talk of "observing your thoughts appearing and disappearing into and out of consciousness", so it's very much biased and enforced this view of consciousness he has where it's something we observe but are completely detached from. He's too much invested in his 'mindfulness' practices to ever be able to look at the question of free will more objectively. Dennett definitely won that free will debate with Harris hands down in my opinion.
Free will's illusory property, is a concept that has its grounding in neuroscience, cellular neurobiology and along with being philosophically challenged by some, and in time within the progress of all of these disciplines, I believe will be answered. The fear that may come with an answer of; "we don't have free will", will change the face of psychology, philosophy and all of the brain sciences, as well as law. How could we not have awareness of our actions? For some, this would be the highlight of not having responsibility for our actions. Time will tell.
Free Will is always an interesting subject. These experts basically opined about the same as my philosophy students used to. The truth, however, is simple and obvious.
Our brains means of processing information and making decisions are influenced by countless factors outside of our control, including the configuration of the brain itself. Chemicals introduced into the body after the initial brain configuration is established, have a dramatic effect on way the brain processes information and interprets reality. Mood is influenced entirely by a mix of external stimuli, physiological condition, chemicals and intrusive thoughts. It is impossible to escape the fact that our brains our a product of material reality and is influenced entirely by external, and physiological stimuli it is exposed to from there on. So in conclusion, the concept of 'free will' simply does not make any sense. Free Will is an impossible concept. We may have desires, but even our desires are as fickle as the chemicals released as a result of neural synapses firing in anticipation of doing something we know will bring pleasure. It's what makes us want for the things we desire in the first place. We are conscious being that have experiences, but 'Free Will' in its strictest interpretation, that we have 'control' over our own destinies, simply cannot be said to exist.
Freewill is not an illusion but, an action taken using freewill is bound to reward/punishment When we give up freewill to God's will, we will be in a peaceful state called Nirvana
I feel that absolute determinism is false. Determinism can offer probabilities that you will go this way or that. But it cannot predict the outcome with 100% accuracy. Our society assumes that individuals and groups are responsible for their actions(and in-actions). So in this regard, free will is a prerequisite of responsibility. In another sense, if we look at our past and ask "do our past selves have any free will currently?", the answer must be no. Since the current moment might be considered "not real", then perhaps there is no such thing as free will.
@@lepomirbakic4422 I think determinism is fine for things like particles, motion, velocity and position. I do not think that it should apply to information like brain states, memories or mental processes.
Only reason why I would say free will doesn’t exist is because we don’t decide to be born just like we don’t decide to die. So, who’s to say we get to decide all of the stuff that happens in between?
there's far more we don't get to decide though. we don't get to decide the structure of our brains, how our brains interpret reality and process information, The neuro-chemical balances we are naturally born with, or how chemicals we introduce into our body will affect the way we make decisions. In short, material factors thoroughly govern how we make decisions. With that in mind, free will is an impossible concept.
It feels like free will only due to the computational boundedness of the human mind. To someone who could track every particle and compute everything about them it will feel deterministic. So its not really a question whether there is free will or not, but really how computationally bounded is the observer.
Regarding the scientific observation that brain activity precedes the awareness of conscious thought, I wonder if the brain activity that occurs prior to thought is generated subconsciously by external stimuli so that the moment of consciousness is an organized arrangement of that raw sensory data so that the 800 milliseconds of activity in the brain prior to consciousness exists as an amorphous set of actionable (non-determined) data (again generated by stimuli) that is then (in the remaining 200 ms) organized into the thought thus giving us free-ish will?
even if you explain away the time gap, it still doesnt explain why you chose the choice you did. there is infinite regress that always ends in mystery and darkness.
To me, free will just means you are free to use your will, hence, that is why it is called free will. We are free to love, hate, argue, doubt, discriminate, lead a disciplined life or live like a moron. if you didn't have free will you would not have this presence of your being the doer of whatever it is that you are doing, but you do have the presence of being the doer of activity, so how could free will be an illusion in anyway? Like in his video's Robert does a lot of doubting of what the people he interviews say about the topic under discussion, but since you are free to doubt that means you are free to believe or not to believe so whenever you doubt you are using free will.
If there is no free will, then one can be grateful to another person, for example, as to a tree or a rock for its shadow. Without free will, there can be no love, gratitude, friendship, moral, conscience, promise, guilt, choice, etc. The words for them could not even exist at all. ____ Just because we don't know, how free will is possible, doesn't mean it does not exist. In the past, science was sure that radio waves cannot travel across the ocean because they travel in a straight line, so they cannot overcome the curvature of the Earth. Radio waves, however, reached overseas. And what? It turned out that radio waves are reflected in the upper atmosphere and are directed back to the Earth's surface. ____ Someday, science will discover why free will exists.
This is my question which I'm sure is not new but ...what's the difference between having a gun to your head and the threat of hell ? Alot apologists use the gun analogy to make a free will point but it's actually emphasizing to me anyway that we DONT actually have free will it's either you do as God says or you burn for eternity and I don't see free will mentioned in the bible can anyone give an angle or thoughts ?
10:04 This study seems very problematic. A delay in a person's perception of their own thought to move their body seems to me be expected, not an indication of something mysterious. Is the mind having a thought and perceiving a thought the same? I don't believe so. Is the unconscious just a facet of the mind the same as intellect? I do believe so.
It is always funny to see people citing Libet against free will when he himself thought his experiment (entirely, not with pick and choose) proves that "maybe we don't have free will, but we have free won't".
How about if *_Free Will_* is compatible with both determinism and indeterminism? I am an autistic deist daoist and a political libertarian, who is profoundly struck by the present fact that every living animal acts with self-will and self-regard,.. and yet not a single bit of all the material computational technology we have created have these _living_ qualities in even the smallest measure. Does having self-will, self-regard, and consciousness require supernaturalism in order to come into being? Or try this out... do you believe humanity will soon create technologies by which we can _telepathically_ speak with each other? Where does consciousness reside when we can move it about outside our heads? Or does well written literature do this already?
I just clicked on this video- did I have free choice to do so? I would say yes, based on learning more about free will, I could have decided not to click on this video, but I did.
i used to believe that dead is the end but overtime i thought maybe not. i find myself saying to the atheist: "wait... are you suggesting that we are god-like special or something? so you believe in god?" that argument swings both ways. magic doesn't exist... remember. we don't know. our brains are trained to fear death because we evolved on a kill or be killed planet. edit: could have worded this better. it's simply because of how we evolved to function. so their argument is still based on emotions. the correct answer is: we don't know "because that is detaching yourself from human emotions. "death is the end" "look at me i'm being abstract" me: "nice display of human emotion there"
Here's the rub: Calling free will an illusion can be interpreted in one of _two_ ways. One type of illusion we might speak of is a total _delusion_ i.e. a complete hallucination therefore what you imagine is real isn't real at all. e.g. If you were convinced that your spouse was demon possessed. The other sort of illusion someone might experience is a misconstrual e.g. the thing you perceive is something in the real world but it's not what you imagine it to be. e.g. Your spouse comes home unexpectedly at 3 a.m. in the morning & you assume they must be an intruder. It's a real person you're experiencing but you're convinced it's someone else. The illusion of free will is the second type of illusion because free will is something: _Freedom from error._ But it's not what it seems to be: Libertarian freedom as if the laws of physics could obey you "true self" i.e. What you mind thinks it must be not the lump of meat between your ears flickering this way & that according the selection pressure of evolution massaging it into the shape genes grew the billions of neural networks which run the show called 'My Life'. The other issue few people stop to consider is what freedom is & it's not freedom to *do* _anything_ at all. It's freedom *from* error as seen from a transpersonal perspective i.e. Moral competence therefore free will isn't an _all or nothing_ true or false dichotomy, it's a question of degrees therefore the wiser you are the freer from ignorance you become - what the Buddha would describe as enlightenment because you appreciate that there's no _you_ between your ears looking out of your pupils. That too is an illusion of the _misconstrual_ variety. you're certainly _something_ but what that something _is_ is an aspect of the cosmos that knows it's the cosmos & not _just_ a sweaty little ego living within it. That's because it's surpassed the illusion (misconstrual) of ego identity & understands that it's part of _everything_ & _everyone_ something like a wave on the ocean appreciating that it *is* the ocean not merely a detail _within_ it's hugeness that's nothing to do with all the _other_ waves which make it up as well.
