The strange neuroscience of free will - BBC REEL
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มิ.ย. 2024
- Do we really have free will? In a three part series, BBC Reel explores the hidden powers behind the choices we make.
Part one looks at the neuroscience behind our understanding of free will. View all three films here: www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/fre...
All episodes are available now on the BBC Reel website.
A series by Melissa Hogenboom and Pierangelo Pirak.
#bbcreel #bbc #bbcnews - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Whenever I see a video about free will, I have no choice but to watch it
I love this
Underrated
Thumbs up for a funny remark. haha
😅
Peter Tse has done some phenomenal work in the field of neuroscience. Glad the BBC reel had him on.
Peter Tse believes in free will which is ridiculous. If you want to have a good understanding as to why free will doesn't exist, listen to any of Sam Harris's talks on this subject.
BBC, good job for watering down the facts to make it confusing for the intellectuals, not hurting and kind of heartwarming for the masses. You as scientists must be ashamed of yourself.
Well this science has several flaws. It is why there is not broad acceptance of this among scientists. Intellectual philosophers, the pre Socratics and Socratics have been kicking this around for at least 2,500 years. but is there really a need to have philosophy intellectuals get a a deep dive when they are going to prefer their own theories?
The Dylan Haynes experiment only had about 55% predicting power making it not much better than chance
Great ending! Top notch content. Well done.
Free will isn’t the idea that your mind can control your body, it’s the idea that there’s an “I” that can control your brain.
Sam Harris describes this as the illusion of the self and the illusion of free will are really two sides of the same coin.
Peter Tse talks about this "Virtual" part of our minds is where free will resides, yet it isn't difficult to imagine how even our most complicated, long and drawn out decision making processes are also not free, at least not without completely re-defining what we've traditionally seen as free will to begin with.
Who is will and why does he need to be freed?
will is your wants, but he doesnt necessarily need to be free. He just wants what he thinks is potentially best for you, and sometimes its questioning it's own existance ^^'
It's a big orca from the 90s, I think.
😂😂😂😭
During battle it was even worse when the officer shouted "fire at will".
Your body is your mind.
You are your body.
Unconscious processing is faster.
Conscious processing is slower.
And you and your environment influence each other so continuously that it is useful to say that you are one with your environment.
but doesnt your environment impact you first then it sets up the entire chain of reactions that cos you to continuously influence each other and since it was catalyzed by environment is it not fair to say you are solely influenced by environment
@@ajitesh5930 I didn't say you are solely influenced by your environment.
But I will say that your environment is your body.
Thanks from thailand
I came here after listening to talks on advait vedanta. Consciousness is a fundamental property, and there is only one consciousness. 🤯
I think that what might be considered as free will is heavily influenced by messages we play in our heads, that we may or may not be aware of. These messages are the results of our histories and perceptions. I argue that there is no reality, just perception. That the messages in our heads and our perceptions can be changed. Not easy but possible.
There are many more factors that restrict free will/ independent decision making.
Example: Restrictions/ enforcement by societal practices and government laws.
@@rohitchaddha9
You forgot gravity. 😛
I don't think that you can say that there is no reality because reality is in fact our manifested perceptions
Message we play? As soon as you say we play it means a choice is made by some. And perceptiom means there has to be a perciever who is seperate from the objects being percieved. Once you understand that you are the perciever and are seperate from the objects you percieve, you can change anything in a moment. That's free will.
Everything is based on perception. This is something I find people have a hard time understanding. Every single piece of technology is specifically engineered to make sense to our perception. All data we intake is translated into a form we can understand. We all assume failing to observe something means it doesn’t exist. Neuroscience and quantum mechanics are slowly disproving this.
Does anyone notice the left upper corner at 2:14? A white light spot?
Say we also show a red dot on the screen at random and we chose to hit the key as soon as red dot appears on the screen. This seems like in such case the neural activity cannot predict the outcome a second before the action is taken. Does this mean not all actions are predictable with just neural activity?
Perhaps the technology is limited but you had no free will in hitting the key. The motion was already mapped out and ready to be executed. Hold your palm above the table and hit it but stop right before touching it. The time it takes for you to decide to stop hitting it is shorter than the time that information travels from the brain to the nerves in your muscles. There was no free will there but all premeditation.
The way you have it set up seems more like testing reaction time. For testing free will I think you would need more time before an action to measure how long between your subconscious choosing and your conscious "choosing".
in the experiment, how was the time of the conscious decision recorded?
