Free will is not an illusion | Denis Noble
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2023
- The age-old debate on free will has resurfaced with new fervor. With many contending it's merely an illusion, distinguished biologist Denis Noble presents a revolutionary perspective, arguing our very bodies may be the compass to our autonomy.
Watch the full talk at: iai.tv/video/free-will-is-not...
Denis Noble stands as a beacon in the realm of physiology. As one of the trailblazers of Systems Biology, and Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology at Oxford University, Noble's profound insights originate from his groundbreaking work, most notably his development of the first substantial mathematical model of the heart's mechanisms in 1960.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Just as we were getting to the meat, I learnt that free videos are an illusion.
😏
The talk was amazing while it lasted. It's bad practice and even disrespectful to viewers to make us watch/listen for 15 min and then not get the payoff. The effect was not of a cliffhanger, but rather of a 'catch', and the emotions associated with this experience are likely not conducive to converting customers. Please do tell us about subscriptions for exclusive content, but if you share something, please give us a dish we can eat, then we can make our minds if we want the full banquet. Nevertheless thank you for the quality of the ideas and calibre of the speaker.
It's a dirty trick. I watched this video and got very interested, only to have it end and be continued elsewhere with a pay wall. And I don't understand why many others here don't complain. Are all comments here from people who saw only half the lecture, like us? Don't these people realize they didn't get Noble's full argument? How can they make so many comments on half an argument. Do they realize it's only half the argument? Baffling.
@@beingsentient I would guess a lot of people must either not watch the entire video (the stats usually show a sharp drop in viewing after about 20% or so) or they might not have paid enough attention to the content. The contents of this talk were truly fascinating. I suppose you have already seen what Penrose has to say?
@@FM-lo9vv No I haven't, and where can I find it without a pay wall? Thanks.
@@beingsentient Penrose is all over TH-cam, and I've never had a sudden paywall interruption with him before. Just look it up 😉
Yeah everyone do that, most videos are about nothing... DOn't even convey point of what it tries to make... Or omit it whatsoever. I think 99.999% ppl are just dumb in head so...
I'm hoping that in the full talk he gets from "stochastic processes" to "free will" with some important intermediate step. A "free will" entirely dependent upon chance is not free, but random.
Every free choice, to have meaning, has ultimately to be grounded in something that is not a choice, in some aspect of the way the world is, or at least how we think it is.
If it is random, it is not determined. Free means undetermined, or not determined by impersonal forces.
@@michaels4255 Understand your point, but from my view, “free will” means “agency”, that is an agent that is able to choose amongst options and act.
If it is random, it’s just that - there is no agency.
I could make an argument that it is really just a matter of definitions. What exactly is meant by the phrase "free will"? I've seen really long discussions where thousands and thousands of words were used but never once did they define it which seems absurd to me. Whatever definition is used it needs to be general enough that it applies to more than just humans. The word "consciousness" is an example of a loaded word that many seem to assign human specific attributes that are not strictly necessary for a good definition. A definition for "free will" could be something like "ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". One of the more common arguments against free will is something like the fact that we seem to live in a world ruled by cause and effect relationships and that there is no effect without a cause so any decision made could, in theory, be tracked back to some sort of cause that had no element of choice. I personally see that as a cop-out and is similar to arguing that nothing can be done "unimpeded" since everything has limitations.
In the paper "Mental models and human reasoning" they discuss how human reasoning seems to actually work and, although this is my rather extremely oversimplified interpretation, it appears that we basically run a bunch simulations and then make inferences based on those simulations. Those simulations are based on the symbols we've developed to describe our previous experiences. The "stochastic processes" would be a key component in our ability to run those simulations. So when we're looking at a choice that was made via some sort of human reasoning we could say that the choice wasn't deterministic and is the product of the typical cause-effect chain. What I mean is that despite the "in theory" label in practice it is simply not possible to take the choice made by a human and reverse that process back to the "stochastic processes" and that like every analog system even if we did the exact same calculation with same variables we would get at least a slightly different result.
Like I said it really comes down to how we define things. I've personally settled on "we have relative free will" and I mean that in a similar way as how time is relative to the speed of the observer. An example to illustrate the point is how cells seem to operate in clusters/hierarchies and that the higher order entities, think something like organs in the body like the heart, bend the state space for the cells below/in it. There isn't any central actor telling the cell to do x or y but rather it appears that the higher order entity bends the state space in such a way that the options are limited for the cells below it/in it and in aggregate they will do what is best for the whole. In a way it is analogous to how a flock of birds or a school of fish move but instead of moving in 3d space to maximize safety from predators they are moving in a sort of function space to reduce some sort of global, given the scale, delta. Dr David Wulpert has a nice definition of what an observer is and it is something like "an observer is a system that acquires information from the environment to stay out of quantum equilibrium" as opposed to a system that is always in a state of quantum equilibrium like a cloud, falling chunk of rock, etc. If I want to remain an observer I had better move out of the way of the falling rock. Both could be described in a way that is fairly analogous to computation but one is reversible and the other isn't. Once an observer has observed it can't un-observe and that process isn't reversible. Interestingly that could also be described using something like a light cone
Well, I guess 'random will' is better than no free will.
Stochastic events can not be the source of free will. It would make us only act randomly.
A simple and effective argument. I really enjoyed it. But it's pretty cruel when they make you go to the website to buy a subscription to watch the full video.
Quite ironic, regarding the subject matter
Not really. No argument was presented. Philosophy is enough to address the topic indeed.
Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.
The full video can be found for free elsewhere. You just have to search...
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 That's like saying that living cells could never have evolved from non-living structures.
@@stevenverrall4527 No, it's nothing like that. Why would it be like that?
Denis Noble is a Godfather of systems biology
Dr.Noble's intellects are what we need to learn and continue to, free will talk's intentionaliy. People in same perspectives are great people I think.
The whole argument boils down to a misconception of what free will is. He seems to think free will is possible via any kind of nondeterminism. He thinks Brownian motion is the candidate but it only takes a few seconds of thought to realise that random processes can't explain how a conscious being is able to make a choice either. It's more than just indeterminacy that's required. Free will requires some kind of transcendental force that is able to willfully choose one outcome out of a number of different outcomes. Randomness implies the complete opposite. If he really wanted to appeal to uncertainty then i'm not sure why he didn't just invoke quantum uncertainty, which is based on fundamental and true randomness (this still wouldn't explain free will)
I think you're missing the core of the argument.