Bah semantics...The mind does not control the physical world. It only has a poorly constructed perception of reality that has evolved to survive and reproduce, not see the world as it is. There appears to be a firm resentment for many to even ponder the argument seriously; however, those that I have the pleasure of getting into the nuts and bolts of the argument multiple times, generally get the point that there isn't a way around it. Freewill doesn't exist unless you start fucking with the definition.
At this moment I think about, what's "true life"? if "we" aren't "true life", if we're just the vehicle for true life, that would mean that the decissions we make and feel our own, is already made in the brain. If it is one particle or more or maybe trillions of true life particles that are responsible for our being, then free will, consciousness, cognition and all mistery functions that we percept, is determined order from the central governing, piloted to our actions and thoughts from true life agents. The complexity takes place with the integrity of all senses to the advanced actions and thoughts. We have to imagine, we are like a warship an aircraft-carrier. Every single sailor has a duty to fulfill. They send messages out and fly investigating rounds and are at all times alert. Then it would be, free will is an illusion created by true life. Are neurons true life? but they're not immortal, so that cannot be.
If everything is predetermined, then why have an education system? Why teach children how to behave? Why not let people follow their animal instincts? Why attempt to achieve anything? People thinking their bad actions were caused only by outside influences is the primary cause of modern social rot. Of course we are responsible for the decisions we make: good and bad alike! Ask someone who has overcome an addiction whether or not they have free will! Addictions are only overcome through sheer willpower!
Some things are caused by instinct (e.g., pulling my hand off of a hot stove). Some things happen reflexively as the result of conditioning, training, practice, habit (e.g. Soldiers who behave in battle the way they trained). Some happen as a result of deliberation (e.g., the 12th person on the jury who refuses to vote guilty).
@@konyvnyelv. Thanks for the reply. My philosophy is, with more and more advent and knowledge in science we'd be able to understand all these challenging concepts in better and digestible ways...no need to make these concepts cause harm to our physical well being 😅✌️
It's been 2 years since anyone has commented on this CTT video content. I will comment in hopes that someone will visit this video soon. Actually, I had spent at least 30-minutes entering a comment when my Chrome browser went down without warning, so I lost all the text. I will try to reproduce it. This time, I will copy the text as I go to prevent another disaster! Firstly, "we" ("our" "self" which is neural activity in "our" brain) have free will (the capacity for "freely" making decisions and choices; speaking, behaving, and taking actions), but, we do not have 100% "free" will. Genetics, early childhood development, life experiences, mental health, physical health, and certain environmental influences and pressures (peer pressure, advertising that might bias one's choices, etc.) diminish the "free" in our ability to make conscious decisions. Unfortunately, the degree to which these influences come to bear on our decision-making is difficult or impossible to measure, so each person is held responsible for their actions (even though, upon close inspection, it might be seen that the person really did not have much conscious choice in their decisions and actions.). Thus, everyone is held responsible for their actions regardless of these extant forces on decision-making capacity. The only exception is if someone charged with a crime is deemed by court-appointed psychiatrists "unfit to stand trial due to mental incompetence" - the insanity plea. Secondly, to understand "illusion," we must understand what has an illusion. "We" have illusions. Magic illusions, visual illusions, etc. It's easy to fool the senses. As noted, "we" are neural activity in our brain. The sense of "self" is produced by brain activity as noted above. To have an illusion, we must also be conscious and have perception. (Perhaps we can have illusions in dreams, but that is another topic.) When we have a conscious illusion, "we" perceive something different that it actually is. A magician saws someone in half and it looks real to our senses. One line looks longer than another line, but they are the same length. These are illusions. In the topic of the video, "Is free will an illusion?", we perceive that we make a conscious decision (exercise of our free will), but perhaps in actuality, we do not consciously make the decision, our brains (neural networks other than those that produce the perception and feeling of "self") makes the decision a few hundred milliseconds before it comes into our consciousness. Thus, we have the illusion of free will; we believe we made the decision. I don't believe that. Thirdly, many "experts" point to the Libet experiments in the 1970s to "prove" that "we" do not make conscious decisions; our brain (neural activity other than "self") actually makes the decision subconsciously before we are consciously aware of it. That doesn't hold water anymore. It has been shown that the Libet experiments were faulty on two accounts - poor experimental design and imprecise and poorly controlled measurements. But, what if the Libet experiments, or improved versions of them, are true? What would that mean? It is still "us" that is making the decision. It is "our" brain. So what if a couple of brain area "light up" prior to us consciously deciding? The process of deciding was subconsciously underway prior to our verbalizing it. "We" still made the decision. We exercised our free will (under the above constraints) to make a conscious choice. Finally, what does nature and evolution have to say about free will? Does it make sense that complex life forms like mammals, primates, and humans evolved the illusion of free will? The illusion of consciously making decisions? How would that contribute to survivability and reproductive success? I think the answer is obvious. It would not. We would be living life under the illusion of being able to make choices and decisions and taking actions. If free will is an illusion, then "we" are but a false-front to some uncontrollable "thing" inside our brain. That is not how nature evolved human beings or any other life form. In sum, humans have "free will" under the constraints of genetics, early childhood development, life experiences, and existing pressures at decision times.
"Free Will" is subjectively defined, at best. The vague definition of "who" or "what" has "free will", and what is actually a "decision" and "who" makes it, is the main reason for the various opinions. Under certain models of "reality", these terms are defined in a way that puts the whole argument to rest.
But all that humans have currently are the subjective. We clearly are not seeing or experiencing even a fraction of the larger picture. Until our little meat-sack bodies, ape brains and fluid filled viewing orbs can be expanded via technologies or some other means, that is all we got. There are layers upon layers of reality that could very well mean we do not really have "free will" as seen from a big picture perspective. I am not talking about choosing what you will have for breakfast, I am talking about purpose of life and where humanity goes as a collective. I have had glimpses and retain slivered memories of other realities during various experiences outside of body, but I cannot prove it to anybody at all... it is all subjective at this point.
My opinion is this....the universe itself is STILL expanding due to an occurrence( presumably the big bang) and is BOUND by the predetermined law's and principles that govern THIS reality and existence to continue this "reaction" until the cycle returns to the original singular molecule at which point "BANG" another reaction to the previous one and it ALL starts OVER again....so if THIS entire universe itself is ALWAYS "reacting" to ANOTHER previous and predetermined reaction and CANNOT in ANY way deviate or engage in "FREE action" ...... Then HOW CAN ANYTHING within it possibly claim to be "FREE" from these very SAME obligations( law's and principles) thst govern THIS reality and existence?......NOTHING CAN EVER "act" freely because EVERYTHING within the entire universe( even the universe itself) is STILL reacting to ANOTHER predetermined and previous REACTION.....and apparently it was ALWAYS like this.....apparently it MUST ALWAYS BE this way......at the very instant the law's and principles that govern THIS reality are breeched or the parameters of reality would be compromised then THIS reality would cease to be and ANOTHER one would take it's place....based upon different law's and principles altogether
What do you mean by choosing certain course of action, let me imagine your idea first, than i can tell you what i think. And don't worry about my imagination, i can visualize a lot.
Xspot box so my thought process is, imagine a box. In that box contains the laws of physics in this universe. We are then told you have complete free will to make your decisions, do as you please but only if they are within that box. I think “true” free will would be without the box, truly unlimited.
The 'laws' of physics can apparently be ignored. Something occurred in the house I live in that proved that quite nicely. I had a plastic 2 litre bottle filled with homemade Rosemary Glycerite. It had the screw cap snugly fit, and no leaky holes or even a scratch on the bottle. One morning I opened the cupboard and found that at least 3/4 of the contents of the bottle had gone. The bottle was on the top shelf of the pantry cupboard and had not been tampered with by anyone in the house. The contents were found at the bottom of the cupboard, in a plastic bowl, which is actually a dome lid, but it was turned so that it acted as a deep bowl. Anyway, some glycerite was found on each shelf. It was not found on the edges of the shelves as you might expect, it seemed to have gone right through the middle, but without a feeling of stickiness or any hint of it on the underside of each shelf. There are 4 shelves it had to go through before reaching the loose plastic bowls, lids, etc in the bottom of the cupboard. And with no hint of residue in or on any other object at the bottom. I checked the bottle itself afterwards for any sign of causation of leakage. I transferred the remaining glycerite from the bottle, and gave the bottle a good rinse with hot water, cold water, then filled again with water and screwed the lid back on. Gave it a good shake, held it upside down, did whatever I could to find a leak. But no, it was tight. No way could anything get out without human physical intervention. According to the 'laws' of physics anyway.
