I feel like in the distant future any intelligent species looking back at us will view our idea of the existence of freewill in the same way as we view people who thought the sun goes around the earth.. Except in this case it seems fairly obvious we are wrong but we believe it because it helps our idea of who we are!
And why should he do؟ so as long as he wants to be a specific point of view at the expense of the other, because it is a link in a chain of material dogmatism to distract you from the reason for your existence in life !!!
I agree with this suggestion. It's ok to make the levels slightly different but in this case the difference is too present. It's annoying when you have to turn the volume up and down every 5 minutes. Other than that, this is my favourite yt channel 👌👌👌👌👌♥️
there are two kinds of free will, and I think it is important do differentiate between them. It might be that your brain makes choices before you consciously experience an "illusion" of you making that choice, but it is unrelated to the kind of free will, about which for example hard incompatibilists can talk
I don't know about the "Moral Responsibility". However, I do feel that Free Will is necessary for legal responsibility(or personal responsibility). I also think that consciousness and decision making is tested to determine if a creature(synthetic or not) has free will.
Of course, the free will is to know the details well so that you can choose, for example, "soundtrack" and this deceptive outward appearance. You will notice that they have talked a lot about "scholars" versus philosophers in order to support materialistic philosophy in the "subconscious" so that they steal the "equivalent" by how And not why?
I am so surprised at the very superficial and frankly amateurish view on Free Will by some of the researchers. Free Will is not about making superficial choices. Free will is about a much more fundamental issue. The freedom of the Will itself. And Nietzsche already handled that in a fundamental way: (In German Will (Wille) is directly linked to want (will) ). According to Nietzsche to ask about the freedom of the will is a nonsensical question. You always 'Will' what you will and you can not change what you Will. It is neither Free, not is it not free: It is you! You 'simply' Will it. Freedom does not apply to will but to the possibility to do what you Will. Freedom applies to action. If you are captive and want to be free then that is your Will, but you do not have the possibility to act upon your Will. Your Will is the product of your life, your past experiences, your education, your upbringing, your urges, your instincts. Your Will is you! It is what it is! Freedom has nothing to do with the Will itself, but with the actions that come forth of that Will.
Surely this primacy of action is why the neuroscientists in the studies shown in the video are analysing the relationship between intention, awareness and action?
How do you define free will? That is when is will free? For the sake of argument let’s examine two simple examples. It is not unreasonable to assume that your past experiences have a profound impact on your choices. Maybe your history even dictates your choices so that any choice in any situation is predicted by your history. Do you have free will? There is no outside force making you choose one or the other, but the choice is never the less given. So, let’s continue from there, let’s give you a choice between ten identical marbles in a bowl. Here it would be very difficult for your past experiences to dictate your choice. There are ten identical voices and nothing to make you prefer any of them. So, if there is nothing upon which you can base your choice then it appears to be a random choice. Random might be free in a way, but barely qualifies as a conscious choice. I am leaning towards the conclusion that in some cases our past makes the choice obvious and in the other cases our choices are more or less random. Let’s say you eat an apple every morning but one day you take a banana instead. Why? Because you wanted to? But why did you want to? Maybe the apple looked a bit old and you unconsciously concluded it would not be tasty. Maybe you have a beginning toothache and that keeps you from biting into something hard. If there was no reason, then it seems a random choice.
Reason why Free will exists 1. The free will theorem implies our nature is simlar to particles where the decisions are not a function of the past 2. The laws of the universe are designed in such a way to give us higher functions and the idea of free will and god. Do you think this is a coincidence? 3. Genetically cloned rats makes different decisions in the same environment 4. Neuroplasticity is found where you can shape your brain from your thoughts 5. Quantum mechanics completely debunks that this is a deterministic universe which is complete the founding principle of determinsm 6. Peter Tse's concept of neuronal free will in regards to quantum mechanics 7. Near death experience studies. Extremely unlikely to be confabulated as they do not have religious backgrounds and they occur during no brain activity. Recorded by many medical professionals who are extremely scientific. Even some scientific skeptics have ridiculous arguments 8. We all have a concept of free will and it certainly feels that way. 9. You can find cases of people who have certain genes for certain personality traits in a certain environment yet become completely different people Spread the word. The determinists are wrong.
Philosophy is all about understanding a question, so first we need to understand what do we mean by free and will. Do we mean freedom of motion, thoughts, behavior, moral decisions,... all those things are limited by physics, chemistry, biology, extremes or excesses. It would be very weird if absolute freedom could exist actually. What is will question could stand on it's own, we make decisions all the time, but not all are in tune with our state of being, mental state or environment. Sometimes we choose what is obvious, even if we don't like it or is not right. This is not limit of freedom but consequences of the way we make our mind about something, sure we can always choose whatever we feel like it, but social life demand rational and controlled behavior from everybody, so people obey and comfort to what is expected and demanded of them. That's why i believe morals and psychology are not good tools for exploring this questions, since they present own system of regulation, based on free choice from many politicians, professors and medical doctors. Nothing humans do is natural, society is constructed from mixture of experiences, opinions and believes, we are free to use freedoms system provide and protect. Scientists, believers and even many philosophers try to avoid emotional intelligence influence and dreams, because those concepts are so illusive and can't be touched directly with scientific instruments. Biological senses and emotions are two different things, even when emotions arise from sensory input, but not just from there or only because of it. And dreams... this is why i decided for this comment, scientific community is doing terrible thing to our entire species by tempering and influencing most important force that define our kind. Merge emotional intelligence with dreams and we produce imagination, most precious substance in the whole universe. This is where we can truly be free, when we feel alive in our dreams, totally independent from reality or physical constrains. Would surprise me at all if one day some global government will prevent people from entering realms of dreams, those will be allowed only for Grand Alchemists and their consortium of high techno priests who will control what a man can do and what man can not do.
Of course, the free will is to know the details well so that you can choose, for example, "soundtrack" and this deceptive outward appearance. You will notice that they have talked a lot about "scholars" versus philosophers in order to support materialistic philosophy in the "subconscious" so that they steal the "equivalent" by how And not why?
Just by ideas and concepts you can not understand the real world.We need to depend on science.One question to you,who you are?You do or take decision as per your Brain.You are no body other then your Brain.What you do everything in every moment is by command from your Brain.Thank you.