It's not the Brownian motion or stochastic process itself that grants free will, it's the type of causal closure present in living systems (autopoietic complex systems with open-ended evolution) that harnesses the stochastic nature of these that does.
In some state space, a purely deterministic system cannot produce any novel behaviour - by definition it follows a predetermined path. Noise, or randomness, allows for searching the state space for new outcomes. However, this is not enough. There needs to be some constraint imposed on the behaviour (i.e. not a mechanistic cause, but a constraint, such as topology of a state space) in order to direct it towards some particular set of outcomes. At a population level, we might say that natural selection (often but not always) acts as a filter (not a mechanism) to constrain the possible forms that organisms take in relation to their environment - but what about at the level of individual organisms? What directs the ways they can change their forms and behaviours?
Cells being autopoietic systems (see: Hunberto Maturana), provide constraints due to the boundary conditions imposed on the internal processes of the organism, which in turn maintain and modulate the whole (this is a kind of reciprocal causation between the parts and the whole, see: James Woodward; William Wimsatt).
Ultimately, it is the ability of the organism to change their boundary conditions and constraints that harnesses the stochasticity of molecular processes, and enables goal-directed searching within a state space. This is how evolution proceeds at the level of the individual organism - organisms adapt their behaviour in relation to their environment, which in turn, adapts their physiology. This is goal directed, and indeterminate (see: Stuart Kauffman's recent KLI lecture for a simple argument regarding this). It is not non-deterministic in the sense of denying physicalism, but it is indeterminate in the sense that there cannot be physical laws that define the possible functions of the system as it evolves.
Some other biologists who go into more depth on these ideas (and provide a bit more solid grounding) are: Humberto Maturana and Francisco Verella, Stuart Kauffman, Kevin Mitchell, Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio (amongst many others).
@@evanbailey4781 thank you for this comment, this really helped me understand in which direction the thought process goes. If one sticks to the metaphor of a physical system, that is simulated, one easily forgets, that it is the adjusting of the constraints, that make such emergent systems so powerful. After years of working on ideas how to come up with emergent systems in simulations and games, and being stuck in this computerized thought process, it is good to hear such adjusting thoughts to an area, where I really lack a lot of knowledge.
Idc about the arguments. It is a waste of time. Either way you must realise that your first sentence and second sentence are incoherent7
This is simply an argument, supported by empirical evidence, that seeks to refute determinism and open up a space for free will - and for me the evidence and the argument is compelling.
So you could leave a comment.
Thankyou 🎉
Just like probability and determinism, free will is both free and 'not free'.
Exactly. The workings of the brain can be interpreted subjectively as mind or objectively as known or as yet unknown physics. It is false and dangerously misleading to say that either view is incorrect.
@@aqfj5zy There is a lot of danger with determinism when it is used, incorrectly, to justify fatalism, or to excuse human responsibility.
Before arguing for free will one needs to be very clear about what it is. Most who don't think we have free will do think we make choices. The question is how could we have selected the options we did not select? Is it ultimately a matter of fortune, good or bad, which option we did select? If the answer to that is yes, then we don't have free will.
That is not rigorous scientific or philosophical evidence.
Superb intellectual structure. True and beautiful. Impartial. Thank you!
PLEASE just put the full videos on this channel. The IAI video player is not a good user experience.
there is no criteria distinguishing the content of experience in a false choice or a real choice, and so its two identical concepts in terms of the content of experience. that means that whatever you can possible mean by free will, it is compatible with determinism.
Free will is phenomenological, not metaphysical
Yeah i would agree with that, i don't know what a metaphysical criteria for free will would even look like.
There is also the destinction of determinism being phenomenological or metaphysical, in the sense of whether an ontology that is fully determined vs an theory that is deterministic. For phenomenological determinism to be realised you need tye theory to be a faithful description of the ontology or just happen to predict perfectly the resulting phenomenon as we observe it. You dont need the latter to be attainable or true for the former to be true even i principle. And so with the first definition of determined evolution, every possible experience is compatible with determinism and so there is no example of an experience that can be said to be related or defining of free will, that is not also compatible with the future and past being determined.
That is to say, there is no room for a definition of what free will means that isn't also compatible with the evolution of the world or the content of experience being fully set in stone since forever.
either you fetch a criteria from within experience, or you fetch a criteria from outside experience, and if its outside experience its unrelated to who you are, what you feel and your thought process, so how can you ever hope to create a gap between what it is like to make a false choice and make a "real choice", i have no idea what it even means to suggest, and someone needs to tell me what it is, as far as i can see its impossible, so if free will actually means anything it has to be about the content of experience and thereby be compatible with all your choices being false choices.
Freedom is only, and not more, then a measurement between zero and unlimited movement...
Hell of a blazer on Dr Noble.
From a philosophical point of view.
Descartes said "I think therefor I am" and Socrates said "I know only one thing and that is that I know nothing". Basically they are saying the same thing; That the one thing you are 100% sure of is that you have a conscious experience. Everything else (the physical world) could be a a dream. The only thing we do is process information but how can we be sure of where that information comes from?
If there is no consciousness then the physical universe has nothing to project onto. It is only the mind that differentiates within a clump of matter and in that way creates different numbers. Without it the universe would be just one thing (absolute nothingness). There would be no space and time to measure and no person that can assume it exists.
To me it is more plausible that consciousness is more real then objective reality and that it is transcendental. It is superior because all physical matter can be grasped into an idea but not every idea can be manifested into physical reality.
I believe the question of consciousness and free will can never be answered through modern science, because science reduces everything to data. We can measure brain activity, but not conscious experience.
I don’t think we can ever objectively verify that the physical world even exists outside of our conscious experience. Even with measurements and tools. To say we don’t have free will based on a deterministic physical world can’t be 100% proven at the end of the day.
Thanks for the clear thinking. I agree - there is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove or disprove the existence of free will, and this is identical to another fundamental issue: there is no way to prove or disprove that an entity (other than, and including one's self) is conscious or not.