I think free will is something like, your ability to chose from a limited set of options in the context of your biology, culture, upbringing, gender, mental state, past decisions, circumstances, and if you have a hangover or not.
Choices are conditioned by past experiences, preferences, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth, thus how is it that ones choice is free? Does free choice imply freedom? Can it be that one chooses only becuase one is confused? When one has insight, choice isn't necessary, one acts.
Free will is an "Experience" an ability to know / understand that - Its an Ex - pression! If a circle is drawn on infinity, we get Zero but this zero is "potential zero".
I believe that the tests that they perform in order to prove free will does not exist, are erroneously designed. The issue is that once you tell the test subject "you are going to flip a button whenever you see something on a screen" then you trigger a whole brain process that suggests that something is going to happen in a few seconds and I will have to respond. This is entirely different than being in a state just driving home and suddenly having to turn left or right because a car is coming towards you.... Those two situations pose two different problems and only in the second type of cases you can study whether free will is true or falls and so far I see only the first type of tests being conducted. Convince me otherwise.
Theodore I., you point is well taken, but the whole test is based on a silly notion to begin with. They are trying to test conscious decisions separate from brain decisions. This is assuming that there is an actual difference between the two. This could almost be considered a dualist belief, like there are two separate deciders inside your head. You are a single unitary organism, not a spirit floating inside the head of a biological vessel. Even if their goofy "experiment" was totally true and actually showed that the brain is involved in a decision before it came into consciousness, it would mean absolutely nothing without the premise that your conscious mind is somehow separate from your brain, which is mystical mumbo-jumbo.
@@caricue to me is no surprise that the decision of doing a movement is taken before you are aware of it. I would expect exactly this from an organism with free will. I mean think about it from an evolutionary perspective. If you are an organism with free will then your brain needs to build a mechanism that processes your free decision before materializing it, because imagine what would happen if you willingly choose to stop your heart from beating or keep continously open your eyes, etc. To me this means that you might be an organism chosing freely to do everything, then your brain processes (it built that mechanism through millennia of evolution) your choice, decides whether this free willing choice is stupid or not, if it is stupid, like stoping your heart from beating then it suppresses it, if it is good then you do what you chose to do and then the mechanism makes you aware of it.
@@theodorei.4278 Yeah, we don't disagree, but when talking to determinists, you have to figure out what their schtick is before you can even try to engage them. They might feel that only the unconscious makes choices, so no conscious choice, or they may think that genetics, experiences and outside forces control you. Some believe that the subatomic particle interactions are ultimately in control of your choices. The determinists are all over the place, but each one is ontologically sure of being 100% correct, but will agree with other determinists who have a contradictory schema. It's like how all religious people agree about god existing, even though they all have different ideas about what god is. Determinism is a quasi-religious belief about the nature of reality, so you really can't expect rationality or reason from them.
This is very interesting, once I heard about the game that the rules is "no matter what you do is a wrong choice". At this I am very wondered, if you choose not to do anything then it is a wrong choice because it is something you choose to do. If you actually think about, you can ask what is the best wrong choice? Or a question that what is the best choice to choose? I actually very wondered how this game gonna be started? I choose to ask to know the game. Is this makes me choose the best choice or the best wrong choice? I still wondered, should I ask what the purpose of this game. I rather know behind of this game rather than playing the game but then when knowing the game I become a player of that game. What do you think? What is this game about? I am still wondered, do I still have a free will of choice? I can say yes but consequences always applies and depends to your choice.
Brains are automatic but people are free!! We don't have free will but are still responsible for our actions!! We don't make choices but choices still matter !!! Bottom line is free will does not exist atleast the most common notion of free will ...but we have to take responsibility for actions if we acting on a social level and maybe responsibility for our actions also have a role to play for our brain when making decisions...
It's the information (genetic and memetic) that influences the human action and behaviour over huma bodies and brains.Information in mind matters.Thoughts,intentions,feelings ,emotions,etc.are bits of information in mind that controls human behaviour and actions.Goals are also information in mind or consciousness.
Free will is the will inheritted to all human. God wanted us to be like Him. Every person is judge to witness what is going on around. What he/she does accordingly is his/her judgment. This is called human consciousness. Today, our problem is that we are made heedless, by our own political systems, for our own sake only, disregarding our world around us.
The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?
*"The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution."* the very existence of the determinist would seem to undermine this observation. strikes me more as a secondary belief. the belief in mere will would be the primary belief. KEvron
Maybe determinism is an illusion we create for ourselves, such as politics / central government. Maybe everything going on is freely acted according to the nature of things.
Why is there doubt? Answer: Because I have the free will to doubt something. It's funny, Robert in his interviews with people sometimes expresses doubt on the answers they give. Well Mr. Robert Kuhn you can only doubt if you have free will to believe or not to believe.
@@dans3158 no, the will simply exists, and does not belong to anyone. there is a will, but no 'we' to have it. there is no 'i' that can be found in a person.
@@mikefoster5277 exactly. there is a will at play here,meaning thoughts in the mind, but they dont belong to anyone. there is no 'i' that is in charge of these thoughts. the thoughts simply appear in the mind randomly, and all we do is witness them.
My opinion is that the concept of freewill is just a primitive man made concept. Maybe its not realized yet but maybe "Freewill" was never meant to be even a thing. Animals have a brain but do they have freewill ? can they choose not to grab something and eat it when they are hungry ? The brain will motivate it to take the action of grabbing a fruit to eat
The universe viewed through most current scientific understanding is not deterministic the quantum realm is seemingly random. However this does not mean freewill is real it just means there is randomness we are still the agents of these random quantum happenings
I'd say that free will is the result of predicting the future consequences of your actions. Because when you predict several different futures, depending on how you choose to act, then your aren't just choosing your actions, you are choosing your future. The actions are just a necessary intermediary to achieve the future you want. And actions in this case can often be automatic, once you know the future you want. So, these brain experiments that involve meaningless actions without any real consequences for the person involved are missing the point. Because the person probably doesn't even try to predict the future consequences of his or her actions. And that's why it seems as if the person has no free will. Meaningless movements don't require the exercise of free will. Free will comes into play only when you need to make serious decisions that can affect your life a lot. So, when you decide whether to marry a certain person or not, then you will think long and hard about it and imagine the future you are likely to have with this person, before you choose one way or the other. And this is the exercise of free will. But of course, it's also possible to decide whether to marry someone or not by flipping a coin. Which doesn't require the exercise of free will. People don't always exercise their free will. Because exercising free will takes a lot of thought and mental effort. So, experiments which show that in some easy circumstances people don't exercise their free will don't mean that people also don't exercise their free will in more serious circumstances, where their choices have real consequences for them and other people.
very interesting ideas! I wonder if this could apply to a compatiblist view that says determinism and freewill are both at work in that the minutia of life's daily actions and thoughts involve this brain-firing-before-the-thought process (thus indicating freewill is an illusion) and yet the cumulative set of those moments create data that can be reflected on and considered rationally (giving free will its due). So, applying it to your example, over the years of a relationship one experiences millions of moments that perhaps involve the brain to thought/action described in the experiments but, holistically, those moments and actions add up to that more meaningful circumstance that embodies our ultimate freedom (although I am sure some could argue that that is still an illusory freedom since the ultimate meaningful decision is still determined by those smaller less-meaningful ones).
@@artboy2 I think the exercise of free will becomes apparent over a longer period of time than a few seconds. Because it's a complicated and thoughtful process that takes time. It's the same kind of thing as looking for evidence of intelligence. If you look at a person's behavior over a period of a second or so, then you won't see much intelligence. And even looking at the person's behavior over a period of days and weeks won't necessarily show you the person's full intelligence. Because to see the full intelligence of someone like Einstein, you need to look at years and decades of this person's behavior. It's the same thing with evidence of free will. If the exercise of free will takes more time than a second or so, then of course you won't see much evidence of free will in experiments that take only one second. Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence. And these experiments, that the people in the film talk about, are so limited in scope that they don't provide such evidence. The only conclusions you can make from these experiments is that people don't exercise their free will, when they make snap judgements and choices, without much thought about future consequences. But these experiments don't say anything about free will in circumstances where people consider the future and give it a lot of thought, before they act. I think free will is in choosing your future, rather than in choosing your actions. Because actions are just tools and means for achieving your future. It's possible for people to make snap judgements and choices and act before they think. This kind of thing is sometimes necessary for survival. But just because people do this sometimes in some circumstances doesn't mean that people do this all the time in all circumstances. It's ridiculous to make such conclusions based on experiments that take only one second.