@@anwarulmamoon4299 You got me well, this physical bloody ganglion, you are defending the unknown, because you need a data processor to know why you are here. Thank you.
@@anwarulmamoon4299 Brain is just a central part of entire nervous system, branching all over our body. There's a process how all those tinny influences and effects are translated into sense of reality and meanings. Can't get there just by laying sticks and watching shadows move.
I find free will really hard... It feels like everything has an explanation / a lead up set of scientific principles. Which would mean it's all predictable and therefore couldn't have gone any differently. That would mean no free will what so ever. The experimenter asks them to change the direction of the arrow... but it's all so complex and I'm sure people could come up with a million examples that are hard to explain.
Free of stimuli, there is still a large but finite number of motions a human can make that all obey the laws of physics, chemistry, psychology, and the choosing of one of these motions is something like freewill. Yet it's also partly deterministic, like seeing roadkill on the road. You can choose whether to hit it or not but as time passes your choice becomes more deterministic, until it is 100% deterministic and you have no say in the event.
At 13:12 a philosopher talks about one of his theories (the deep self theory) and goes on to talk about a man who was almost sentenced to jail for child molestation until they discovered a tumour in his brain that he claimed ‘was causing this behaviour’. I wonder whether the tumour rather than being the cause in and of itself, caused some process in the brain to stop functioning, perhaps it prevented a certain chemical from being manufactured, which was the cause of his change in moral behaviour.
It doesn’t have to be the same and the way he stated it, it wasn’t clear. Say for instance the tumour itself created a substance that seeped into the brain and caused the change.
This is why i don't like psychology and legal moralism, many times they follow self created prophecies, idea that are constructed upon other ideas, but never properly examined and sufficiently tested. That was a stupid story that have nothing to do with free will, tumor can't cause desires to have sex with kids, but does force patient to think about his life and all the things he never head. It's also not clear what age was in question, teens can be very sweet, but kids are not sexually attractive. This kind of pedophilia is always rooted in some child trauma or fanaticism, it's not a typical sexual perversion. Only sign of free will was when patient decided never to examine his own emotions and thoughts, he has chosen to became and remain terrible human being, rather than face himself and find out what would really make him happy, when free from delusions and repressed memories. Some people doesn't want to be free, that's interesting, think they can just replace reality with own constructs, but it doesn't work like that.
Volume levels are out of sync and very annoying and hard to listen to. I believe the bible says that we don't have free will and it's because God is sovereign.
If you think you have no free will, then quit your job, sit on your couch and give up. See what happens to you. I will continue to make choices and be creative. If it's an illusion, I don't care.
@@HigherInfluence well ..gravity is just an example , what I mean is that you don't have to have a free will to function in life and in society. there's many sort of motivations that drive your actions . for instance the significance role of the Dopamine alone, like when they disrupted the Dopamine receptors in rats they didn't care about eating or mating and they just died.
@@johnn522 : Personally I don't believe free will is a given, not everyone and probably not many will ever come to a point where a free will is a constant and dominant part of their life. It's something we are not born with, it's a property of a higher developed man.
@@HigherInfluence not at all one thing i learned about this, if they can't fit it into there own reality they want to throw it all out because it don't fit into there little world because it would be hard for them to start from nothing, again it's basic laziness they have to listen to others or they don't get paid or fame it's sad but very very true
Brain is the real person.. the body is just the UI. It is like asking if the monitor does the calculations .. is the monitor computing? I think we make a mistake by thinking "I" is the user interface.. the face, tongue, etc. "I" is the brain.. the engine takes time to send actions to the arm, etc. which is nothing but the tire... the steering wheel is the brain and I am my brain. Just a thought!
Pretty close assessment. Yet, without the body and senses the brain doesn't function the same way or have the same experiences. They require each other to function.
@@dustinellerbe4125 I agree! an air conditioner does not work without a thermostat either.. but that does not make the thermostat the AC. The problem I see with the Free Will is our concept of measurement, causation and correlation.. the same old arguments. Change the brain.. the arm will pull the trigger. What we need to discuss in the legal system is simple- do we want this "brain" walk freely! There is no "I". Free will is not an illusion.. "I", as we are defining it, is the illusion. Let's think about it differently! Mess around with the frontal cortex and leave all other parts intact. The transducers, wiring, etc. are all intact.. what is going to happen to "I"?
@@KamranRazvan look at what happens to people who get half there brain removed but yet they still have I, the problem with main stream i find it more of a myth now, is the fact if it can't be fit into there own little theory they want to throw it out even though if there theory is wrong, it's becoming more of a lazy ego driven concept and if you don't agree with there ideology you don't get paid even if you know there ideas are complete false
@@inj1979 According to neuroscience, the human brain is subject to the principle of equivalent hormones and is chosen by value, for example, the word God is interpreted with an absurd word in the atheistic subconscious, it is a bloody word, sorry, and I am not sorry to describe the fact
@@mustafaelbahi7979 Interesting. I bring a Rose near to my eyeball, I see the brain representation of that Rose. (If have time watch "A brain in a supercomputer by Prof. Henry Markram". Or else need bunch of $s to have that experiment. The "Blue brain" experiment will rewrite the Physics) . When I touch that Rose, I feel the brain representation of that Rose. When I smell it I sense the brain representation of that Rose. What experience as a Rose is just a brain representation (according to Neuroscience). I bring a Brain (from a dead body) near to my eyeball. What I see or feel or sense is the brain representation of that Brain. Which logic in science says that I see, feel and sense the same Rose and same Brain , which were in front of my eyeball. Im sceptical.
@@inj1979 Do not focus solely on materialism, culture and the environment. Do not judge all religions by Christianity. Didn't you ask how the smell moved from the rose to the brain? What is the relationship of this in the divine order of DNA? I do not mean God the lumpy, objective and absurd in the subconscious I can provide sufficient evidence of faith
NO YOU DON'T HAVE FREE WILL.. THE D. GUY KNOWS YOUR BRAINS UPSIDE DOWN.. EVERYONE IS A PUPPET OF HIS.. YOU CAN CONFIRM HE CAN DO THAT.. IN THE SHOW.. TURNING A MAN INTO A PUPPET
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?
Free will grows out of consciousness, allows the person to experience. External factors can come between a person and consciousness which hinder the person's ability to experience. The resulting reduction in free will happens to the external factor, not to the person under external influence.