That is the rub. We are evolved to make lots of decisions based on conscious and unconscious inputs, and conscious and unconscious weighing of them, and decisions and taking action. but in our evolution we did not need to be immediately reflecting/aware of how we weighed them, and putting them in executive areas of the brain to consider them before acting on them. so these experiments do not prove pure determinalism or lack of free will, but that our conscious of what decision we took, in some cased (whihc the experimenters tend to bias toward) take the action first.
The people promoting this junk science are people arguing against providing and insuring liberty as the argument goes, liberty doesn't matter, it is an illusion. Instead they prefer regimes where government maximizes its control over persons, since only policies can dictate wheat people do, people have no actual agency of their own.
@@teo2975 wonderful summary. You are amazing.
@@teo2975 Wrong, the conscious is a result of all of the brains inputs and outputs. The basic laws of the universe support Determinism (Newton's third law). Also, no one is arguing for control over people to be maximized (no idea where you got this idea btw) and that's not how Determinism works. Understanding or not understanding that everything is a massive chain reaction is already determined as well as everything in the future.
16th century scientific overreach supports this theory. All of human experience, millennium old philosophy, and modern science does not.
I fond it absoluyely hilarious how they said that all conscious brain activity is the result of processes that we arent aware of that decide what we think, and then they turn around and try to make it seem ambiguous as to whether or not free will exists. Hilarious.
I actually thought that the guy who talked about how most of our free will probably exists within our hypothetical imagination/default mode network was making a really good point. Most of them were in agreement that whether you believe in free will or not depends on your definition of free will.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you are doubting neuroscience while at the same time you don't even seem to be able to spell correctly.
Yeah, they were soft-selling it. Probably trying to ease people into the idea.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I have no idea what you just said but I whole-heartedly agree!!
*insert did not read gif
Pop science be like
What happens when the universe looks at and affects itself?
My tentative hypothesis:
Infinitiy breaks determinism. Free will is a product of infinity, assuming the universe is infinite of course.
Free will is like a feedback loop when consciousness interacts with matter and energy in the universe and (therefore) where prediction breaks down. (Absolute prediction is impossible if you are a conscious being, can affect matter and so have the potential to change the prediction.)
The feedback loop is like an escape-valve away from pure determinism.
Pure determinism in an infinite universe becomes essentially meaningless. Think about it: What happens if infinity goes into determining you, and universal forces like gravity, that 'come out of nowhere', and produce such things as black holes, go into determining you and may be part of you insofar as being part of the universe and entangled with it?
If you are entangled with the universe, then you more than inherit it.
In a sense, you are it.
So, if the universe is conscious and has free will in a manner of speaking, then likely so do you.
Besides, can we understand the universe without understanding consciousness? I doubt it.
We appear very much like the universe looking at and affecting itself. When the universe does that, is that the universe's free will? Are we one-and-the-same? Entangled? One with everything and everyone else at the moment of the Big Bang? What was that like?
Again, what happens when the universe looks at and affects itself?
big oof energy
lost me halfway buckaroo
I wonder if this channel would consider an interview between Jim Newman (non-Duality) and one of these prominent neuroscientist?
Free will is a fascinating yet problematic idea linked to the idea of choice. Most think we have it. I often think of it in relation to knife edge binary decisions: do I; don't I? Of course a classical physical universe would make the outcome determined. A Copenhagen style quantum mechanical universe would make the outcome stochastic, a function of probability. Decisions where we simply don't have any information to make a choice but a choice is required are weird. Imagine that you are consuming the oxygen in a sealed room so you will eventually die if you do nothing. There are two doors. You are told one leads to the outside and fresh air, one to another room filled with nerve agent, but you are not told which. We are able to make a decision in this case despite not having enough information. My limited understanding of neural networks is that they would hang (unless we jiggled them up with some pseudorandom process). Our decision feels like a choice that we make with free will. Perhaps all that pre-processing is setting up an appropriately weighted deck of neuronal cards for us to make our "choice", essentially as an act of measurement producing a collapse of the wave equation and a therefore a "choice".
the real question is how do we fairly hold people accountable based on this?
Frankly, I have questioned the rational of separating the brain from the rest of the body. It seems like a holdout in old thinking.
When we overthink the complexity of free will, it can't be free anymore. Isn't it?
My OCD: Hold my consciousness
#bbcreel Where are episodes 2 and 3??
www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/free-will?vpid=p086tl5s
@@nilshagness8055 Thank you!