Yes choosing our future is something we can do. But it's all about how we could do otherwise. So in this case how we could choose a different future. Then you're getting into the subject of free will.
If you dissect the question it doesn't really make sense. You are asking about the freedom of will apart from other objects in the universe which are obviously determined. Why should it be any different? That question derives mostly of two things - not knowing yourself and thinking that consciousness can be a product of matter. In conclusion: will is determined. The self is free.
It would be a bit misleading to say free will is an illusion. But yes people are deluded about free will on mass. It begins with an error over choice and options. People imagine they have options they can select in the actual circumstances rather than options they "would select if..." I'm quite sure the whole fuss just starts with this basic error.
I see it as if we could define an area of the brain that behave independely and non stimulative or responsive way comparing to other parts then we could say this is the pointer (the true human) and that human have a free will other wise there is no free will unless you define human as all circumstances (including human body) that led to that behavior
If reality is monist materialistic then there is no free will. There is no logical way in which freewill could possibly exist in a purely material world. The only chance for free will is a dualistic, theistic, or conscious based metaphysic.
This may sound strange to many theists, especially of the Abrahamic religions, but while the scriptures teach that humans, starting with Adam and Eve, have free will, it is not without some limitations... If one's actions would interfere with God's master plan, those actions would be restricted; i.e. no one could kill Jesus before the Passover when he was set to be sacrificed and the prophecies were to be fulfilled, for example...
For any system which evaluates inputs probabilistically, the system itself is the nexus of decision-making. Such a system is possible because the world is deterministic. It is the imprecise nature of such a probabilistic system that makes it free. It seems then that humans can have free will, but God cannot.
I am convinced consciousness is quantum in nature and time symmetric quantum mechanics can come into play where the future possible outcome determines the past.
Like we allow our children's to move around and to certain activities approprite to age, time, places and situations. Similarly. All loving creator allowed some freedom as free will. It's not absolute.
'My brain knows before I know....' , this is what needs to be explored. This "I". This clearly suggests "I" am not my thoughts or my actions, Yet this is where the identification begins as the ~ conscious~ agent.
Of course there is no free will. Obvious. Why would I have done the things,the mistakes if I had any choice? I would never have made the decisions I made or the results that just could not have been of MY planning the way things turned out. I wanted to pick door no.1 and life,the universe made me choose door no.2. A disaster. As much thought as I put into things? The wrong choice was forced on me every single key time and I feel it to the bone.
Richard Dawkins ,in his book Selfish Gene says that genes exert a statistical influence which can be modified ,overridden or reversed by other influences including memetic influence or cultural instructions.Humans are replicating machines used and controlled by genes and memes to aid the replicators(genes and memes)preservation and propagation in evolutionary time.This means at a particular moment it depends upon the strength of the influence on the replicating machine and that takes control of the replicating machine(human body and brain) influencing human behaviour.
This channel asks the questions which matters the most .Thanks for the amazaing content.
I love the rooms he has these conversations in. So inspiring and intellectual.
They just need a weed joint for making it genuine.
@@firstnamesurname6550 well you cant be perfect.
@@jamesbentonticer4706 Yep, Perfectly Imperfect.
If there is no free will, then I HAD to write this and you HAD to read it. We could not have done otherwise. So nobody is really responsible for anything. Blame it all on the laws of physics.
10:04 Another thought on this study; I've heard that there are many studies that show that physiology changes seconds prior to an unexpected stimulus. It seems to me that having a person make a mental note of when a thought occurred to them by watching a clock hand rotate and remembering that number the hand pointed to, and then perform an action related to that thought, won't produce any sensical information.
Why it would not? I mean what is the reason for your claim .. visual perception is 1/12th of second even if we account for that it doesn't account for the gap
Infinite… Nice observation. [I suppose we could ask someone to count down internally, and make a decision at reaching 0. If the countdown itself could be detected, directly in the cortex, some of the measurement delay might be reduced. Our friends in the brain science and neurology departments have a long way to go.]
free will is not an illusion, we have the illusion that we have free will
Could Freewill exist on the micro scale of decisions and determinism exist in the macroscale and biologically not part of any scale?
Yes. Our decisions are not quantum scale events.
I think absolute free will is obviously impossible for lots of reasons. We (whatever _that_ means) are not the sole authors of our thoughts, but we definitely deserve a writing credit.
@@b.g.5869
*"are not the sole authors of our thoughts"*
indeed, we are the authors of our beliefs. that the authorship is deterministic in its nature does not divorce it from the author.
KEvron
@@KEvronista No, we're not "the authors" of our beliefs either.
For all the time spent debating free will nobody has ever really advanced the discussion beyond Schopenhauer's observation that we _want_ what we choose but don't _choose_ what we want, and he came to this insight without the benefit of modern neuroscience.
I don't think the idea that "absolute free will", also known as "libertarian free will", doesn't exist is particularly bothersome to most people or even particularly controversial. _You_ have particular likes and dislikes and desires and aversions, but you have no control over much of what makes you _you_ .
I get the sense that some people, particularly those who either have nihilistic inclinations or are irritated by those that they deem insufficiently skeptical, in apparent frustration at the general lack of concern over the non-existence of _absolute_ free will, resort to arguing that there is _absolutely_ no free will whatsoever, which is ridiculous. While much of who we are and what we want is determined beyond our control, we nevertheless do have a considerable degree of autonomy.
@@b.g.5869
*"No, we're not "the authors" of our beliefs either."*
of course, we are. beliefs are a product of mind. we produce belief via experience. that the process is deterministic does not divorce the author from his products. we produce our own beliefs; nothing else does this for us.
*"we nevertheless do have a considerable degree of autonomy."*
that autonomy is the product of deterministic factors. determinism doesn't mean one lacks will, but that will is the product of deterministic factors.
KEvron
@@KEvronista The issue isn't "will"; almost nobody argues that "will" doesn't exist. The contentious thing is _free_ will. But as I've been saying, it's really only absolute or libertarian free will that most agree doesn't exist, and it's lack of existence doesn't bother most people nearly as much as some wish.
Free will exist. Its amazing to see people denying it. Its just a tad better than denying ones existence. The experiments done just show that I process things without attention. I often catch things I drop without anything other than automation so to speak. Ur unconscious is clearly much more active than we like to think. But it does not prove free will to be an illusion. In fact.. your evidence your daily evidence for free will is so great that no experiment someone might say they done can affect anyone but very bad Bayesians. I promise.
This is deja vu. These questions have been asked and answered before only to end with the question being asked again.
18:45
He said "doo-doo" hahahaha
The macroscopic world is deterministic in that if I drop my bottle of beer, I know that it will fall according to Newton's law with negligible probabilities and errors. But, technically, the macroscopic world is not deterministic. I think the best example of this is the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters; according to our current theories, those are due to random quantum mechanical fluctuations soon after the big-bang. When we eventually realize a singular, comprehensive quantum theory, I believe it will definitively demonstrate that determinism at the macro level is an illusion.
I appreciate Robert's honesty.
The world is random but lacks free will.
but randomness isn’t necessarily random
@@awful999 😂if it's not random then it is deterministic or a combination of both
@@hhchirag5631 I believe it's deterministic
@@awful999 what you make out of randomness is deterministic not the randomness itself
I definitely have free will. I could never believe otherwise.
@Jimmy Lee I'm just here to hold the 'SARCASM' sign.
From the perspective of the experiencer, what is the difference between actual free will and perceived free will?
If free will did not exist (and our consciousness is just an observer of an underlying deterministic system) evolution would never have gone through the complex selection process for producing rewarding pleasure when we taste energy, or have sex, or socialize. Evolution clearly indicates these decisions are the result of free will, and evolution produced mechanisms to drive our decision making towards these important behaviors. If free will did not exist our minds would simply perform these behaviors, no conscious altering effect necessary.
Interviewer: Mr. Hitchens, do you think you have free will?
Hitch: Of course I have free will. I have no choice.
✌👉🤟🔥💖
Clever but not as clever as what he ought to have said: _'I decide that I do.'_
Hitch's mind was keen but he failed on this question, though the tongue-in-cheek response was funny in an absurd way.
An even more clever approach would have been " of course I DON'T have free will....because I don't even have the freedom of choice ".... Also would have been CORRECT lol
@Mark Smith if there is ANY randomness or arbitrary uncertainty, where is any freedom of will... We can will what we choose, but not freely will what it is we will or truly "choose" what we choose...