Moral And Immoral activities are also predestined rules according to God Krishna , if you are destined to act immoral, you have to, if you are destined to act immoral at that moment you have to. So as everything is predestined all actions and their results are also predestined when you will enjoy and when you will suffer all fix. Why God is doing this with us? Because He is playing and enjoying and we are his toys.
The human will is certainly constrained by the physical laws of the universe. Clearly some appear to have a greater ability to exercise their will more than others.
And why should he do so as long as he wants to be a specific point of view at the expense of the other, because it is a link in a chain of material dogmatism to distract you from the reason for your existence in life
@@dustinellerbe4125 According to neuroscience, the human brain is subject to the principle of "equivalence" and "concept of value" "alive" from person to person the word "absurd" is linked to the subconscious subconscious by the word "faith in God." This was a good attempt to convince yourself of what you believe.
"If people have free will they feel like they have control over their lives." I've felt more control over my life when I recognized that my will can not defy reflecting the physical phenomenon that produces it. If I had free will I know I would be perfect. I wouldn't need food or sleep. I would always have the right answers, and I would always make the right decisions. I would be unaffected by brain injuries or mind altering substances. I would acquire knowledge without study. I would obtain skills without training.
First let me say that there are clearly two realities of this, Freedom and will.The will in my opinion can itself have different facets and is affected in many different ways by genes, personality, environment, morals, religious beliefs, childhood upbringing and experiences from conception to adult hood and maturity, nutrition etc. When all these are considered, then freedom can be considered whether it can co exist with the will. For me free will cannot exist outside of ultimate truth for the individual. When I contemplate my own life I first have to discover who the real me is and make a conscious decision to do this in as truthful a way as possible. Sometimes I will need to enlist the help of others in order for me progress in this, but this itself has is own limitations. So I want to journey further with the Truth and for me this is ultimate Truth which leads me in a spiritual direction and the question that Pilate asked of Jesus; "What is Truth?" Jesus had already answered this before by His great declaration "I Am The Way, The TRUTH and The Life" This is reinforced by His statement that The Truth will set us Free. I thank God for showing me this TRUTH in His Son The Lord Jesus Christ my Savior and redeemer. John
I see it as less a yes or no question than a matter of degrees of freedom for many reasons.Just like we have autonomic functions in the brain and functions that require "choice" (free or otherwise) like raising your right or left hand in an experiment that heats up a debate about freewill.One reason for my opinion is that I am a musician and I improvise and write music.When I know a song well enough to improvise I have no idea what is going to come out.The same thing happens when I come up with new ideas.That being said, once I have come up with an idea for a song ,or improvised something I start to think deliberately about bits and pieces of what I improvised or in the case of writing a song which direction it will go.The first part of this process is sub conscious and the second requires choice.That alone (at least in my mind) shows a distinct parallel between autonomic functions and ones that require choice and this process .You wouldn't improvise very well thinking about every note before you played it, and you wouldn't get very far in life if you had to constantly think about keeping your heart beating and making sure you breath etc.I see these as metaphors for the extremes of degrees of freedom within consciousness.If every choice no matter how mundane required a free, well measured decision than you would never get to the important ones and much like the proverbial stone age theoretical phys. we would have all been eaten long before we had you tube.Sooooooooo,I think of freewill as more of a hierarchy than a question of absolutes.The mind may wander, but most of us can direct our thoughts as well.A writer has vague outlines and ideas scribbled in a notebook (and plucked out of the ether) long before they write a novel.You may have made a less conscious decision (based on huger) to eat, but put more thought into what you will actually eat.Also, if freewill is a "necessary illusion" than why is it necessary.We have a conscious and sub-conscious mind, but if they work in tandem by degrees to make some decisions, than some are more and some are less free.Of course however, no choice can be entirely free do to constraints such as genetics, peer influence, and experience.I also think our tendency to see things as black and white ( something we are currently and tragically witnessing) is why it has been such a long standing debate.You simply can't even pose the right question if it is presupposed that it will have a yes or no answer. I do have more reasons for thinking this but I don't know if anyone will actually read this and it's already turning into a thesis so i will leave it at that p.s. it was an impulse to leave this post, but what i posted wasn't. o.k. i'll shut up now;)
The concept of free will strikes me as an evolutionary adaptation. The belief that we are in control of the world around us lessens anxiety and stress. This enhances the functioning of our immune systems. It makes us healthier.
@@makomichael I think the analogy is incorrect. Evolutionarily sleep is physical necessity. We are not the only animals that sleep. Free will is a conceptual idea. It stems from complex language. We are the only animal to develop complex language to the extent that we can conceptualize. It is in this ability I think our free will resides.
Sure free will exists we can behave, act, choose & decide BUT Conditions, situations, scenarios, influences & interventions also exists. God give us free will to exercise and demonstrate ourself in different situations And He will judge us how we behave. God is controlling conditions, situations and scenarios by his devine interventions but these interventions are camoflages under "laws of Nature", "law of probability", good luck/bad luck etc. Our free will is sub set of Gods free will both exists at the same time. As God/the most powerful/ the supreme being allows us to excercise our free will therefore what ever we do is also the will of God as well.
Choices that are motivated by selfish desires have consequences (karma), and accumulating karma suppresses and constrains our future usages of free will. Our choices determine our experiences, manifesting matter as symbols of meanings.
Karma works both ways. Choices that are motivated by love and kindness have consequences just as choices motivated by selfishness. Karma is like living in a garden. You can plant poison ivy and deadly plants (act out of selfishness) or you can plant flowers and fruit (acting from love). It is ideal to work towards a nicer garden because that’s where you live. Karma is guaranteed and unavoidable and it’s up to you to decide what kind of karma you want.
It appears that there are degrees of freedom of the will, some have a great ability to exercise their will some less. But is that really 'free will' or just laziness or bodily strength with all the chemical and biological reactions that go into that.
Lawrence Kuhn thank you so much Sadly obvious conclusion at the end. freewill is not ultimate control, its not a yes or no. It's in between because so many meshed factors enable it .
@@davidaustin6962 disappointingly obvious that "freewill" is just another word for self restraint, and as expected, it's affected by many reigons of your brain and by other factors including your environment, history, current mental and physical state...etc etc . So it's the same expected disapponting answer everyone knows nothing new or special
@@JustAnswers359the very definition of disappointment suggests that you anticipated or at least that you had hoped for a different outcome that you would have found more favorable. I'm quite curious as to what that would have been.