There is predeterminism through the desired or expected result, when you act positively, responsibly and intelligently through improvement through trained awareness. When you are chaotic and less conscious, there is determinism, but not free will, which at the level of predeterminism is absolute. I understand why certain people have the impression that there is determinism or predeterminism, because they are poor at the level of emotional awareness, they are poor in emotional intelligence, in positive and intelligent emotions and feelings. So the fact that we declare something does not show us the path to follow or the one that is understood to identify a reality, this is the logic of determinism, while the logic of free will presupposes an increasingly advanced connection with one's own but also the relational capacity to become aware and in this way we can have the power of optimal and high understanding of our own or the common reality through the compatibility of the respective level. So there is clearly free will and the "explanations" that the simple statement of the cause-effect phenomenon does not say and will never say anything logical. It is about compatibility with positive and negative actions through determinism, but it reinforces the idea of free will as an expected result, as power. Simply put, only as something less conscious and less trained, there is determinism and predeterminism, i.e. the robot. There is an existential training exercise of reality awareness that many leave to chance. That's the only way you reach a high level like divinity, a similar kind of compatibility. The idea is that intelligence represents the ability to retain information and recognize patterns, but also emotion and feelings, that's the only way you're complete, otherwise you're insufficiently evolved or with a potential still untapped. For this reason, the strong inner imagination is greatly enhanced by the environment through feelings and emotions. Otherwise, we have intelligent people, but just as it is specific to artificial intelligence to reproduce, but not to understand and without strong internal imagination and capitalized by the external environment. For this reason, our perception and understanding of intelligence and consciousness is wrong. We live more in a world of appearances and less honorable. Of course we have enough compromises and there is also adaptation, but not enough to create a strong and authentic reality. Adaptation only helps us to evolve, but not every adaptation is built for a qualitative path of evolution. Good has all the explanations regarding what is good or bad, evil only explains evil and uses good and that's it. But power belongs to good and obviously free will which represents awareness and the power to change things for the better and to choose the good and the happiness that fulfills us, that lasts and is great.
Very respectfully, whatever was presented was not a coherent argument. Brownian motion, water properties, membrane physics, etc. are not disputed by anyone who either argues for or against free will. Yes. These can be arguments against the gene centric view of biology (an proponent of which is Dawkins), but has absolutely nothing to do with free will.
Even if stochastic motion is truly unpredictable and indeterministic, it does not follow that we humans are in control of that in our cells. Whether the fundamental biological processes are deterministic or not, they can not support free will in the way we experience it. Free will emerges as thoughts and intentions in our minds operating over time scales of several tens of milliseconds to seconds, which is much longer than the molecular chaos and fluctuations over the time scales of sub picoseconds to a few picoseconds.
The above is a well known argument, and is known by all those conversant on this topic. I am surprised that the speaker does not acknowledge that.
Except time is irrelevant with the foundation of the observer's unique reality.
See the nobel prize in physics 2022.
There is no objective reality. The universe isn't locally really.
This is a dirty trick. I watched this video and got very interested, only to have it end and be continued elsewhere with a pay wall. And I don't understand why many others here don't complain. Are all comments here from people who saw only half the lecture? Don't these people realize they didn't get Noble's full argument? How can they make so many comments on half an argument? Do they realize it's only half the argument? Baffling.
Simple experiments to test whether or not a system is a machine (deterministic or non): "Questioning the mechanistic-universe paradigm using chaotic systems"
Our universe is based upon the science of free will and not determinism. Biology is about choosing which dice to roll to get the best chances of survival.
I am often disappointed that people assume that we all have the same definition of terms like “free will”. It would seem to make sense to first start an argument with a definition. What Noble seems to be describing is survival mechanism in living things and not free will but they may be equivalent if he defined it this way. Even the simplest organisms show decision processes based on survival and this seems to be the core programming of living things - from single cell organisms to mammals. The model of the cell that we are taught in school is not accurate and still not resolved since there are probably more proteins integrated in the cell wall than is taught. Each protein has a function, just like a subroutine in a computer programme. Machine learning is a thing - we know how to do this - why can’t a biologicals composed of “chemical reactors” do the same thing by building a large number of variants that can act in the same way? It is determinism based on core programming and machine learning that we interpret as free will.
No organism shows a decision process. Consciousness hallucinates what it perceives as reality.
"It would seem to make sense to first start an argument with a definition."
It would! Unfortunately, it's so rarely done these days. People completely misunderstand what is discussed and end up talking past each other.
"Each protein has a function, just like a subroutine in a computer programme."
I'd be carefuly with comparing biological functions to programming language functions. As a programmer, I think they're fundamentally different. Yes, you could interpret(…) a "biological function" as a deterministic computer algorithm. But at the quantum level of reality, this interpretation (determinism, causality, locality, etc) breaks down.
Recent research on microtubules related to consciousness is very interesting (Penrose and Hameroff), as is Michael Levin's research on bioelectricity and the possibility of cell consciousness.
Though Levin does have a very computer-oriented view of biology that I don't agree with. How one sees the world is not necessarily how it is, one's thinking shapes one's perception. Deterministic binary systems ("thinking machines") are man-made, with roots in the mechanical looms of the Industrial Revolution. But at the most fundamental level of nature, it's quantum. I think that's where we might find answers to consciousness and free will. At least as far as I can tell, from what I know at the current moment in time.
@@ximono "How one sees the world is not necessarily how it is, one's thinking shapes one's perception." Very true, and the reason is because our brains evolved according to survival, not according to understanding reality. We don't have to understand what reality is in order to survive, and neither does any other living organism. In that sense, reality is irrelevant. Though arguing about it makes for an interesting life.
@@beingsentientIt definitely does :)
❤
I love this argument. Persuasive enough without even the full details ironed out. It’s an extension of, say, philosophical ideas from Chrysippus to even Althusser and Deleuze from science. But it doesn’t quite address Libet’s challenge to conscious free will. This however doesn’t even scratch the surface given how the same idea is likely to be or have been explored by other biologists like Richard Lewontin, Susan Oyama, and R. D. Gray.
Random processes don’t create Beethovens or Michelangelos. The reason why some scientists are still debating on the decisions vs determinism is because they refuse to admit that a mind is derived from an intelligent God.
Even if we could describe consciousness purely from genetics and neurons -the order found in these could only logically be explained by a random process.
"without those membrane processes there not be choice between different behavioral options"
I exercised my free will and stopped watching this video at 15:31. Richard
The core of the argument, the way I understood it, is like this: the material world is deterministic, therfore without a source of indeterminism, our behaviors are utterly deterministic, and therefore we can't call our will a free will. However, one such source of indeterminism is Brownian motion in water solutions.
free will implies more than randomness, to say we have free will is not enough to say our actions are non deterministic, we need to say that there is a subject within us which is able to affect the course of actions beyond both predetermined and random causation
I believe you are in error. If Brownian motion were strictly non-deterministic, it would still not constitute free will.