@Mark Smith "pre-determinism" is a whole different thing.
If free will is illusion which is stupid to even ask the question then please knock down all the prisons across the world. It’s not their fault. Where is the empathy for our fellow man.
Dear Mr. Kuhn,
There is no meaning in all these concepts I analyse, viz. "Free will, consciousness, Truth, ... ", so long as I haven't defined "I" as a particular sequence of particles and specify a definite criterion of proof related to satisfaction of my needs to verify the acuracy of the theory I assume as to the origin of those particles.
If we understand what we are, we see the multifold, and that is the essence of the problem... awareness. Thought is simply the collective of memory. Thought cannot approach any problem without that inherent limitation. So what to do? Observe completely. Within that there is no seeking, no direction, no process. Within that there is freedom. So many are stuck within the known, but that is far from knowing.
There seems to be a broad strawman argument implied by several interview subjects to the effect that if you think free will exists, you must believe in Cartesian dualism (i.e. that there's an immaterial mind that triggers the brains thoughts).
That's not at all necessarily entailed by free will.
I personally lean towards Dennett's compatibilist view of free will, but even a non compatibilist view of free will doesn't necessarily entail dualism.
I would argue that most determinists seem to still fundamentally buy into Catersian dualism, as Dennett himself often criticizes Harris for. The Determinist argument is "You didn't do that, your brain did", or "You didn't choose your own nature". But what are we if not our brains and our nature?
@@reconbravo104 Harris is typically a solid thinker on a broad range of subjects, but he's surprisingly weak with respect to free will.
Harris' views on free will are unfortunately very strongly influenced - for the worse - by his meditative practice.
He's very much into meditation, and in that context there is a lot of talk of "observing your thoughts appearing and disappearing into and out of consciousness", so it's very much biased and enforced this view of consciousness he has where it's something we observe but are completely detached from.
He's too much invested in his 'mindfulness' practices to ever be able to look at the question of free will more objectively.
Dennett definitely won that free will debate with Harris hands down in my opinion.
Free will's illusory property, is a concept that has its grounding in neuroscience, cellular neurobiology and along with being philosophically challenged by some, and in time within the progress of all of these disciplines, I believe will be answered. The fear that may come with an answer of; "we don't have free will", will change the face of psychology, philosophy and all of the brain sciences, as well as law. How could we not have awareness of our actions? For some, this would be the highlight of not having responsibility for our actions. Time will tell.
Free Will is always an interesting subject. These experts basically opined about the same as my philosophy students used to. The truth, however, is simple and obvious.
Our brains means of processing information and making decisions are influenced by countless factors outside of our control, including the configuration of the brain itself. Chemicals introduced into the body after the initial brain configuration is established, have a dramatic effect on way the brain processes information and interprets reality. Mood is influenced entirely by a mix of external stimuli, physiological condition, chemicals and intrusive thoughts. It is impossible to escape the fact that our brains our a product of material reality and is influenced entirely by external, and physiological stimuli it is exposed to from there on. So in conclusion, the concept of 'free will' simply does not make any sense. Free Will is an impossible concept. We may have desires, but even our desires are as fickle as the chemicals released as a result of neural synapses firing in anticipation of doing something we know will bring pleasure. It's what makes us want for the things we desire in the first place. We are conscious being that have experiences, but 'Free Will' in its strictest interpretation, that we have 'control' over our own destinies, simply cannot be said to exist.
in ancient time. it was the discourse of mutazila thought
If our perception of free will is an illusion, then all this time, we have been putting Descartes before the horse.
Freewill is not an illusion but, an action taken using freewill is bound to reward/punishment
When we give up freewill to God's will, we will be in a peaceful state called Nirvana
best youtube channel
The ego has free will, above the ego there is no free will, there is understanding, everything else ... below, is misunderstanding.
I feel that absolute determinism is false. Determinism can offer probabilities that you will go this way or that. But it cannot predict the outcome with 100% accuracy. Our society assumes that individuals and groups are responsible for their actions(and in-actions). So in this regard, free will is a prerequisite of responsibility. In another sense, if we look at our past and ask "do our past selves have any free will currently?", the answer must be no. Since the current moment might be considered "not real", then perhaps there is no such thing as free will.
Social responsibility shouldn’t play into your decision making. Free will is an illusion. This idea is the foundation of compassion.
Take account that we cant control the input so every little thing in the chain of causation matters upto the point of decision
Let me choose a number from 0 to infinity, i would like to see somebody predict what number i'll chose.
@@lepomirbakic4422 I think determinism is fine for things like particles, motion, velocity and position. I do not think that it should apply to information like brain states, memories or mental processes.
A Self-Fulfilling Prophesy; Without Will to Life, & Sense of Destiny then Fate is the Hunter
The Power of Lucky Number 7 supports you now !
Only reason why I would say free will doesn’t exist is because we don’t decide to be born just like we don’t decide to die. So, who’s to say we get to decide all of the stuff that happens in between?
there's far more we don't get to decide though. we don't get to decide the structure of our brains, how our brains interpret reality and process information, The neuro-chemical balances we are naturally born with, or how chemicals we introduce into our body will affect the way we make decisions. In short, material factors thoroughly govern how we make decisions. With that in mind, free will is an impossible concept.
It feels like free will only due to the computational boundedness of the human mind. To someone who could track every particle and compute everything about them it will feel deterministic. So its not really a question whether there is free will or not, but really how computationally bounded is the observer.
Regarding the scientific observation that brain activity precedes the awareness of conscious thought, I wonder if the brain activity that occurs prior to thought is generated subconsciously by external stimuli so that the moment of consciousness is an organized arrangement of that raw sensory data so that the 800 milliseconds of activity in the brain prior to consciousness exists as an amorphous set of actionable (non-determined) data (again generated by stimuli) that is then (in the remaining 200 ms) organized into the thought thus giving us free-ish will?
even if you explain away the time gap, it still doesnt explain why you chose the choice you did. there is infinite regress that always ends in mystery and darkness.
To me, free will just means you are free to use your will, hence, that is why it is called free will. We are free to love, hate, argue, doubt, discriminate, lead a disciplined life or live like a moron. if you didn't have free will you would not have this presence of your being the doer of whatever it is that you are doing, but you do have the presence of being the doer of activity, so how could free will be an illusion in anyway?
Like in his video's Robert does a lot of doubting of what the people he interviews say about the topic under discussion, but since you are free to doubt that means you are free to believe or not to believe so whenever you doubt you are using free will.
If there is no free will, then one can be grateful to another person, for example, as to a tree or a rock for its shadow. Without free will, there can be no love, gratitude, friendship, moral, conscience, promise, guilt, choice, etc. The words for them could not even exist at all.
____ Just because we don't know, how free will is possible, doesn't mean it does not exist. In the past, science was sure that radio waves cannot travel across the ocean because they travel in a straight line, so they cannot overcome the curvature of the Earth. Radio waves, however, reached overseas. And what? It turned out that radio waves are reflected in the upper atmosphere and are directed back to the Earth's surface.
____ Someday, science will discover why free will exists.
This is my question which I'm sure is not new but ...what's the difference between having a gun to your head and the threat of hell ? Alot apologists use the gun analogy to make a free will point but it's actually emphasizing to me anyway that we DONT actually have free will it's either you do as God says or you burn for eternity and I don't see free will mentioned in the bible can anyone give an angle or thoughts ?
10:04 This study seems very problematic. A delay in a person's perception of their own thought to move their body seems to me be expected, not an indication of something mysterious. Is the mind having a thought and perceiving a thought the same? I don't believe so. Is the unconscious just a facet of the mind the same as intellect? I do believe so.
It is always funny to see people citing Libet against free will when he himself thought his experiment (entirely, not with pick and choose) proves that "maybe we don't have free will, but we have free won't".
How about if *_Free Will_* is compatible with both determinism and indeterminism? I am an autistic deist daoist and a political libertarian, who is profoundly struck by the present fact that every living animal acts with self-will and self-regard,.. and yet not a single bit of all the material computational technology we have created have these _living_ qualities in even the smallest measure. Does having self-will, self-regard, and consciousness require supernaturalism in order to come into being? Or try this out... do you believe humanity will soon create technologies by which we can _telepathically_ speak with each other? Where does consciousness reside when we can move it about outside our heads? Or does well written literature do this already?