Is the will limited to brain activity or is there a way that humans can tap into something beyond brain and body. If that were possible it would provide for a real will, a will that is truly separate from the self, Christians would call that God’s will.
I see why that idea is attractive, but if there is 'something else' responsible for free will, presumably it can interact with an affect the real world through our brains. If so, then it must be something we can detect and analyse, which makes it part of the real material world. Therefore I think this sort of dualism is incoherent. But even if this 'something else' were real, it must have some state or undergo some processes that generate intentions. Well, hw it that different in principle from states and processes in the brain? So I don't see how that solves the problem of free will. To me dualism is like the 'god of the gaps' argument. Here's something we don't understand, so lets put some transcendent supernatural cause in there to fill in the gap in our understanding. That's doesn't really explain anything and is only viable until we figure out how to fill the gap with science.
Simon Hibbs : When you say that ‘we’ don’t understand, you are referring to science I take it... People do understand this, it’s just people of science arrogantly believe that a science based on the laws of this universe can one day understand our creator. If you use your imagination try to fathom the power of a being who is able to create this universe without actually being a part of it. God is purely spiritual whereas the universe (the creation) is physical. How then does God interact with his creation you ask, through influence and at any time he chooses through divine intervention (His will).
@@HigherInfluence You say people do understand it, but which people? Every religious tradition has completely different, mutually incompatible views, in fact the are often many different views even within the same religious traditions, and none of them have a methodological approach to resolve which is correct. At least I'll admit when I don't know something, and try to find a demonstrable answer.
@@simonhibbs887 : That's very true, you can't really trust organized religion and nor should you. Discernment is the key and you get that by reading, absorbing key works which communicate higher influence to the reader. Over time you will begin to be able to distinguish higher truths from all the gibberish that makes up our world and your choice of reading material will gradually develop and become more focused on things that contain these higher level influences that communicate deeper meaning. You will be able to distinguish between true and false religious ideas, enabling you to see which religion is truly God-centered. It's all out there for anyone who is really interested.
I think that what research shows is that we are not as free as we would like to think. There are degrees of freedom and they are subjected to determinism.
Oh dear, the "setting us apart from other creatures" shibboleth at 2:47. In order to understand consciousness, we need to understand that we are no different to other creatures. At all. Humans must comply with the principles of consciousness same as every other creature does. There is no such thing as instinct. All holons have "free will" meaning, every creature makes choices from within their domains (ecosystems, colonies, culture), within the context of their mind-body predispositions. What appears to persons in labcoats as "instinct" is naught other than a "reduced horizon of options". [By this, what I mean is that a simple array of options made by an animal from its ecosystem will appear to a labcoat studying it as reflexive and "instinctive", but in reality it is no more "instinctive" than human options made from Culture... it's just that human options in Culture are vastly more numerous and complex] The Intelligent Design folk were onto something until they factored Human exceptionalism into their paradigm. There is nothing "exceptional" about human exceptionalism that cannot be cleared up with a set of simple, general axiomatic principles that apply to all living entities. We will never establish a compelling cognitive life science until we stop wallowing in our human self-importance. The more clever we think ourselves to be, the more overwhelming becomes the evidence that the mainstream is nowhere near to establishing a compelling life-science. The simple fact is that O, N, H, C, Fe, P and all other elements essential to DNA and to life exist on Andromeda and any other galaxy that we care to point our telescopes at. It is all the evidence we need to establish that this is a living universe. From Hubble Deep Field, we also know that the universe, containing all the elements essential for DNA and life, is vast. We need to get over ourselves, our human exceptionalism and the entirely non-paradoxical Fermi paradox before we can arrive at an authentic life science that people will want to take seriously. Free will is the stuff of life. And when we take it down to the level of matter, even an atom or a molecule has to "know" its properties, otherwise life would not be possible. Hence why more and more people are taking panpsychism seriously. There is a theoretical framework emerging that is better placed to make sense of all of this, which I've alluded to in previous posts.
The conclusion Dr Kuhn, and all the researchers, make (based on observation of well designed experiments) is not that humans do and animals don't but that free will exists in degrees ... It is reasonable to presume that is the case with animals as well. Argue against that if you may but you seem to be arguing against something that wasn't claimed.
@@davidaustin6962 Roy Baumeister, beginning at 2:47, makes his position clear and unambiguous. I'm not saying that Dr Kuhn necessarily buys into this position (he's just interviewing experts, parsing different interpretations). What I am saying, though, is that this problem of human exceptionalism is a variation on an old theme (man at the center of the universe) that hampers progress, and it would pay Dr Kuhn to be mindful of the problems it causes.
I feel like in the distant future any intelligent species looking back at us will view our idea of the existence of freewill in the same way as we view people who thought the sun goes around the earth.. Except in this case it seems fairly obvious we are wrong but we believe it because it helps our idea of who we are!
You mean we believe it because we are not free to withhold belief, right?
In a world of what you think you become, the truth is perception
Love these videos but the narration is quieter then the other scenes. Can you make the voice over and the scenes the same volumes?
And why should he do؟ so as long as he wants to be a specific point of view at the expense of the other, because it is a link in a chain of material dogmatism to distract you from the reason for your existence in life !!!
I agree with this suggestion. It's ok to make the levels slightly different but in this case the difference is too present. It's annoying when you have to turn the volume up and down every 5 minutes. Other than that, this is my favourite yt channel 👌👌👌👌👌♥️
Even the music during narration is louder than the voice. Probably the sound engineer did not have a free will in producing this.
there are two kinds of free will, and I think it is important do differentiate between them. It might be that your brain makes choices before you consciously experience an "illusion" of you making that choice, but it is unrelated to the kind of free will, about which for example hard incompatibilists can talk
I don't know about the "Moral Responsibility". However, I do feel that Free Will is necessary for legal responsibility(or personal responsibility). I also think that consciousness and decision making is tested to determine if a creature(synthetic or not) has free will.
Of course, the free will is to know the details well so that you can choose, for example, "soundtrack" and this deceptive outward appearance. You will notice that they have talked a lot about "scholars" versus philosophers in order to support materialistic philosophy in the "subconscious" so that they steal the "equivalent" by how And not why?