Imagine science discovered a particle whos behaviour was truly random and which was wholly independent of its environment ... would this randomness solve the problem of free will? Not at all.
Imagine a robot whos actions were determined by some internal ideal dice. Does it then have free will? Or is it merely the puppet of those stochastic processes.
Whether a robot were a puppet of pre-programmed behaviour - or a puppet of stochastic processes - it is still, nevertheless, a puppet. Any internal rationalisations or existential dialogues arising from its complexity would be, necessarily, secondary to its physical nature and wholly an emergent property of the same.
To break this and assert strict free will, one requires something else. One would require that the stochastics and/or the physical laws are influenced by the will itself in a causal manner. However if this were so we would then see, in all sentient life, a measurable evidence of telekinesis.
I'm sure I need not tell you that, as a scientific proposition, telekinesis has performed outstandingly poorly. It is quite easily testable, and yet has failed to produce any measurable deviation at any scale.
Remember that to demonstrate the proposition we would require some evidence of the will being causal over stochastics. Realise, also, that this is clearly not the same thing as finding some stochastic processes underlying the function of consciousness. This very specific causal requirement is central to the very concept of free will.
The existence of random stochastic processes alone do not provide this... only some form of mental telekinesis at some scale would provide the requisite causal flow.
Further complicating your journey towards demonstrating free will is the fact that neuroscience has very clearly determined that the subjective awareness of making decisions happens AFTER unconscious processes have already decided upon the act... thus the subjective experience of expressing free will, as has been observed, occurs as a narrative created 'after the fact' by higher and slower processes.
As of today, all scientific evidence points to the perception of free will being illusory (that is, secondary to the 'actual' decision making models) In higher animals it can be readily understood as a necessary illusion in terms of analysing and refining the underlying model in order to better compete in dynamic environments - dreams being another essential part of this refinement process.
@@garychapman7776 It is unscientific to claim that "all scientific evidence" supports any conclusion at all. Every scientific theory has inexplicable phenomena.
@@garychapman7776 except you are behind a bit in science. You are coming from scientists point of view peaking with Einstein.
Determinism has been proven to not exist short of the many worlds theory as it's final death bed.
The universe isn't locally real. There is nothing predetermined outside the scope of an observation.
For the above sentence the nobel prize in 2022 was partially given.
This goes against human inference. It's only probability till an observation has been made. There is nothing finite locally.
Once you remove the determinism loop, it's significantly harder to prove actions are based on the past, when the nature of our unique reality is being set on the fly via observations.
The ambiguous future based on probabilities and actions taken by observers give far more credence to freewill than not.
@kirillnovik8661 I think that summary is quite accurate. This gentleman would have been smart to have started with a meaningful definition of “free will” (a very difficult thing to do, by the way) because what he seems to have proved is not a whole lot.
Apologies, I haven't yet viewed the offering in entirety. But-
- English covers all bases, with the good ol' que sera, sera.
(SFX: cue Doris Day here, please ...)
I sat though this episode and enjoyed it. But I shall now use my illusion of 'free will' to wander off and fulfil the destiny that has awaited me since before the dawn of time (I just loooove cliches). Time for lunch.
Question-
-was there ever anything I could do, other than ask exactly this?
Think about it ... this is a profound question actually; I'm just the re-transmitter (it does go back a long way). And-
Any responses will tell me a lot about the responder, so be aware.
Many on that side of the argument dearly want to hold on to "I am an agent that can be proud of what I did because of free will" , but think this way. Imagine it. Free will is an illusion however I am lucky to have been given a process of thought that led me to achieve what I achieved. I am therefore immensely grateful for the dominos that make up me and my experience. (Now I am not a theist, but it seems that if we accept determinism we would go from pride to gratitude and transcendent equality in basic value of others) it seems to be not only the more scientifically correct view probably but also provide us the gratitude we once experienced when we were still believers. Gratitude for fate one could call it
What is highly unique? Or just unique?
💗💐
"Free Will of the gaps" it is, then.
Stochasticity may pose a problem to pure determinism, at least on the assumption that we don't in future find out that there's a way to determine even those processes, but that doesn't at all mean that Free Will is therefore the case or that there's any compatibilist room for it whatsoever.
The fatal problem for Free Will is simply logical. To the extent that there's randomness, things are "free" but not "will", and to the extent that things can be determined, they might be "will" but not "free".
In other words: to the extent that there's randomness then "you" have no deterministic effect or control over any will, what causes it and/or what effects it has - so if there's will then it's hardly yours. And to the extent that things are deterministic, other factors led to your will in a chain that went back to before you even existed. Again, any will is hardly yours.
"Free Will" is simply a blindness/ignorance as to what randomness or causation formed "your" will. It's a simple mistake that put you under the impression that your will is free.
Denis Noble: "We don't expect purely chemical processes to be capable of making responsible decisions, that's why we're cautious about approving driverless cars on our streets."
California: "Hold my beer while we rubber-stamp this Waymo proposal."
I've seen how people drive, giving robots a shot isn't unreasonable.
@@uninspired3583 It is COMPLETELY unreasonable. It would make far more sense to remove pilots from passenger jets, but we aren't doing that!
The most dangerous human drivers are the most inexperienced. Enabling humans to drive far less often will be a disaster. However, driver assisted technologies can improve safety.
Removing the human from behind the wheel is INSANELY FOOLISH!!! By the way, my PhD projects were all in computer vision. Most of my PhD work has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
I don't really get why people are talking about free will. What process needs free will as an explanation? It's a worldview, not a worldly process but a spiritual belief or value.
We are beautiful bubbles of earth bobbing about
People will go to great lengths to keep believing in free will
In fact they're run by their emotions who are having a hard time to live without it
When you think about it we don't know where our thoughts and feelings come from
Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what is going to happen
@@bestcomsystems4458
We cannot get any closer to reality than with science
Science will therefore never reveal reality
My comment is based on my own experiences and was intended as an opinion.
Fortunately, I am not a scientist.
I can see that emotions take advantage of everything to justify belief in free will. This is not their fault it's just how they work they can't react any other way.
So why are you attempting to persuade other deterministic machines that your opinion is correct? You must believe that you can influence their thoughts and behaviours. So you thus believe that you can influence others, but not yourself. That’s a remarkable universe you have constructed.