I just clicked on this video- did I have free choice to do so? I would say yes, based on learning more about free will, I could have decided not to click on this video, but I did.
i used to believe that dead is the end but overtime i thought maybe not. i find myself saying to the atheist: "wait... are you suggesting that we are god-like special or something? so you believe in god?"
that argument swings both ways. magic doesn't exist... remember. we don't know. our brains are trained to fear death because we evolved on a kill or be killed planet. edit: could have worded this better. it's simply because of how we evolved to function. so their argument is still based on emotions. the correct answer is: we don't know "because that is detaching yourself from human emotions.
"death is the end"
"look at me i'm being abstract"
me: "nice display of human emotion there"
Here's the rub: Calling free will an illusion can be interpreted in one of _two_ ways. One type of illusion we might speak of is a total _delusion_ i.e. a complete hallucination therefore what you imagine is real isn't real at all. e.g. If you were convinced that your spouse was demon possessed. The other sort of illusion someone might experience is a misconstrual e.g. the thing you perceive is something in the real world but it's not what you imagine it to be. e.g. Your spouse comes home unexpectedly at 3 a.m. in the morning & you assume they must be an intruder. It's a real person you're experiencing but you're convinced it's someone else. The illusion of free will is the second type of illusion because free will is something: _Freedom from error._ But it's not what it seems to be: Libertarian freedom as if the laws of physics could obey you "true self" i.e. What you mind thinks it must be not the lump of meat between your ears flickering this way & that according the selection pressure of evolution massaging it into the shape genes grew the billions of neural networks which run the show called 'My Life'.
The other issue few people stop to consider is what freedom is & it's not freedom to *do* _anything_ at all. It's freedom *from* error as seen from a transpersonal perspective i.e. Moral competence therefore free will isn't an _all or nothing_ true or false dichotomy, it's a question of degrees therefore the wiser you are the freer from ignorance you become - what the Buddha would describe as enlightenment because you appreciate that there's no _you_ between your ears looking out of your pupils. That too is an illusion of the _misconstrual_ variety. you're certainly _something_ but what that something _is_ is an aspect of the cosmos that knows it's the cosmos & not _just_ a sweaty little ego living within it. That's because it's surpassed the illusion (misconstrual) of ego identity & understands that it's part of _everything_ & _everyone_ something like a wave on the ocean appreciating that it *is* the ocean not merely a detail _within_ it's hugeness that's nothing to do with all the _other_ waves which make it up as well.
Bah semantics...The mind does not control the physical world. It only has a poorly constructed perception of reality that has evolved to survive and reproduce, not see the world as it is.
There appears to be a firm resentment for many to even ponder the argument seriously; however, those that I have the pleasure of getting into the nuts and bolts of the argument multiple times, generally get the point that there isn't a way around it. Freewill doesn't exist unless you start fucking with the definition.
At this moment I think about, what's "true life"? if "we" aren't "true life", if we're just the vehicle for true life, that would mean that the decissions we make and feel our own, is already made in the brain. If it is one particle or more or maybe trillions of true life particles that are responsible for our being, then free will, consciousness, cognition and all mistery functions that we percept, is determined order from the central governing, piloted to our actions and thoughts from true life agents.
The complexity takes place with the integrity of all senses to the advanced actions and thoughts.
We have to imagine, we are like a warship an aircraft-carrier. Every single sailor has a duty to fulfill. They send messages out and fly investigating rounds and are at all times alert.
Then it would be, free will is an illusion created by true life.
Are neurons true life? but they're not immortal, so that cannot be.
If everything is predetermined, then why have an education system? Why teach children how to behave? Why not let people follow their animal instincts?
Why attempt to achieve anything?
People thinking their bad actions were caused only by outside influences is the primary cause of modern social rot.
Of course we are responsible for the decisions we make: good and bad alike!
Ask someone who has overcome an addiction whether or not they have free will! Addictions are only overcome through sheer willpower!
Some things are caused by instinct (e.g., pulling my hand off of a hot stove). Some things happen reflexively as the result of conditioning, training, practice, habit (e.g. Soldiers who behave in battle the way they trained). Some happen as a result of deliberation (e.g., the 12th person on the jury who refuses to vote guilty).
But there is still a cause
Discovering there's no free will destroyed me. Life is a joke
Same. How are you coping now ?
@@Zeegoku1007 I just don't care about it. We have to live completely AS IF we had free will
@@konyvnyelv. Thanks for the reply.
My philosophy is, with more and more advent and knowledge in science we'd be able to understand all these challenging concepts in better and digestible ways...no need to make these concepts cause harm to our physical well being 😅✌️
It's been 2 years since anyone has commented on this CTT video content. I will comment in hopes that someone will visit this video soon. Actually, I had spent at least 30-minutes entering a comment when my Chrome browser went down without warning, so I lost all the text. I will try to reproduce it. This time, I will copy the text as I go to prevent another disaster!
Firstly, "we" ("our" "self" which is neural activity in "our" brain) have free will (the capacity for "freely" making decisions and choices; speaking, behaving, and taking actions), but, we do not have 100% "free" will. Genetics, early childhood development, life experiences, mental health, physical health, and certain environmental influences and pressures (peer pressure, advertising that might bias one's choices, etc.) diminish the "free" in our ability to make conscious decisions. Unfortunately, the degree to which these influences come to bear on our decision-making is difficult or impossible to measure, so each person is held responsible for their actions (even though, upon close inspection, it might be seen that the person really did not have much conscious choice in their decisions and actions.). Thus, everyone is held responsible for their actions regardless of these extant forces on decision-making capacity. The only exception is if someone charged with a crime is deemed by court-appointed psychiatrists "unfit to stand trial due to mental incompetence" - the insanity plea.
Secondly, to understand "illusion," we must understand what has an illusion. "We" have illusions. Magic illusions, visual illusions, etc. It's easy to fool the senses. As noted, "we" are neural activity in our brain. The sense of "self" is produced by brain activity as noted above. To have an illusion, we must also be conscious and have perception. (Perhaps we can have illusions in dreams, but that is another topic.) When we have a conscious illusion, "we" perceive something different that it actually is. A magician saws someone in half and it looks real to our senses. One line looks longer than another line, but they are the same length. These are illusions. In the topic of the video, "Is free will an illusion?", we perceive that we make a conscious decision (exercise of our free will), but perhaps in actuality, we do not consciously make the decision, our brains (neural networks other than those that produce the perception and feeling of "self") makes the decision a few hundred milliseconds before it comes into our consciousness. Thus, we have the illusion of free will; we believe we made the decision. I don't believe that.
Thirdly, many "experts" point to the Libet experiments in the 1970s to "prove" that "we" do not make conscious decisions; our brain (neural activity other than "self") actually makes the decision subconsciously before we are consciously aware of it. That doesn't hold water anymore. It has been shown that the Libet experiments were faulty on two accounts - poor experimental design and imprecise and poorly controlled measurements. But, what if the Libet experiments, or improved versions of them, are true? What would that mean? It is still "us" that is making the decision. It is "our" brain. So what if a couple of brain area "light up" prior to us consciously deciding? The process of deciding was subconsciously underway prior to our verbalizing it. "We" still made the decision. We exercised our free will (under the above constraints) to make a conscious choice.
Finally, what does nature and evolution have to say about free will? Does it make sense that complex life forms like mammals, primates, and humans evolved the illusion of free will? The illusion of consciously making decisions? How would that contribute to survivability and reproductive success? I think the answer is obvious. It would not. We would be living life under the illusion of being able to make choices and decisions and taking actions. If free will is an illusion, then "we" are but a false-front to some uncontrollable "thing" inside our brain. That is not how nature evolved human beings or any other life form.
In sum, humans have "free will" under the constraints of genetics, early childhood development, life experiences, and existing pressures at decision times.
"Free Will" is subjectively defined, at best.
The vague definition of "who" or "what" has "free will", and what is actually a "decision" and "who" makes it, is the main reason for the various opinions.
Under certain models of "reality", these terms are defined in a way that puts the whole argument to rest.
But all that humans have currently are the subjective. We clearly are not seeing or experiencing even a fraction of the larger picture. Until our little meat-sack bodies, ape brains and fluid filled viewing orbs can be expanded via technologies or some other means, that is all we got.
There are layers upon layers of reality that could very well mean we do not really have "free will" as seen from a big picture perspective. I am not talking about choosing what you will have for breakfast, I am talking about purpose of life and where humanity goes as a collective.
I have had glimpses and retain slivered memories of other realities during various experiences outside of body, but I cannot prove it to anybody at all... it is all subjective at this point.