I am so surprised at the very superficial and frankly amateurish view on Free Will by some of the researchers. Free Will is not about making superficial choices. Free will is about a much more fundamental issue. The freedom of the Will itself. And Nietzsche already handled that in a fundamental way: (In German Will (Wille) is directly linked to want (will) ). According to Nietzsche to ask about the freedom of the will is a nonsensical question. You always 'Will' what you will and you can not change what you Will. It is neither Free, not is it not free: It is you! You 'simply' Will it. Freedom does not apply to will but to the possibility to do what you Will. Freedom applies to action. If you are captive and want to be free then that is your Will, but you do not have the possibility to act upon your Will.
Your Will is the product of your life, your past experiences, your education, your upbringing, your urges, your instincts. Your Will is you! It is what it is! Freedom has nothing to do with the Will itself, but with the actions that come forth of that Will.
Surely this primacy of action is why the neuroscientists in the studies shown in the video are analysing the relationship between intention, awareness and action?
How do you define free will? That is when is will free? For the sake of argument let’s examine two simple examples.
It is not unreasonable to assume that your past experiences have a profound impact on your choices. Maybe your history even dictates your choices so that any choice in any situation is predicted by your history. Do you have free will? There is no outside force making you choose one or the other, but the choice is never the less given.
So, let’s continue from there, let’s give you a choice between ten identical marbles in a bowl. Here it would be very difficult for your past experiences to dictate your choice. There are ten identical voices and nothing to make you prefer any of them. So, if there is nothing upon which you can base your choice then it appears to be a random choice. Random might be free in a way, but barely qualifies as a conscious choice.
I am leaning towards the conclusion that in some cases our past makes the choice obvious and in the other cases our choices are more or less random.
Let’s say you eat an apple every morning but one day you take a banana instead. Why? Because you wanted to? But why did you want to? Maybe the apple looked a bit old and you unconsciously concluded it would not be tasty. Maybe you have a beginning toothache and that keeps you from biting into something hard. If there was no reason, then it seems a random choice.
Another important issue that I see here is that, belief does have an important role in this.
Well at least I’m getting close to your latest releases 😂
Reason why Free will exists
1. The free will theorem implies our nature is simlar to particles where the decisions are not a function of the past
2. The laws of the universe are designed in such a way to give us higher functions and the idea of free will and god. Do you think this is a coincidence?
3. Genetically cloned rats makes different decisions in the same environment
4. Neuroplasticity is found where you can shape your brain from your thoughts
5. Quantum mechanics completely debunks that this is a deterministic universe which is complete the founding principle of determinsm
6. Peter Tse's concept of neuronal free will in regards to quantum mechanics
7. Near death experience studies. Extremely unlikely to be confabulated as they do not have religious backgrounds and they occur during no brain activity.
Recorded by many medical professionals who are extremely scientific. Even some scientific skeptics have ridiculous arguments
8. We all have a concept of free will and it certainly feels that way.
9. You can find cases of people who have certain genes for certain personality traits in a certain environment yet become completely different people
Spread the word. The determinists are wrong.
Well, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong appears to have the ability to choose whether or not he has hair at will.
12:17 23:55
Haven't watched it yet, but let me guess, they still have no idea. Lots of half baked theories/opinions, but that is about it. Amiright?
Philosophy is all about understanding a question, so first we need to understand what do we mean by free and will. Do we mean freedom of motion, thoughts, behavior, moral decisions,... all those things are limited by physics, chemistry, biology, extremes or excesses. It would be very weird if absolute freedom could exist actually. What is will question could stand on it's own, we make decisions all the time, but not all are in tune with our state of being, mental state or environment. Sometimes we choose what is obvious, even if we don't like it or is not right. This is not limit of freedom but consequences of the way we make our mind about something, sure we can always choose whatever we feel like it, but social life demand rational and controlled behavior from everybody, so people obey and comfort to what is expected and demanded of them.
That's why i believe morals and psychology are not good tools for exploring this questions, since they present own system of regulation, based on free choice from many politicians, professors and medical doctors. Nothing humans do is natural, society is constructed from mixture of experiences, opinions and believes, we are free to use freedoms system provide and protect.
Scientists, believers and even many philosophers try to avoid emotional intelligence influence and dreams, because those concepts are so illusive and can't be touched directly with scientific instruments. Biological senses and emotions are two different things, even when emotions arise from sensory input, but not just from there or only because of it. And dreams... this is why i decided for this comment, scientific community is doing terrible thing to our entire species by tempering and influencing most important force that define our kind. Merge emotional intelligence with dreams and we produce imagination, most precious substance in the whole universe. This is where we can truly be free, when we feel alive in our dreams, totally independent from reality or physical constrains. Would surprise me at all if one day some global government will prevent people from entering realms of dreams, those will be allowed only for Grand Alchemists and their consortium of high techno priests who will control what a man can do and what man can not do.
Of course, the free will is to know the details well so that you can choose, for example, "soundtrack" and this deceptive outward appearance. You will notice that they have talked a lot about "scholars" versus philosophers in order to support materialistic philosophy in the "subconscious" so that they steal the "equivalent" by how And not why?
Just by ideas and concepts you can not understand the real world.We need to depend on science.One question to you,who you are?You do or take decision as per your Brain.You are no body other then your Brain.What you do everything in every moment is by command from your Brain.Thank you.
@@anwarulmamoon4299 You got me well, this physical bloody ganglion, you are defending the unknown, because you need a data processor to know why you are here. Thank you.
@@anwarulmamoon4299 Brain is just a central part of entire nervous system, branching all over our body. There's a process how all those tinny influences and effects are translated into sense of reality and meanings. Can't get there just by laying sticks and watching shadows move.
Audio levels are inconsistent.
Seems like we are not. Really. Closer to truth.
I find free will really hard... It feels like everything has an explanation / a lead up set of scientific principles. Which would mean it's all predictable and therefore couldn't have gone any differently. That would mean no free will what so ever. The experimenter asks them to change the direction of the arrow... but it's all so complex and I'm sure people could come up with a million examples that are hard to explain.
Free of stimuli, there is still a large but finite number of motions a human can make that all obey the laws of physics, chemistry, psychology, and the choosing of one of these motions is something like freewill. Yet it's also partly deterministic, like seeing roadkill on the road. You can choose whether to hit it or not but as time passes your choice becomes more deterministic, until it is 100% deterministic and you have no say in the event.