Emotions have, amongst other functions, the ability to transfer meaning and information. Our bodies continually relay such information, and by learning to listen to that somatic signalling, we can develop increased capacity to interpret those signals. Many introspective traditions teach this, and noticing processes have been studied extensively in science. There is no introspection in a deterministic model of mind. But that is where the real problem is entrenched for determinists. Few, have spent any time in meditative silence or mindful awareness. There are some exceptions, but not many.
Beyond that you did not address any of the science discussed in the video. Given that it is a scientific argument, what people believe is not particularly relevant to the thesis put forth - including your beliefs and mine.
@@powerandpresence5290 Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what's going to happen is part of the world view of my subconscious mind as well as from myself
The worldview of the subconscious mind has nothing to do with philosophy but it's a model of how life works
Everything they've seen must be explained with this model.
With this in mind videos and comments that are defending the belief in free will become very entertaining.
I don't care what other people think.
Thank you for your reaction,it was quite amusing.
It's a reasonable assumption we are machines made to experience stories
If you've complains you need to address the script writer 😊
And determinism is boring. The Universe doesn't look boring to me.
Wow, Denis Noble does a fantastic job at triggering AI fanatics and free-will deniers! 😊
Sometimes people are triggered because they hear BS being said.
Read "Sapolsky: Behave"
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 You are confusing reading with hearing. Enlighten me with any proof at all that falsifies anything Denis Noble has written during the past decade.
@@stevenverrall4527
Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's the infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.
Looking smart and being smart are not the same.
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555like your reply.
DONT accept any subscriptions from IAI. They tell you that you have to email in order to cancel, and they dont respond to emails so yorue forced to pay.
Man's looks like David Bowie playing Doctor Who. I just wish I didn't get halfway through and then told to go somewhere else.
i like the way Denis calls bs
It makes more sense that the 'illusion' of free will evolved.
Life is a competition, often a deadly one between predator and prey. Deceit via mimicry, disguise and camouflage are evolved techniques seen everywhere in life's jungle. Humans have taken it to a whole new level.
In short, if life became a game of evolving wits then whoever took the game most seriously would be more likely to survive. Turn on the news to see this live.
please debate with sapolaky
1:56 - epic British moment
I find the whole “free will” debate very confusing and contradictory, on all sides of the debate.
So, after a couple of billion years of perfecting some organisms and eliminating others, Natural Selection thought it would be cool to grant free will to a caveman. Or maybe free will evolved . . . but how could that be possible? Describing such a process might settle the debate.
Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.
Denis Noble implies that every living cell is capable of a certain level of free will. It makes sense that a more complex organism can make more complex decisions.
@@stevenverrall4527 This has nothing to do with "freedom". More with complex processes which seems random to us because we lack Information about what's going on. Just like it is the case with Quantum physics.
@@michaelwright8896 not really... most things are very simple and the really important answers have already been given 6-7 000 years ago. Science is a tool, it's not something for seeking truth since it's based on our perception about the world which is impossible to verify if it's an exact match.
old guys are wise but why I gave raise the volume to the full potential of the device...why Google...do something for it...
Ask …… What is absolute freedom? The ability to think anything regardless the situation…… The “FREE WILL” of thought even if confined, hogtied or whatever that prevents you from acting out your thoughts into existence ….. This idea gives everyone the sensation of “I am real” or an identity to express self. I think therefore I am … but?…… the question I ask, where do your thoughts come from and is it possible to be identified as a thought within the mind? ……. What is the difference between you and a rock …. The Awareness to have a thought. The rock is just a rock ….lastly ask ….. am I apart of that…. or …. separate from that awareness? Love always
the answer is no. you are not absolutely free but only partially. the difference between u and a rock is quite literal and obvious. It does not have, evidently, the capacity for knowledge or intelligence, therefore sentience cannot arise. Technically speaking, I can make that assumption pragmatically but it is not known for sure. Just as I can say pragmatically that bigfoot doesnt exist, rocks are not sentient.
free will is not an illusion. it's just suppressed by society.
Does he have an argument? Probably not otherwise it would be in this video. What he does assert is there is randomness, but even this he cannot establish, only apparent randomness. Not that randomness has anything to do with free will.
If your definition of determinism is that future events are predictable, then randomness would make that sort of determinism impossible, but that sort of determinism is impossible for other reasons: knowing enough to make the accurate prediction becomes an additional unaccounted factor that can affect the outcome - a recursive loop that cannot be escaped.
In scientific determinism events can be ascribed to prior material causes. Unless Dr Noble can make a case for prior immaterial causes, he has no argument. Even if it could be argued that quantum states can produce inherent randomness, outcomes would still be ascribable to prior events and in any case there would be nothing that amounts to any sense of agency.
That immaterial things exist and exert force is impossible to prove. The obvious immaterial thing creating free will would be consciousness, but that's usually understood in the mainstream as being emergent from the brain. Arguing it may be a priori makes one look like a kook!
It is an assumption however that everything that is causal is also material because we can only ever include material things in our analysis as they are the only things available to our senses and sensors. But causal things may exist outside of that.
Our general models may point to determinism but there are always things in the set of unknown unknowns that could point to other explanations.
@@jjeremyhunterr Do you have an account of how anything immaterial can have a physical effect? Or are you simply asserting that we cannot prove that magic does not happen?
Dark energy/matter is an example of something we cannot observe having an effect. We simply assume that it is material @@martinbennett2228
I admire his conviction, but his argument doesn't overthrow determinism, which doesn't allow for stochasticity. Events are stochastic only from the perspective of the observer- in this case, we can't predict the motion of molecules in suspension, so we call it stochastic, but the motion is still determined
No, it's _believed_ to be determined; this is in contrast with actually observing something to be true empirically. But one can believe in determinism, regardless of ever hearing about (nevermind performing) a single experiment in one's life - and invoking determinism in order to explain determinism is nothing but good old-fashioned question-begging.
We've destroyed classical determinism already. You basically have to believe in the many-worlds theory to make any sense of determinism.
See the Nobel Prize in 2022 for physics. Local Reality does not exist till observed.
CTMU
All he does is argue against strong determinism, which is a first step, but not the last step.
If you take a process like evolution, it can be seen as totally random or directed. If the latter, it would look like free will from some outside force. That could be called an illusion.