My opinion is this....the universe itself is STILL expanding due to an occurrence( presumably the big bang) and is BOUND by the predetermined law's and principles that govern THIS reality and existence to continue this "reaction" until the cycle returns to the original singular molecule at which point "BANG" another reaction to the previous one and it ALL starts OVER again....so if THIS entire universe itself is ALWAYS "reacting" to ANOTHER previous and predetermined reaction and CANNOT in ANY way deviate or engage in "FREE action" ...... Then HOW CAN ANYTHING within it possibly claim to be "FREE" from these very SAME obligations( law's and principles) thst govern THIS reality and existence?......NOTHING CAN EVER "act" freely because EVERYTHING within the entire universe( even the universe itself) is STILL reacting to ANOTHER predetermined and previous REACTION.....and apparently it was ALWAYS like this.....apparently it MUST ALWAYS BE this way......at the very instant the law's and principles that govern THIS reality are breeched or the parameters of reality would be compromised then THIS reality would cease to be and ANOTHER one would take it's place....based upon different law's and principles altogether
Anyone knows the Theme song of closer to Truth, composer??
Free will is a reality, if you question everything is a illusion.
True free will would not have the limitations of the laws of physics.
What do you mean by choosing certain course of action, let me imagine your idea first, than i can tell you what i think. And don't worry about my imagination, i can visualize a lot.
Xspot box so my thought process is, imagine a box. In that box contains the laws of physics in this universe. We are then told you have complete free will to make your decisions, do as you please but only if they are within that box. I think “true” free will would be without the box, truly unlimited.
The 'laws' of physics can apparently be ignored. Something occurred in the house I live in that proved that quite nicely. I had a plastic 2 litre bottle filled with homemade Rosemary Glycerite. It had the screw cap snugly fit, and no leaky holes or even a scratch on the bottle. One morning I opened the cupboard and found that at least 3/4 of the contents of the bottle had gone. The bottle was on the top shelf of the pantry cupboard and had not been tampered with by anyone in the house. The contents were found at the bottom of the cupboard, in a plastic bowl, which is actually a dome lid, but it was turned so that it acted as a deep bowl. Anyway, some glycerite was found on each shelf. It was not found on the edges of the shelves as you might expect, it seemed to have gone right through the middle, but without a feeling of stickiness or any hint of it on the underside of each shelf. There are 4 shelves it had to go through before reaching the loose plastic bowls, lids, etc in the bottom of the cupboard. And with no hint of residue in or on any other object at the bottom. I checked the bottle itself afterwards for any sign of causation of leakage. I transferred the remaining glycerite from the bottle, and gave the bottle a good rinse with hot water, cold water, then filled again with water and screwed the lid back on. Gave it a good shake, held it upside down, did whatever I could to find a leak. But no, it was tight. No way could anything get out without human physical intervention. According to the 'laws' of physics anyway.
I think free will is something like, your ability to chose from a limited set of options in the context of your biology, culture, upbringing, gender, mental state, past decisions, circumstances, and if you have a hangover or not.
Choices are conditioned by past experiences, preferences, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth, thus how is it that ones choice is free? Does free choice imply freedom? Can it be that one chooses only becuase one is confused? When one has insight, choice isn't necessary, one acts.
this video is 26:46!!! It should be 26:47..
Free will is an "Experience" an ability to know / understand that - Its an Ex - pression! If a circle is drawn on infinity, we get Zero but this zero is "potential zero".
I believe that the tests that they perform in order to prove free will does not exist, are erroneously designed. The issue is that once you tell the test subject "you are going to flip a button whenever you see something on a screen" then you trigger a whole brain process that suggests that something is going to happen in a few seconds and I will have to respond. This is entirely different than being in a state just driving home and suddenly having to turn left or right because a car is coming towards you.... Those two situations pose two different problems and only in the second type of cases you can study whether free will is true or falls and so far I see only the first type of tests being conducted.
Convince me otherwise.
Theodore I., you point is well taken, but the whole test is based on a silly notion to begin with. They are trying to test conscious decisions separate from brain decisions. This is assuming that there is an actual difference between the two. This could almost be considered a dualist belief, like there are two separate deciders inside your head. You are a single unitary organism, not a spirit floating inside the head of a biological vessel. Even if their goofy "experiment" was totally true and actually showed that the brain is involved in a decision before it came into consciousness, it would mean absolutely nothing without the premise that your conscious mind is somehow separate from your brain, which is mystical mumbo-jumbo.
@@caricue to me is no surprise that the decision of doing a movement is taken before you are aware of it.
I would expect exactly this from an organism with free will. I mean think about it from an evolutionary perspective.
If you are an organism with free will then your brain needs to build a mechanism that processes your free decision before materializing it, because imagine what would happen if you willingly choose to stop your heart from beating or keep continously open your eyes, etc.
To me this means that you might be an organism chosing freely to do everything, then your brain processes (it built that mechanism through millennia of evolution) your choice, decides whether this free willing choice is stupid or not, if it is stupid, like stoping your heart from beating then it suppresses it, if it is good then you do what you chose to do and then the mechanism makes you aware of it.
@@theodorei.4278 Yeah, we don't disagree, but when talking to determinists, you have to figure out what their schtick is before you can even try to engage them. They might feel that only the unconscious makes choices, so no conscious choice, or they may think that genetics, experiences and outside forces control you. Some believe that the subatomic particle interactions are ultimately in control of your choices. The determinists are all over the place, but each one is ontologically sure of being 100% correct, but will agree with other determinists who have a contradictory schema. It's like how all religious people agree about god existing, even though they all have different ideas about what god is. Determinism is a quasi-religious belief about the nature of reality, so you really can't expect rationality or reason from them.
I thought the same thing, Theodore.
This is very interesting, once I heard about the game that the rules is "no matter what you do is a wrong choice". At this I am very wondered, if you choose not to do anything then it is a wrong choice because it is something you choose to do. If you actually think about, you can ask what is the best wrong choice? Or a question that what is the best choice to choose? I actually very wondered how this game gonna be started? I choose to ask to know the game. Is this makes me choose the best choice or the best wrong choice? I still wondered, should I ask what the purpose of this game. I rather know behind of this game rather than playing the game but then when knowing the game I become a player of that game. What do you think? What is this game about? I am still wondered, do I still have a free will of choice? I can say yes but consequences always applies and depends to your choice.
Brains are automatic but people are free!! We don't have free will but are still responsible for our actions!! We don't make choices but choices still matter !!!
Bottom line is free will does not exist atleast the most common notion of free will ...but we have to take responsibility for actions if we acting on a social level and maybe responsibility for our actions also have a role to play for our brain when making decisions...
It's the information (genetic and memetic) that influences the human action and behaviour over huma bodies and brains.Information in mind matters.Thoughts,intentions,feelings ,emotions,etc.are bits of information in mind that controls human behaviour and actions.Goals are also information in mind or consciousness.
Free will is the will inheritted to all human. God wanted us to be like Him.
Every person is judge to witness what is going on around. What he/she does accordingly is his/her judgment. This is called human consciousness.
Today, our problem is that we are made heedless, by our own political systems, for our own sake only, disregarding our world around us.
The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it
useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?
*"The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution."*
the very existence of the determinist would seem to undermine this observation. strikes me more as a secondary belief. the belief in mere will would be the primary belief.
KEvron
Future events are not predetermined because events are disturbed by random noise!
Maybe determinism is an illusion we create for ourselves, such as politics / central government. Maybe everything going on is freely acted according to the nature of things.
Why is there doubt? Answer: Because I have the free will to doubt something. It's funny, Robert in his interviews with people sometimes expresses doubt on the answers they give. Well Mr. Robert Kuhn you can only doubt if you have free will to believe or not to believe.
İs it a must to think mind as something metaphysical?
It all depends on what you mean by
“Free will “
By evolution standpoint free will is definitely a illusion and is only palpable.
Exactly. There's no point in even asking the question, 'is free will an illusion' unless we first know precisely what we mean by 'free will'.
We have will, but it’s not free
@@dans3158 no, the will simply exists, and does not belong to anyone. there is a will, but no 'we' to have it. there is no 'i' that can be found in a person.
@@mikefoster5277 exactly. there is a will at play here,meaning thoughts in the mind, but they dont belong to anyone. there is no 'i' that is in charge of these thoughts. the thoughts simply appear in the mind randomly, and all we do is witness them.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
The only reason to reject that free will is an illusion is distaste. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason.