At 13:12 a philosopher talks about one of his theories (the deep self theory) and goes on to talk about a man who was almost sentenced to jail for child molestation until they discovered a tumour in his brain that he claimed ‘was causing this behaviour’. I wonder whether the tumour rather than being the cause in and of itself, caused some process in the brain to stop functioning, perhaps it prevented a certain chemical from being manufactured, which was the cause of his change in moral behaviour.
disrupting brain chemicals that lead to change in behavior and intentions ain't the same thing?
It doesn’t have to be the same and the way he stated it, it wasn’t clear. Say for instance the tumour itself created a substance that seeped into the brain and caused the change.
@@HigherInfluence the way i see it that either way it make the same point, that our actions are not driven by our consciousness and our "will" .
@@johnn522 : I don't disagree, it's a side question I had after listening to the video.
This is why i don't like psychology and legal moralism, many times they follow self created prophecies, idea that are constructed upon other ideas, but never properly examined and sufficiently tested.
That was a stupid story that have nothing to do with free will, tumor can't cause desires to have sex with kids, but does force patient to think about his life and all the things he never head. It's also not clear what age was in question, teens can be very sweet, but kids are not sexually attractive. This kind of pedophilia is always rooted in some child trauma or fanaticism, it's not a typical sexual perversion. Only sign of free will was when patient decided never to examine his own emotions and thoughts, he has chosen to became and remain terrible human being, rather than face himself and find out what would really make him happy, when free from delusions and repressed memories. Some people doesn't want to be free, that's interesting, think they can just replace reality with own constructs, but it doesn't work like that.
Volume levels are out of sync and very annoying and hard to listen to. I believe the bible says that we don't have free will and it's because God is sovereign.
If you think you have no free will, then quit your job, sit on your couch and give up. See what happens to you. I will continue to make choices and be creative. If it's an illusion, I don't care.
will the rock falling from gravity just stops and float in air if you told it that it have no free will?
John nightmare : I think it’s acknowledged that if we do have free will it’s constrained by the physical laws of the universe.
@@HigherInfluence well ..gravity is just an example , what I mean is that you don't have to have a free will to function in life and in society.
there's many sort of motivations that drive your actions .
for instance the significance role of the Dopamine alone, like when they disrupted the Dopamine receptors in rats they didn't care about eating or mating and they just died.
@@johnn522 : Personally I don't believe free will is a given, not everyone and probably not many will ever come to a point where a free will is a constant and dominant part of their life. It's something we are not born with, it's a property of a higher developed man.
@@HigherInfluence not at all one thing i learned about this, if they can't fit it into there own reality they want to throw it all out because it don't fit into there little world because it would be hard for them to start from nothing, again it's basic laziness they have to listen to others or they don't get paid or fame it's sad but very very true
Brain is the real person.. the body is just the UI. It is like asking if the monitor does the calculations .. is the monitor computing? I think we make a mistake by thinking "I" is the user interface.. the face, tongue, etc. "I" is the brain.. the engine takes time to send actions to the arm, etc. which is nothing but the tire... the steering wheel is the brain and I am my brain. Just a thought!
Pretty close assessment. Yet, without the body and senses the brain doesn't function the same way or have the same experiences. They require each other to function.
There are neurons throughout the entire body.
@@dustinellerbe4125 I agree! an air conditioner does not work without a thermostat either.. but that does not make the thermostat the AC. The problem I see with the Free Will is our concept of measurement, causation and correlation.. the same old arguments. Change the brain.. the arm will pull the trigger. What we need to discuss in the legal system is simple- do we want this "brain" walk freely! There is no "I". Free will is not an illusion.. "I", as we are defining it, is the illusion.
Let's think about it differently! Mess around with the frontal cortex and leave all other parts intact. The transducers, wiring, etc. are all intact.. what is going to happen to "I"?
@@KamranRazvan I can agree with that as well. Perception of the 1st person is a big factor.
@@KamranRazvan look at what happens to people who get half there brain removed but yet they still have I, the problem with main stream i find it more of a myth now, is the fact if it can't be fit into there own little theory they want to throw it out even though if there theory is wrong, it's becoming more of a lazy ego driven concept and if you don't agree with there ideology you don't get paid even if you know there ideas are complete false
Do we have free will ? What is free will ? They indirectly question (/ask) " IS GOD INTELLIGENT OR NOT? "
You must first know how the writer of the story puts his point at the expense of the other?
@@mustafaelbahi7979 Referring to your reply, what do you mean by "you", "writer" , "story" or the whole sentence?
@@inj1979 According to neuroscience, the human brain is subject to the principle of equivalent hormones and is chosen by value, for example, the word God is interpreted with an absurd word in the atheistic subconscious, it is a bloody word, sorry, and I am not sorry to describe the fact
@@mustafaelbahi7979 Interesting. I bring a Rose near to my eyeball, I see the brain representation of that Rose. (If have time watch "A brain in a supercomputer by Prof. Henry Markram". Or else need bunch of $s to have that experiment. The "Blue brain" experiment will rewrite the Physics) . When I touch that Rose, I feel the brain representation of that Rose. When I smell it I sense the brain representation of that Rose. What experience as a Rose is just a brain representation (according to Neuroscience).
I bring a Brain (from a dead body) near to my eyeball. What I see or feel or sense is the brain representation of that Brain.
Which logic in science says that I see, feel and sense the same Rose and same Brain , which were in front of my eyeball. Im sceptical.
@@inj1979 Do not focus solely on materialism, culture and the environment. Do not judge all religions by Christianity. Didn't you ask how the smell moved from the rose to the brain? What is the relationship of this in the divine order of DNA? I do not mean God the lumpy, objective and absurd in the subconscious
I can provide sufficient evidence of faith
NO YOU DON'T HAVE FREE WILL.. THE D. GUY KNOWS YOUR BRAINS UPSIDE DOWN.. EVERYONE IS A PUPPET OF HIS.. YOU CAN CONFIRM HE CAN DO THAT.. IN THE SHOW.. TURNING A MAN INTO A PUPPET
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?
Free Willy!
Free will grows out of consciousness, allows the person to experience. External factors can come between a person and consciousness which hinder the person's ability to experience. The resulting reduction in free will happens to the external factor, not to the person under external influence.