On the other hand, the existence of the brain itself is a good indication of free will, since it's it's function. Otherwise there is no need for it, all it does is create some form of micro evolution at the individual level. If it does not do that, it is a useless member. Still, it's not a total proof, so it will always be a belief, but a reasoned one. It's more than just an illusion, it's our whole identity as humans. Funnily, people that deny it don't ever take it to it's logical conclusions, like they will never want laws to be abolished since they also are illusions, like any kind of justice. All the Darwinian evolution is also dead in the water, because if animals can't choose who they mate with, all that part is finished. Breeding and science, it's all illusions as well, it's pointless to loose time with it. Philosophy is over since you can't tell truth from falsehood. So in the end, denying free will is just admitting to be a clown with nothing to say or do, just a puppet not worth listening to. Of course that's not what those people want, thus the lies and clear contradictions.
It's a reasonable assumption we are machines made to experience stories.
You should read sapolsky’s book on how society doesn’t need to collapse if we belief free will doesn’t exist. Consider this, it doesn’t exist now and we’re still doing fine. We can find ways to make this belief work
Sorry to hear such misled line of logic. As soon as you dismiss the existence of a demon or whatever that is outside the realm of cause and effect, free will goes up in smokes. What he is explaining is just why the illusion is so convincing: it os too complex to unravel. Though : it would be possible.
I don't mingle with scientists anymore or explore scientific content. But it's always funny to me how so many of these paradigms behind these questions were created by science itself. Some jack S, sold this idea to many........that free will is an illusion "because determinism". But the very defintiion of determinsim has so many holes in it and hinges upon so many basic human assumptions it's not even funny.
All scientific "breakthroughs" regarding this or any other topic.......have to do with faulty axioms. The basic assumptions shoved down our throats........along with this forced broing relligion VS science war is going to continue to block us from accurately perceiving any of these topics.
I don't disagree with your point, but determinism seems to be a special case. It is so intuitive and probably evolved into our mentality, that it is virtually impossible for most people to even conceive of the possibility of it being erroneous. If you combine this with an egotistical need to be right, and a basic human tendency toward mental laziness, and it seems quite hopeless to imagine that they will ever get past this roadblock to advancement.
@@caricue That's because most people are disconnected with their right brain. Science was sold to us as the ultimate tool to explore truth (newsflash, it isn't; it's ONE tool), and it has become too left-brained focused. The part of us that is hypnotized by determniism is the left brain part. Then there is institutionalized science vs actually unbiased science....which is another topic altogether....but people can't zoom out enough to see the incestuous relationship between academia and big corporations and our scientific institutions.
*Any* will free or otherwise is not possible for dreamers
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
අනිවාර්යෙන් ස්වච්ඡන්දය නෑ. අනිවාර්යෙන් ආත්මයක් කියලා එකක් නෑ. අපි යන්ත්ර. හේතුඵලවාදයෙන් තමයි මේ සියල්ල ඇති වෙන්නේ
12:44 did you just call me by my rumplestiltskin name?
Massive Random Sarcastic Activity - mrsa 😂 Mrs.A(sshole)
I am no longer a fan of this discussion, because there are 2 incompatible ideas which shouldn't be. first is our scientific understanding of the world which views everything from the standpoint of mechanics (determanistic or probabilistic) and this isn't what we commonly understand when we say free will. the second is our subjective feeling of free will. imo it's because we should view free will as an action not a metaphysical statement. When I am free to make a choice uninhibited then that's free will, even if that choice was predetermined or randomly selected it's still free will because of the action of the choice and my consciousness of the choice. this is s tangible definition of free will which I see is more realistic.
Yes. You are raising a good point. It would be nice if those who debate such things at length just used two different words (or qualifiers) to describe these scenarios. For example, subjective free will, and objective free will. I think that objective free will doesn’t exist, but the subjective free will as a human experience does.
@@jmdawlat yup makes sense
We've already destroyed determinism via quantum entanglement.
Determinism is dead short of the many worlds theory.
Instead of determinism, nothing is determined TILL an observation. The universe isn't locally real but instead a flux of probabilities.
@@rivinOX I did include probability in my take, and it isn't entanglement that brings probability it is superpositions, it doesn't change my point
@@destroctiveblade843 if you remove HALF of your point, literally everything to do with determinism what are you left with?
I decided to deny the existence of free will and consciousness to the face of the deniers until they start to feel the absurdity of denying these.
Free will is a paradox. This dude doesn't prove anything. People just want to feel free, that's all.
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 you are right. Further, it is an illusion. It simply doesn’t exist. You are not free in your decisions. In fact, you are not deciding on anything. Just your brain electro-chemicals work. That’s all that happens…
Define free will precisely. I think the problem is before denial of a property.
It's nonsensical what most people (and the phrase itself) demand as free will.
People are bound in their upbringing and information they get. They didn't always believe in free will. Many do now and it's more wishful thinking without even a consistent precise meaning to the phrase that captures the words used to describe it.
A little bit funny isn't it.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos
Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 I agree with the conclusion but not necessarily the reasoning.
The infinite regression fallacy says that an argument is insufficient. Not that it's paradoxical. Infinite regressions are possible without contradictions.
And if we are strict even the infinite regression fallacy is not really a fallacy.
If you look at an infinite ordinal number, then any regression on its elements is infinite but it is a sufficient argument for the validity of statements for all elements in that ordinal thanks to the well-ordering of the elements in the ordinal. The infinite regression fallacy would suggest it's not sufficient.
Philosophers are not good with infinities.
Denis Noble is so much more intelligent and correct than dawkins. I can't believe that weasel is even considered a scientist.
You're being cruel to weasels.
There is an inherent internal contradiction in 'free will' such that it is an oxymoron. In order to actually exercise and bring into actuality the 'free' bit you need determinism. You have to causally exercise your 'will'. Thus free and will totally contradict each other.
@15.04 to 15.25.....is too cute...if it were not actually serious enough to "ponder" upon..!!
I believe this argument does nothing
He proved that the human genome isnt the sole responsible for 'volition', through the attribution of said volition into a different agent (fat, water moving in brownian motion, stochastic chemicals). This just implies that the determinant is another material, causally linked thing to whatever material processes produce human action.
The problem isnt which determinant we speak of, but rather the existance of a determinant itself.
There is no determinant. The basis for determinism has already been destroyed. See Nobel Prize 2022 in physics. Objective reality is a fabricated human construct that's not based in reality. There is no local reality TILL observed. If you still want to go on the path of determinism with the advent of quantum entanglement, you are left with the many world's theory.