Is it just me or does it seem that Libet had a bad set up for the experiment? If it were me getting my brain scanned, I don’t think that I could help having some amount of anticipation of the time when I push the button. If I want to make sure I remember the number of when I press the button, I think I would inevitably look ahead of the rotating dot to the next number and push the button when it reached that number. Thus creating plenty of milliseconds for the “readiness potential”.
Maybe this could be a better experiment: I just tried it on my iPhone’s stopwatch which shows time to the hundredth of a second. I start the stopwatch, close my eyes, and then whenever I choose I open and close them as fast as I can. This allows me to perceive the number down to the hundredth. If I had the equipment to scan my brain, I would simply need to see if the brain signal matched the number. I think this setup would eliminate the inevitable anticipation found in the current setup for the Libet experiment.
What about when I chose to do something opposite of my desires??
Great ! Your religion? Just curious.
This has nothing to do with religion. E.g when I like something but buy something that I hate.
@@BerishaFatian Yesm
At the moment of making the decision your desire was to do the opposite of your desire.
Can you choose to desire something that you do not desire? The answer is no. Hence free will does dot exist
"Within your constraints, you have a degree of freedom. What does that mean? We do have *some* freedom to act within the parameters given to us by nature, and by our society, and then those parameters we set for ourselves."
This is doublespeak by Peter Tse. You are free, within these constraints. Constraints are not in our conception are freedom. 'Your arms are shackled, but you are free to move them to a degree', but not in the degree that they are not shackled, and not to the degree that you can have them unshackled except by the one who shackled you. This is just equivocating, unable to really admit that these processes are electrochemical in nature. There is no actual meaningful distinction between 'picking' and 'choosing' as he lays out here, because that 'distal' choice making is still using the same processes as the 'proximal' choice making, just using more energy and more brain power, but it is functionally the same. Furthermore, you don't choose whether or not you use distal or proximal choice making, the unconscious does. As Levy said, the unconscious is not unintelligent, but it is a natural process, one that the Self has no control over, but rather exerts control over the Self.
The fact that they've used phrases like, "You do this, or We or I" means that there is a person making those descisions. Where is the question of wondering whether it exist or not? It is already there. And by the way even the act of wondering If it exists or not is because one is free to wonder. Thats free will in action. If there was no free will, such phrases would be meaningless.
I suggest you read up on the works of Sam Harris on this topic.
@@dungeon-wn4gw Sam Harris is an arrogant jackass who based his entire argument on the debunked Libet experiment.
@@mikewilliams6025 Where do you think your thoughts emerge from? Are they calculations or do they appear magically?
So by using "you" or "we", that somehow shows free will? Wondering shows free will? No. Science is showing that our subconscious brain makes decisions before our conscious brain is aware of it. That give you as much control over your decisions as you have over your liver's processes, and you are not consciously controlling your liver, or your heart, or your breathing and a million other automatic actions in your body. Therefore no free will, but it still feels like it.
So your subconscious made the descision for you to type the response before you did? Did you know that you could literally stop all your liver and heart processes any time you wanted? Would that be a descision from my subconcious brain also? If the subconscious brain is the cause you are simply its tool. Well, then why are you struggling to understand it if you cannot influence it? Or should we say it is trying to understand itself? If so, then how and when did it become ignorant of itself?
Its not mere decisionmaking - what informs your decisions in the first place? The only distinction is the degree of consciousness. You may consciously consider the pros and cons of one choice versus another, but perception (among other things) play a role in that consideration. I cannot, for example, will myself to see a blue pen when it's red. In the same way I may choose a chocolate ice cream instead of a strawberry one, but you see, I have no choice in which of the two I like more. So how can we really say that freewill exists?
we have "free will" but lack the POLITICAL FREEDOM" to put OUR FREE WILL to good use.
how can free will be when everything happens for a reason, as long as will has a reason, it is not independent for it is dependent on reason, thus cancel the definition of free
Without free will there is no personal responsibility. Whohooo! :)
2:56 John Dylan Haynes
Easy way to determine if free will exists or not.
Think of everything you like, now choose to not like it.
Think of everything you dislike, now choose to like it.
If you can do that, free will exists, if you can't then it doesn't.
But it will still not be free will because you already suggested something to do which is not my will but yours. It still became a deterministic choice.
Per the AI
No, that is not a good test of the existence of free will. There are several problems with this test:
- First, it assumes that free will is the ability to choose against one's preferences, likes, and dislikes. However, this is not how most philosophers and scientists define free will. As the article [Yes, Free Will Exists](^1^) explains, a free choice is one determined by my preferences, likes, dislikes, character, etc., as opposed to someone else’s or other external forces. A free choice is not a random or arbitrary one that goes against what I want or value.