Moral And Immoral activities are also predestined rules according to God Krishna , if you are destined to act immoral, you have to, if you are destined to act immoral at that moment you have to. So as everything is predestined all actions and their results are also predestined when you will enjoy and when you will suffer all fix.
Why God is doing this with us?
Because He is playing and enjoying and we are his toys.
It seems there's more of a concept of limited free will. The ability to choose based on one's environment and past experiences.
The human will is certainly constrained by the physical laws of the universe. Clearly some appear to have a greater ability to exercise their will more than others.
@@HigherInfluence i agree. We cant freely choose to do something that we have no concept of, experience of, or information about.
And why should he do so as long as he wants to be a specific point of view at the expense of the other, because it is a link in a chain of material dogmatism to distract you from the reason for your existence in life
@@mustafaelbahi7979 survival?
@@dustinellerbe4125 According to neuroscience, the human brain is subject to the principle of "equivalence" and "concept of value" "alive" from person to person the word "absurd" is linked to the subconscious subconscious by the word "faith in God." This was a good attempt to convince yourself of what you believe.
"If people have free will they feel like they have control over their lives."
I've felt more control over my life when I recognized that my will can not defy reflecting the physical phenomenon that produces it.
If I had free will I know I would be perfect. I wouldn't need food or sleep. I would always have the right answers, and I would always make the right decisions. I would be unaffected by brain injuries or mind altering substances. I would acquire knowledge without study. I would obtain skills without training.
First let me say that there are clearly two realities of this, Freedom and will.The will in my opinion can itself have different facets and is affected in many different ways by genes, personality, environment, morals, religious beliefs, childhood upbringing and experiences from conception to adult hood and maturity, nutrition etc. When all these are considered, then freedom can be considered whether it can co exist with the will. For me free will cannot exist outside of ultimate truth for the individual. When I contemplate my own life I first have to discover who the real me is and make a conscious decision to do this in as truthful a way as possible. Sometimes I will need to enlist the help of others in order for me progress in this, but this itself has is own limitations. So I want to journey further with the Truth and for me this is ultimate Truth which leads me in a spiritual direction and the question that Pilate asked of Jesus; "What is Truth?" Jesus had already answered this before by His great declaration "I Am The Way, The TRUTH and The Life" This is reinforced by His statement that The Truth will set us Free. I thank God for showing me this TRUTH in His Son The Lord Jesus Christ my Savior and redeemer. John
I see it as less a yes or no question than a matter of degrees of freedom for many reasons.Just like we have autonomic functions in the brain and functions that require "choice" (free or otherwise) like raising your right or left hand in an experiment that heats up a debate about freewill.One reason for my opinion is that I am a musician and I improvise and write music.When I know a song well enough to improvise I have no idea what is going to come out.The same thing happens when I come up with new ideas.That being said, once I have come up with an idea for a song ,or improvised something I start to think deliberately about bits and pieces of what I improvised or in the case of writing a song which direction it will go.The first part of this process is sub conscious and the second requires choice.That alone (at least in my mind) shows a distinct parallel between autonomic functions and ones that require choice and this process .You wouldn't improvise very well thinking about every note before you played it, and you wouldn't get very far in life if you had to constantly think about keeping your heart beating and making sure you breath etc.I see these as metaphors for the extremes of degrees of freedom within consciousness.If every choice no matter how mundane required a free, well measured decision than you would never get to the important ones and much like the proverbial stone age theoretical phys. we would have all been eaten long before we had you tube.Sooooooooo,I think of freewill as more of a hierarchy than a question of absolutes.The mind may wander, but most of us can direct our thoughts as well.A writer has vague outlines and ideas scribbled in a notebook (and plucked out of the ether) long before they write a novel.You may have made a less conscious decision (based on huger) to eat, but put more thought into what you will actually eat.Also, if freewill is a "necessary illusion" than why is it necessary.We have a conscious and sub-conscious mind, but if they work in tandem by degrees to make some decisions, than some are more and some are less free.Of course however, no choice can be entirely free do to constraints such as genetics, peer influence, and experience.I also think our tendency to see things as black and white ( something we are currently and tragically witnessing) is why it has been such a long standing debate.You simply can't even pose the right question if it is presupposed that it will have a yes or no answer. I do have more reasons for thinking this but I don't know if anyone will actually read this and it's already turning into a thesis so i will leave it at that
p.s. it was an impulse to leave this post, but what i posted wasn't. o.k. i'll shut up now;)
I am, whose idea was this? I didn't ask to be born. Such a colossal accident. Pass the bottle...
can someone tell me what the song is at 9:02
The concept of free will strikes me as an evolutionary adaptation. The belief that we are in control of the world around us lessens anxiety and stress. This enhances the functioning of our immune systems. It makes us healthier.
@@makomichael I think the analogy is incorrect. Evolutionarily sleep is physical necessity. We are not the only animals that sleep. Free will is a conceptual idea. It stems from complex language. We are the only animal to develop complex language to the extent that we can conceptualize. It is in this ability I think our free will resides.
I hope that the ‘Big Questions in Free Will’ project will reveal something important, but it seems more like a big waste of time and money.
Hi , good evening , I miss understand I gués. Could you Please explain for me. Sincères salutations philippe Martin 😎✨
Do you think you can expand on rights and privileges in a future video? That's another thing I've always wondered about
You must first know how the story writer puts his point at the expense of the other ؟
mustafa elbahi yeah not really in this case tho. He gives you a bunch of points to speculate on
@@scrumtios0 Atheists get equivalent hormones by making fun of religion. Peter Hitchens said, "But do not pay the dues."
Sure free will exists we can behave, act, choose & decide
BUT
Conditions, situations, scenarios, influences & interventions also exists.
God give us free will to exercise and demonstrate ourself in different situations
And
He will judge us how we behave.
God is controlling conditions, situations and scenarios by his devine interventions but these interventions are camoflages under "laws of Nature", "law of probability", good luck/bad luck etc.
Our free will is sub set of Gods free will both exists at the same time.
As God/the most powerful/ the supreme being allows us to excercise our free will therefore what ever we do is also the will of God as well.
Choices that are motivated by selfish desires have consequences (karma), and accumulating karma suppresses and constrains our future usages of free will. Our choices determine our experiences, manifesting matter as symbols of meanings.