As far as I cand see, he never got to the point. And, as I consider this video click bait and will have nothing further to do with the site, for me, he never will.
Paywalls tarnish your brand image.
There are always boundaries, you are never completely free
not true
Choosing between a finite number of options (limited by boundaries) does not make the choice determined. You can freely choose between 4 flavors of ice cream for example.
@@Nelson-sr2bi bingo
This was amply demonstrated in this video. The boundary was we only got to watch half the talk. And the second half was on a subscription site - so not free.
@@bruceb7464 We are free to pay a price to watch the second half...
All based on the assumption that complex cells, understood to be the original source of life, actually formed over billions of years. While the components of this cell only have a life expectancy measured in hours while being linked to form rna the idea of life generating itself over millions of years is a hypothesis not based on science. The degenerative compositon of cells doesn't permit long time spans for abiogenesis to take place.
Oh, well that settles it.🙄
2:13 - We can, if we accept determinism...
I don't understand. How does this argument mean there is free will? Randomness therefore free will? Did he even define free will?
Determinism doesn't exist as proven in modern science. The classical argument against free will is based on determinism. So if you would like to start there and define how free will doesn't exist with the absence of determinism, good luck.
@@rivinOX No hard determinism does not equal free will.
@@Zanuka You still need to have a basis for NOT having free will. You've yet to explain what that is. You can't just say it doesn't exist.
Rolling dice with the universe with your decisions based on the perceived probabilities and outcomes that are unique to you the observer gives far more credence to freewill than not.
Within the constraints of their talks, I don't believe they have enough time to define the terminology, but he made references to people that he is arguing against, so I guess those are the prerequisites for this talk
it is not surprising that some stubborn determinists want to revise the criminal code; they simply see that the killer kills because his behavior is predetermined, so you can safely beat the determinists with a stick, saying that it was already predetermined
Glacial acetic acid. GAA
unconvincing
That was strangely sad
"Responsible" is a human construct and has nothing to do with natural process.
He then describes how we are made of mechanical switches. Only to argue that mechanical switches are not mechanically controlled?
Those who believe that individuals are not personally responsible for anything are the root cause of modern societal problems.
So people should do whatever they feel at the moment and not care about long term consequences? That is a recipe for crime, social rot, and chaos..
We have options and we can create opportunities
and....?
That's not an argument about free will, but about the impact of non-determinism on living beings. I hope this fallacy is not so common among scientist, but poorly i think i'm wrong.
Everything needed to be said about free will was already been said: there's no Free Will (it has no physical meaning) but we have to behave as it existed.
Any evidence that free will is an illusion?
People (physicists) say that the quantum world elicits determinism, but the quantum world can't even rise to the Newtonian and Einstein level. Scalar variation is a very real and demonstrable thing, and I suspect that at our scale, the determinism gives way to mechanisms that allow for some level of limited choice.
I feel the existence of Russians proves the argument one way or the other, i'm just not sure which way. I think Russians prove determinism unless you are a Russian living in the West, which suggests free will. I have to work with the premise that no one would chose to be a Russian, first principles:)
Sufficient causation plus one-way arrow of time = no free will. I don't think any kind of randomness or complexity changes that. It seems to be as true in a mental universe filled with angels as a physical universe so long as, at any given moment, your internal and bodily states are x reacting to stimulus y. Hyperdeterminism means you could replay the same five minute slice of your life indefinitely and have a perfect replica every time, indeterminism would mean that the five minutes would unfold lawfully but never from the same starting point.
If you remove objective reality and include quantum entanglement that easily breaks causation. Nothing is predetermined unless you hold to the many-worlds interpretation. The nobel 2022 prize in physics was given partly for proving there is no localized reality. Everything is a probability TILL observed not prior. Irrelevant of time. Look up "spooky action at a distance."
"free will" in the biology world would a kin to something like "not eating" as hunger is a process that makes you want to eat. free will would be to go against that process........ good luck with that one.
free will is absolutely an illusion. Very easy proof: picture yourself being in love with someone who does not love you in return. The rational thing would be to "un-fall in love" and just decide to not love that person anymore, because this would stop you from being frustrated and unhappy. But alas we cannot do that because we cannot help ourselves but to love that person only after some time we will lose interest in that person and will be open for a different relation ship.
Reason for that: we have no free will we cannot simply "switch" and not love a certain person.
Another proof: picture yourself being addicted to some drug or some behavior that is self destructive to you and you know that this is bad and that you need to not be addicted anymore, but you cannot help yourself and you keep smoking or whatever eventhough you "want" to stop.
Reason: you do not have free will and thus are unable to quit a certain thing.
That bein said, you still can overcome those challenges but only by crafting your enviroment and creating strategies in order to enable your decission system to favor a different behavior you manipulate yourself into doing the better choice by for example not buying the unhealthy snacks during your shopping haul etc.
I go into a restaurant and order appetizer and main course. Upon finishing the appetizer, I am asked to pay for the whole meal and unless I do, I cannot proceed with what I ordered. Behavior like this is in poor taste and ruins what otherwise could have been a great meal. Shame on you IAA. This is in really bad taste. You need to make better choices than what you did here for this tour de passe-passe shows you have no class. You have no honor. And I am going to exercise my "free will” in my wallet along with others on both sides of this issue and go buy Noble’s book and be pretty well guaranteed that when I come to page so-and-so the rest of it will not pop up and ask me for a donation.
Thought I found an interesting new channel to subscribe to, turns out they're just as capitalist as the rest. Fascinating topic and lecturer; infuriating monetization policy!
No i will not accept that people do things for no reason. This may be comforting for the uncurious and surface level enjoyers, but looking for causes has given us all a lot more than just assuming everything is random. I'll pass on this vid, maybe that's uncurious but i think ill go learn about something else.
Lot of talk but no clear argument. If there is a free choice, where is it being made and who is making such a choice?! The brain?! Well the brain itself is dependent on other cells and processes in the body and of-course the DNA. The Switch statements are the alternative of If-else in programming. So, if there are Switches in DNA then it means there are indeed If-else statements in the DNA. If there is Freewill at physical level why don't he change his age with that Freewill?!
Do u even understand how absurd life can be without freewill .. !
@nobody983 You are missing the abstraction of probability with your if else statements. There is no deterministic loop. Determinism has been proven wrong in modern science.
So the abstraction is based on a unique observer perceived probability for your if-else statement not a prior determined factor.