- Second, it confuses the ability to change one's preferences with the ability to choose one's actions. Preferences are not actions, but mental states that influence actions. Preferences can change over time due to various factors, such as learning, experience, persuasion, emotion, etc. However, changing one's preferences is not the same as choosing one's actions. One can act in accordance with or against one's preferences, depending on the situation and the consequences. For example, I may prefer chocolate over vanilla, but I may choose to eat vanilla ice cream if chocolate is unavailable or unhealthy.
- Third, it ignores the role of reason and evidence in shaping one's preferences and choices. Preferences are not fixed or immutable; they can be challenged and revised based on rational arguments and empirical data. For example, I may prefer to believe that I am a good person, but I may change my preference if I encounter evidence that I have harmed others or violated moral norms. Similarly, I may prefer to believe that free will exists, but I may change my preference if I encounter convincing arguments or scientific findings that show otherwise.
I wonder if anyone has studied the impact of spiritual practice on choosing. Quakers for example talk about reaching "clearness" on decisions and "unity" in group decisions, and most Quakers would probably agree that that process has a dimension that goes beyond everyday decision-making as experienced by Quakers and non-Quakers. It would be interesting to know if that process could be measured in a similar context to Libet's experiments.
Free will is an illusion. Your mind is an illusion. Your mind is just a consequence of brain activity, not the cause of it. The choices you make are just a consequence of thoughts and emotions you had prior to it. Which are themselves consequences of prior thoughts and some random "thought noise". If free will were not an illusion, you'd need to choose your own thoughts, which is an absurd idea. Imagine you want to choose your next thought. To want to have a particular thought, you already have to be thinking about it. Otherwise, how do you know what you want to think about? See the problem here? At no point does free will come in in the process of thinking and in the process of making choices. The only things that happen is chain reactions of thoughts and emotions, and you becoming aware of a portion of those thoughts.
libet's all joyful camaraderie
Yes we have " free will " as a concept, as an assumption, as a wish. But do we have free will that is totally unfettered choices ???? Absolutely not. This should be obvious to anyone who is living and thinking.
We don't have free will. Our responses are preprogrammed as we grow into adulthood by the effects of our actions, which is why we would not all make the same decisions even in the exact same circumstances.
This theory is reductionistic and stupid. Go work and stop crying.
Though thoughts may occur as a result of past experience(s), the ability to choose yes or no is not found in the past, but in the present.
Yes. Well stated. If we were able to go back in time with our current brain, we would change our whole lives whether we wanted to or not. But if we went back in time and were exactly the same with no knowledge of the future, we would make the exact same decisions. Something would have to be different for there to be a different outcome.
@@ZekeMagnar Your brain is going to choose yes or no based on prior experiences (prior causes) before you are aware of it. That's what the data shows.
@@Vlasko60 That doesn't seem to be true. You don't have control over your thoughts, but they don't just manifest externally without your permission. There's such a thing as "Free Won't." Think about when a thought comes up urging you to do something and you choose not to give in to it. You don't even need to accept another thought, you just don't give in to that one. If that wasn't the case, then every single time a thought occur in your mind it would just happen in real life. You know very well that doesn't happen.
In freedom there is no choice
Isitanymore?
saying humans don't have freewill in a cop out by libreals
2
The French hippie chick is definitely on smth
the places where the concept of free will still has any possibility of fitting in is shrinking day by day, and currently resides primarily in places where the justification for the unjustifiable is needed, like the punishment system of prisons and the concept of vengeance. free will has no good use that we cant still accomplish with more reasonable ideas, but it has plenty of terrible ones..
No free will in the block universe.
Why did she say physics?
Involuntary suggestion
The question is wrong if look at the test. Because it dosen't prove anything about free will. The only thing it proves is there is a delay from when the brain is getting ready to execute an action to when you actualy execute it. The other part of the video is something different. The fact that the brain/people are easy manipulated is not the same as not having free will. It only means that we have a potetial to be guided to a spesific choise, but in the end you actualy have to make the choise. So even when you feel there is only one choise you can make you can still choose to go against every fiber in your body that are telling you to do it. Of you did not have free will, you shoud be able to say with in a perimiter a person will make that exact choise, but you can't. You can only say that most likely are they gonna make that choise.
So according to this video, do we have free will?
Great question! In my humble opinion: We COULD have free will if we were in conscious contact with those inner parts that make the decisions (body, subcons mind, emotions, etc) but we are not; therefore, as we are, we do not have free will.