Karma works both ways. Choices that are motivated by love and kindness have consequences just as choices motivated by selfishness. Karma is like living in a garden. You can plant poison ivy and deadly plants (act out of selfishness) or you can plant flowers and fruit (acting from love). It is ideal to work towards a nicer garden because that’s where you live. Karma is guaranteed and unavoidable and it’s up to you to decide what kind of karma you want.
@@gravitystorm58 Sorry, but that's not true. Karma is only accrued by making non-ideal choices. Acting in pure love produces no karma. I'm quite sure.
I'm 10 kilos overweight. Not my fault if no free will.
It appears that there are degrees of freedom of the will, some have a great ability to exercise their will some less. But is that really 'free will' or just laziness or bodily strength with all the chemical and biological reactions that go into that.
Lawrence Kuhn thank you so much
Sadly obvious conclusion at the end. freewill is not ultimate control, its not a yes or no. It's in between because so many meshed factors enable it .
Why is that sad? I find anything that gets us closer to truth, even if it just substantiated something "obvious" to be a happy outcome.
@@davidaustin6962 disappointingly obvious that "freewill" is just another word for self restraint, and as expected, it's affected by many reigons of your brain and by other factors including your environment, history, current mental and physical state...etc etc . So it's the same expected disapponting answer everyone knows nothing new or special
@@JustAnswers359the very definition of disappointment suggests that you anticipated or at least that you had hoped for a different outcome that you would have found more favorable. I'm quite curious as to what that would have been.
Is the will limited to brain activity or is there a way that humans can tap into something beyond brain and body. If that were possible it would provide for a real will, a will that is truly separate from the self, Christians would call that God’s will.
I see why that idea is attractive, but if there is 'something else' responsible for free will, presumably it can interact with an affect the real world through our brains. If so, then it must be something we can detect and analyse, which makes it part of the real material world. Therefore I think this sort of dualism is incoherent. But even if this 'something else' were real, it must have some state or undergo some processes that generate intentions. Well, hw it that different in principle from states and processes in the brain? So I don't see how that solves the problem of free will.
To me dualism is like the 'god of the gaps' argument. Here's something we don't understand, so lets put some transcendent supernatural cause in there to fill in the gap in our understanding. That's doesn't really explain anything and is only viable until we figure out how to fill the gap with science.
Simon Hibbs : When you say that ‘we’ don’t understand, you are referring to science I take it... People do understand this, it’s just people of science arrogantly believe that a science based on the laws of this universe can one day understand our creator. If you use your imagination try to fathom the power of a being who is able to create this universe without actually being a part of it. God is purely spiritual whereas the universe (the creation) is physical. How then does God interact with his creation you ask, through influence and at any time he chooses through divine intervention (His will).
@@HigherInfluence You say people do understand it, but which people? Every religious tradition has completely different, mutually incompatible views, in fact the are often many different views even within the same religious traditions, and none of them have a methodological approach to resolve which is correct. At least I'll admit when I don't know something, and try to find a demonstrable answer.
@@simonhibbs887 : That's very true, you can't really trust organized religion and nor should you. Discernment is the key and you get that by reading, absorbing key works which communicate higher influence to the reader. Over time you will begin to be able to distinguish higher truths from all the gibberish that makes up our world and your choice of reading material will gradually develop and become more focused on things that contain these higher level influences that communicate deeper meaning. You will be able to distinguish between true and false religious ideas, enabling you to see which religion is truly God-centered. It's all out there for anyone who is really interested.
Free will, a part of consciousness, is non physical and so not constrained by the physical universe. It is independent of causality.
So what they're telling me, there's no 'such thing as free will.
I think that what research shows is that we are not as free as we would like to think. There are degrees of freedom and they are subjected to determinism.
they are talking about a different free will
Oh dear, the "setting us apart from other creatures" shibboleth at 2:47. In order to understand consciousness, we need to understand that we are no different to other creatures. At all. Humans must comply with the principles of consciousness same as every other creature does. There is no such thing as instinct. All holons have "free will" meaning, every creature makes choices from within their domains (ecosystems, colonies, culture), within the context of their mind-body predispositions. What appears to persons in labcoats as "instinct" is naught other than a "reduced horizon of options". [By this, what I mean is that a simple array of options made by an animal from its ecosystem will appear to a labcoat studying it as reflexive and "instinctive", but in reality it is no more "instinctive" than human options made from Culture... it's just that human options in Culture are vastly more numerous and complex]
The Intelligent Design folk were onto something until they factored Human exceptionalism into their paradigm. There is nothing "exceptional" about human exceptionalism that cannot be cleared up with a set of simple, general axiomatic principles that apply to all living entities. We will never establish a compelling cognitive life science until we stop wallowing in our human self-importance. The more clever we think ourselves to be, the more overwhelming becomes the evidence that the mainstream is nowhere near to establishing a compelling life-science.
The simple fact is that O, N, H, C, Fe, P and all other elements essential to DNA and to life exist on Andromeda and any other galaxy that we care to point our telescopes at. It is all the evidence we need to establish that this is a living universe. From Hubble Deep Field, we also know that the universe, containing all the elements essential for DNA and life, is vast. We need to get over ourselves, our human exceptionalism and the entirely non-paradoxical Fermi paradox before we can arrive at an authentic life science that people will want to take seriously.
Free will is the stuff of life. And when we take it down to the level of matter, even an atom or a molecule has to "know" its properties, otherwise life would not be possible. Hence why more and more people are taking panpsychism seriously.
There is a theoretical framework emerging that is better placed to make sense of all of this, which I've alluded to in previous posts.
The conclusion Dr Kuhn, and all the researchers, make (based on observation of well designed experiments) is not that humans do and animals don't but that free will exists in degrees ... It is reasonable to presume that is the case with animals as well. Argue against that if you may but you seem to be arguing against something that wasn't claimed.
@@davidaustin6962 Roy Baumeister, beginning at 2:47, makes his position clear and unambiguous. I'm not saying that Dr Kuhn necessarily buys into this position (he's just interviewing experts, parsing different interpretations). What I am saying, though, is that this problem of human exceptionalism is a variation on an old theme (man at the center of the universe) that hampers progress, and it would pay Dr Kuhn to be mindful of the problems it causes.
@@TheTroofSayer okay. That's fair.
So freewill concepts.is not pure illusion.could it be a middle Way.concepts.🗿😔.?