Could the brain be gathering information on an object before the mind interprets and the conscious decides?
you mean "stimuli?"
KEvron
Dennett might be the most boring philosopher that has ever walked on this planet.
@Keith Jones yes, Keith he should do all of the above. he is a total tool. Garruksson gets the point.
Well he keeps us sober and not decend into the old the dichotomies boring 😂 that is just your opinion
Well, if I don't have free will. It's a pretty good facsimile.
I've never heard ' do do ' this many times in one video. 😂
There's definitely a Police song video you haven't seen then.
@@b.g.5869
Your right about that. I never liked that band.
@@thomasridley8675 I never liked them either. But they have a famous song called "De Do Do".
@@b.g.5869
Ok I'll ck it out.
I could always use leads to good music.
But only the best get a spot on my playlists.
@@thomasridley8675 This is the video in question:
th-cam.com/video/7v2GDbEmjGE/w-d-xo.html
My opinion is that the concept of freewill is just a primitive man made concept. Maybe its not realized yet but maybe "Freewill" was never meant to be even a thing. Animals have a brain but do they have freewill ? can they choose not to grab something and eat it when they are hungry ? The brain will motivate it to take the action of grabbing a fruit to eat
Wasn't this video already uploaded a few months ago?
FREE WILL = simply a theological concept(thought).
Because any cultural god is simply human creation, AN IDEA.
Feels like an SNL Skit
If free will is an illusion, is the universe exactly as it should be?
The universe viewed through most current scientific understanding is not deterministic the quantum realm is seemingly random. However this does not mean freewill is real it just means there is randomness we are still the agents of these random quantum happenings
I'd say that free will is the result of predicting the future consequences of your actions. Because when you predict several different futures, depending on how you choose to act, then your aren't just choosing your actions, you are choosing your future. The actions are just a necessary intermediary to achieve the future you want. And actions in this case can often be automatic, once you know the future you want.
So, these brain experiments that involve meaningless actions without any real consequences for the person involved are missing the point. Because the person probably doesn't even try to predict the future consequences of his or her actions. And that's why it seems as if the person has no free will.
Meaningless movements don't require the exercise of free will. Free will comes into play only when you need to make serious decisions that can affect your life a lot. So, when you decide whether to marry a certain person or not, then you will think long and hard about it and imagine the future you are likely to have with this person, before you choose one way or the other. And this is the exercise of free will.
But of course, it's also possible to decide whether to marry someone or not by flipping a coin. Which doesn't require the exercise of free will.
People don't always exercise their free will. Because exercising free will takes a lot of thought and mental effort. So, experiments which show that in some easy circumstances people don't exercise their free will don't mean that people also don't exercise their free will in more serious circumstances, where their choices have real consequences for them and other people.
very interesting ideas! I wonder if this could apply to a compatiblist view that says determinism and freewill are both at work in that the minutia of life's daily actions and thoughts involve this brain-firing-before-the-thought process (thus indicating freewill is an illusion) and yet the cumulative set of those moments create data that can be reflected on and considered rationally (giving free will its due). So, applying it to your example, over the years of a relationship one experiences millions of moments that perhaps involve the brain to thought/action described in the experiments but, holistically, those moments and actions add up to that more meaningful circumstance that embodies our ultimate freedom (although I am sure some could argue that that is still an illusory freedom since the ultimate meaningful decision is still determined by those smaller less-meaningful ones).
@@artboy2 I think the exercise of free will becomes apparent over a longer period of time than a few seconds. Because it's a complicated and thoughtful process that takes time.
It's the same kind of thing as looking for evidence of intelligence. If you look at a person's behavior over a period of a second or so, then you won't see much intelligence. And even looking at the person's behavior over a period of days and weeks won't necessarily show you the person's full intelligence. Because to see the full intelligence of someone like Einstein, you need to look at years and decades of this person's behavior.
It's the same thing with evidence of free will. If the exercise of free will takes more time than a second or so, then of course you won't see much evidence of free will in experiments that take only one second.
Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence. And these experiments, that the people in the film talk about, are so limited in scope that they don't provide such evidence. The only conclusions you can make from these experiments is that people don't exercise their free will, when they make snap judgements and choices, without much thought about future consequences. But these experiments don't say anything about free will in circumstances where people consider the future and give it a lot of thought, before they act.
I think free will is in choosing your future, rather than in choosing your actions. Because actions are just tools and means for achieving your future. It's possible for people to make snap judgements and choices and act before they think. This kind of thing is sometimes necessary for survival. But just because people do this sometimes in some circumstances doesn't mean that people do this all the time in all circumstances. It's ridiculous to make such conclusions based on experiments that take only one second.
Yes choosing our future is something we can do. But it's all about how we could do otherwise. So in this case how we could choose a different future. Then you're getting into the subject of free will.
If you dissect the question it doesn't really make sense. You are asking about the freedom of will apart from other objects in the universe which are obviously determined. Why should it be any different?
That question derives mostly of two things - not knowing yourself and thinking that consciousness can be a product of matter.
In conclusion: will is determined. The self is free.
Awesome
The illusion of free will is an illusion
It would be a bit misleading to say free will is an illusion. But yes people are deluded about free will on mass. It begins with an error over choice and options. People imagine they have options they can select in the actual circumstances rather than options they "would select if..."
I'm quite sure the whole fuss just starts with this basic error.
I believe I choose to be perplexed by this question of free will!
I see it as if we could define an area of the brain that behave independely and non stimulative or responsive way comparing to other parts then we could say this is the pointer (the true human) and that human have a free will other wise there is no free will unless you define human as all circumstances (including human body) that led to that behavior
If reality is monist materialistic then there is no free will. There is no logical way in which freewill could possibly exist in a purely material world. The only chance for free will is a dualistic, theistic, or conscious based metaphysic.
This may sound strange to many theists, especially of the Abrahamic religions, but while the scriptures teach that humans, starting with Adam and Eve, have free will, it is not without some limitations... If one's actions would interfere with God's master plan, those actions would be restricted; i.e. no one could kill Jesus before the Passover when he was set to be sacrificed and the prophecies were to be fulfilled, for example...
Yes, you can only do what you can, what you can't you can't. Try flying... *Birds have the highest rate of free will.
Wait you can't fly?
Weird 🤷♂️
How does God judge us if there is no free will ????
There is no god stupid
I admire Dennett and I admire Thalia!
Vote for RAFAŁ TRZASKOWSKI.
For any system which evaluates inputs probabilistically, the system itself is the nexus of decision-making.
Such a system is possible because the world is deterministic.
It is the imprecise nature of such a probabilistic system that makes it free.
It seems then that humans can have free will, but God cannot.
I am convinced consciousness is quantum in nature and time symmetric quantum mechanics can come into play where the future possible outcome determines the past.
can you please recommend some books on consciousness especially the ones connecting physical world
@@rahusphere Fractal Brain Theory by Wia Sang and Shadows of the Mind by Rodger Penrose.
Between Karen and the boogie man they’re messin’ up with our free will again!!
Like we allow our children's to move around and to certain activities approprite to age, time, places and situations. Similarly. All loving creator allowed some freedom as free will. It's not absolute.
Yes.
'My brain knows before I know....' , this is what needs to be explored. This "I". This clearly suggests "I" am not my thoughts or my actions, Yet this is where the identification begins as the ~ conscious~ agent.
Illusion doesn't fit with free will.
Meaning if there is no free will, therefore, there cannot be an illusion of whether it either is or not.
©
Metaphysician philosopher
Of course there is no free will. Obvious. Why would I have done the things,the mistakes if I had any choice? I would never have made the decisions I made or the results that just could not have been of MY planning the way things turned out. I wanted to pick door no.1 and life,the universe made me choose door no.2. A disaster. As much thought as I put into things? The wrong choice was forced on me every single key time and I feel it to the bone.
What if we are aware of this supposedly unconcious planning.
Then it wouldn’t be unconscious
Yes y'all just forget God's will be done you just have free choice
Richard Dawkins ,in his book Selfish Gene says that genes exert a statistical influence which can be modified ,overridden or reversed by other influences including memetic influence or cultural instructions.Humans are replicating machines used and controlled by genes and memes to aid the replicators(genes and memes)preservation and propagation in evolutionary time.This means at a particular moment it depends upon the strength of the influence on the replicating machine and that takes control of the replicating machine(human body and brain) influencing human behaviour.
There is neither evidence that there is consciousness in our brain, the two are practically the same problem??
If everything is just an illusion how can we be sure that all these intellectual are saying are true?