@@honestyfenix530 that’s not necessarily true experiments have been done showing that some people are more aware of those things than others meaning some are less free than others
@@leafboy3269 that doesn’t mean just because some more conscious than other, they have it through choice. Free will also based on biological facts as well, in fact biological facts are the fundamentals to make decisions. For example a person who had a tumour in this front side of his brain committed a crime that no one believed he ever do that even himself never believed how that had happened, in fact that would never gonna happened if he did not develop the tumour, after some checks and tests turn out the tumour affected his behaviour. So he was less conscious because of the tumour not because he chose that to him and to commit a such a crime.
@@savanqadir7741 he wasn’t less conscious because of the tumor he was less free. The stronger and urge the harder it is to ignore that urge that the tumor elicited in him was so strong it changed him but it doesn’t mean that it made the decision
@@leafboy3269 good point, however, in term of decision making, one’s not free to decide if there is factors dictate him to decide. Consciousness is the process of witnessing of what one’s doing. In the case I have mentioned, the tumour affected the part of his brain that responsible to his consciousness. He was less conscious of what he was deciding.
The burning question is : does the unconscious die when the conscious dies?
The burning answer is 'yes'
Medically death is pronounced not when there's no heart beat but when the brain shows no activity therefore it and you are dead.
@@MPM6785ChitChat is that the definition of medical death?
@@thenextbigthing1393 Yes it is when there's cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem.
Brain death and brain dead are different pronouncements.
Unfortunately there appears to be numbers of BD's still walking and talking among us 😆
Who is it in there that has this free will? Find that, first.
Now go buy some Heinz baked beans. Commercial complete.
Free will in the libertarian sense is very clearly an incoherent concept. Why is this a debate anymore?
Determinists are so bad at thinking they can only deconstruct strawmen.
This is the worst video on "free will" science I found in TH-cam. I recommend the "Closer To Truth" series, which also brings Peter Tse and many other's scientists who diverges on this topic. Would suggest too the book or at least the TED talk "Behave", by Robert Sapolsky.
The concept of free will is ridiculous! If you want to have a very good understanding as to why free will doesn't exist, listen to any of Sam Harris's talks on this subject.
These people are just playing lexical games. It is obvious that there are degrees of freedom in selection-making. It cannot be dichotomous. We are constrained by many processes and by the availability of data. One cannot select something that is not readily available as part of our conscious awareness. To that degree, we are constrained to choose the same over and over. However, when new data (luck) enters our conscious awareness we can select without preconception between an infinite amount of possibilities; for example, when we are going to decide between the new five options: in five seconds, in ten, in 20 minutes, in 6 hours, en 3 weeks and 1/2, 7 months, 4 years, 2 decades, et cetera.
Government took free will, Laws owns free will.
Humankind have been given a natural inbuilt propensity for self-will and a controlling desire for self-gratification and self-defense.
This is not sin, but part of the natural creative processes.
There is no "punishment" from on high!
Humankind, through the willful and harmful exercise of their authority over the behavior of their lives, draw to themselves their own punishment.
For this reason, just as scientific school text-books become redundant as the human mind discovers and absorbs more advanced scientific knowledge, so should the present form of "Christianity," built upon spurious doctrines centred around Jesus' crucifixion, be allowed to die a natural death.
Our present global crisis, introducing a new break down of International Law and laying the foundation for future global terrorism, clearly indicates that no religion in the world possesses the requisite knowledge and effective leadership to initiate changes in human mental patterns; which will lead directly to peace and prosperity.
I think "free will" exists in a state of natural, primordial beingness, devoid of encounters of others (that w/c could influences choice) or prior experience of cause-and-effect... W/c in nature can be observed at birth and in the early stages of life.
As we mature, we start to stratify existence and gain more awareness (or lose it), thus, converting "free" will to conscious, subconscious or unconscious. And in that, we objectively lose "freedom"... Untiiiil... Perhaps, we conjure up a system and beingness that fluxes enough for everything and everyone to be in a constant state of "newness".... W/c will be theoretically chaotic.
But this is not to say "free will" is equal to chaos. It is just an unfamiliar and seemingly unstable construct in comparison to what we've been accustomed to.
I don't understand what they are even saying. How does this experiment prove anything. What? it demonstrates that the mind is a property of the brain. I thought that we already knew this. I'm not seeing how this says anything at all about free will.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It feels like that, but data shows differently.