@@rivinOX Does a rock rolling down a hill have free will? The path the rock takes is also determined by probabilities.
Except the rock is not determined by unique probabilities. When we are talking about probabilities concerning freewill and "dice with the universe" we are talking about the observer's viewpoint. The observer's viewpoint is unique. The rock as far as we know does not make an observation resulting in a decision. There is NO probabilities concerning the rock and the decision being made down the path. @@harmless6813
This is only an introduction, the full lecture link is there.
Looks like this talk was heading to a "random therefore free" conclusion. The freedom of a weathervane.
Well, if you add in the Nobel 2022 prize in physics results -
Specifically, that the universe is not locally real till observed, the weathervane (if capable of observing) would be what perceives reality. Local reality isn't real till observed.
Determinism is dead unless you jump into the pool of many-worlds which renders every single probability as a parallel outcome. There is still an argument for free-will even with many-worlds.
To further explain the concept the Nobel Prize 2022 physics-
Local realism is the assumption that physical reality is independent of observation and that no influence can travel faster than light. However, quantum entanglement shows that two or more particles can share a quantum state and remain correlated even when they are separated by large distances. This means that measuring one particle can instantly affect the other, regardless of how far apart they are.
This phenomenon violates local realism and implies that the universe is not locally real, but rather depends on the way we observe it.
@@rivinOX I am familiar with that work, and it definitely deserved the Nobel Prize! And yes, local realism is the idea that entangled particles already have their quantum values fixed prior to measurement via so-called "hidden variables". The scientists showed that this was not true - even for light-separated particles, the quantum values are indeterminate prior to measurement. (Any number of events can constitute a measurement - we don't have to have conscious beings there as witnesses to collapse a wave function.) I wasn't suggesting that we don't make choices. But neither determinism nor indeterminism seem to provide a suitable basis for freedom.
I understand compatibilists feel differently. Some people are happy to equate freedom with a feeling of not being constrained. To me, it's like floating ISS astronauts fantasizing that they've escaped gravity (while orbiting via Newton's Law of Gravity!) Also, I'm not convinced that indeterminacy at a quantum level renders determinism dead at every other level of organization.
I haven't been convinced by the Many Worlds hypothesis. What amazes me is the wave function that entangled particles share, an equation that doesn't pre-determine quantum values, but does ensure distinct quantum states upon collapse. I would sure like to know how that distinctness is *determined*! Thanks for your very interesting reply. :)
This is click bait! Should be clear in the title this video is not complete and only a clip. Waste of my time.
Much ado about nothing. Agreement and consensus doesn't sell books. Disagreement and highly personalised argument does. Some of this is just arguing for the sake of it. Much of the apparent disagreement comes down to how you define terms. What do we mean by free will? What do we mean by illusion?
I'm kind of relieved that it finished there. So much incidental nonsense in just that 15 minutes doesn't give me any hope for the rest of the talk.
I assume he's going to go on to claim that these "membranes" do not behave in entirely deterministic ways, presumably due to quantum mechanics (if he is merely claiming that they are complex chaotic systems then they are still deterministic, even if it is impossible in practice to predict their behaviour).
The question then is why does he think that being a slave to quantum mechanical mechanisms gets us any nearer to having free will than if we were slaves to deterministic mechanisms? Why aren't they both as bad? If I can justify morally bad actions by saying that I had no choice and was determined to act in that way, why can't I make the same argument about quantum randomness - the Schroedinger wave function collapsed in a particular way and that caused me to act the way I did. Nothing I could do about it. Randomness just doesn't help here.
make education free, sacrifice a bit
Denis Noble's approach misses the point. From the perspective of the approach of physics and science in general our universe is deterministic in that the idea of cause and effect drives scientific understanding. Even the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the probabilistic, non-linear, statistical and chaos theory, approaches to complex classical systems are based on deterministic concepts. But this idea has little to do with what we usually think of as Free Will.
Free Wiil should be understood from the points of view of religion, politics, culture and especially history. Not from science, not from biology, chemistry or physics. Historically, the concept of Free Will is used to attribute guilt to one's actions. Eve chose (out of her free will) to eat the serpent's apple and was punished. Augustine and Aquinas pushed the idea in the early Christian church so that Christians would know that doing "wrong" would bring punishment. And secular rulers could justify laws and punishments to keep the downtrodden masses under control.
These days we understand that society, culture, family, psychology, brain functions and other "sort of deterministic" aspects of the human world determine our behaviours and actions. So, we've modified our crime and punishment systems a little to take into account upbringing, insanity and mental dysfunction when determining punishment. No one is going to say "oh poor Adolf Hitler, he was so hard done by, so we should forgive him for the evil he did." But it is helping us think how we can better raise children to be good citizens. But the classical idea of "Free Will" is still dominant even if we can show it isn't true.
Free will more impossible than God.
Free will is an oxymoron.
i'm 14 and this comment is deep
Agreed, it makes no sense conceptually (pure assertion), at least in my opinion.
Possibly if you believe in non dualism. Even then I wouldn't be too sure. More of a paradox.
@@mattblack6736 And I'm over 14, so unfortunately that doesn't qualify as 'deep' any longer
@@Zanuka Only because of semantics; one looks at 'free' in 'free-will', and thinks that means 'free to do whatever'; by this poorly-defined view, not even God is free to do anything - including (not) existing - therefore, one creates this strawman to 'defeat' the notion of free-will, without doing any real reflection. Blame mindless liberalism/libertarianism for this everlasting canard.
Let the robots be robots, meanwhile the rest of us will enjoy our FREE existence.
Being tricked is a huge part of this thing we call life.
Natural selection wrote your comment
How annoying, only a small part of his argument featured, then you're invited to subscribe to hear the rest. Thumbs down from me.
No argument was presented. Philosophy is enough to address the topic indeed.
Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.
That's a loop based on determinism. Determinism short of the many-worlds theory does not exist.
Local Reality does not exist till observed. There is nothing that is predetermined.
The observation itself is what set's reality.
See the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 (October) for details.
Probabilities exist and that's it.
The contradiction is now believing in determinism without many-worlds theory to hold it up.
This is no argument, sorry. I have studied philosophy...
@@ondrejsaly749 obviously you were an F student since you don't know you can't cite your supposed credentials as an argument.
Btw, yes it is an argument... A very good one mind you, it's so good that you ran away from it screaming in the most intellectually dishonest way.