Now consider that Elon Musk, who is the richest man in the world, is saying he's ready to roll out human trials on neuralink. Meanwhile he owns 1/3 of all the tens of thousands of satellites beaming signals to earth. This villainous ghoul is literally preparing to plant chips in people's brains and control them remotely through satellite wifi. But "it's ok because he posts memes on twitter for teh lols".
Will is not the same thing as choice. One might decide to eat out, he chooses from the menu. Where is the divide between desire and choice? Rhetorical question for a rhetorical distinction. 💚 Free Will is how we cocreate the way life unfolds. The options are limited only by our knowledge of them. Habit, or character, plays a big part.
Choice isnt just limited by our knowledge. They are limited by the synapses that fire in our brains. If I ask you to pick any city in the world and a handful occurred to you but you knew of many more cities, then you were not free to pick them. You aren't free to pick that which doesn't occur to you to pick. Your synapses simply cannot be in two states at once. So really, whatever you picked was no more free than a computer being programmed.
@@dungeon-wn4gw I guess that's where people have to define free will, though, right? Because free will as I understand it means the ability to choose the thought you had no control over. Would you say that that choice is something people don't have? And if so, how do you prove that?
@@ZekeMagnar Where is the ability to make the conscious decision emerging from? If someone chooses apple instead of orange, the choice of apple is not coming from nowhere. It would have to emerge from a hard input/output calculation, else it is just magic. That is not a choice at all.
@@spqri3 Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "the choice of apple?" Are you asking me where the thought of "choose the green apple" came from? Or are you asking me how does one have the ability to choose the thought of "choose the green apple?"
@@ZekeMagnarhe’s not asking you he’s merely giving an example of how choice is not a thing
Wait. Why do u say physics😂😂😂
Because physics is the law of the universe maybe?
I choose to post this comment...
You posted a comment because you were compelled by your desires which you cannot control. Controlling a desire rewuires desire to control the desire. And the desire to control the desire needs to be controlled as well. Forever.
only sociopaths can't control desires.
@@mikewilliams6025 Are all addicts sociopaths?
@@spqri3 Are addicts fundamentally distinct from non-addicts?
@@mikewilliams6025 Wrong. You can't.
Your life is your life. You’re free. Ha, but your mind is your body, it is no one else’s. The readiness is your readiness, it is a free brain wave! Again, your brain’s causality is your causality. Supernatural theoretics is irrelevant. You are still free.
And then, what the real "boundary" between free will and determinism ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!
There is absolutely NO free will....
first
We are not separate from source-god, but born from source-god, and therefore; we are one with source-god.
If it were otherwise, we would not exist. Nothing exists apart from source-god; there is only one source-god, and source-god manifested all of life.
Source-god is woven into life in such a way that source-god cannot be separate from life. Source-god is inherent in life in the same way that wetness is inherent in water; therefore there is no greater or lesser creation, no hierarchy within creation.
That would be like saying: the arm is greater than the leg, or an apple is greater than an orange; although Satan [the ego] might claim something like that.
Everything that has been created has a place, a function and a value to source-god. Everything has an equal value in the eyes of source-god, who created everything to be just as it is.
Even though source-god is behind creation, that doesn't mean that source-god is behind everything that happens within creation.
Since certain creations, such as ourselves, have been given free will and are capable of being creators in our own right; including creating suffering for ourselves and others.
This particular misunderstanding, that source-god is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religion; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what is causing it?
As long as we believe that lie, we will blame source-god or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are the ones responsible for our suffering.
Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering.
Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite.
When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not source-god that is at fault. Source-god gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love.
Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive for making choices that are not aligned with Love. That is the only "punishment", if we will, meted out by source-god.
We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love.
Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love.
Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction. While joy tells us the opposite.
If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing or doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.
First you have to prove a god. Good luck with that.
@@edgarmorales4476 You still have to have evidence for your claims, or you're just another magical thinker not to be taken seriously.
Take your Soma pill.Forget your own free will.
We do not have free will, but its not about psyche or how does the neuro system works. Wanna solve this riddle? - You need to look from one system above.
The answer is in physics.
There are two types of people in the world. Those who believe in free will and suckers who buy shitty beans.
Not looking good, man!
Almighty God gave the Gift of FREEWILL to all His Angels (Spiritual beings) and Humankind (physical beings)... The Gift of Freewill was FREELY given by God without any price tag, but with the attached CONSEQUENCES... to choose and do GOOD (adj.), we will be rewarded... while to choose and do Evil (adj.), we will be punished... based upon through both the Law of Man here on Earth and with the Law of God/Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven or in Fire of Hell...