Understanding the Illusion of Free Will - with Donald Hoffman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2023
- Donald Hoffman delves into the fascinating concept of free will and challenges our commonly held beliefs. With his deep understanding of perception and consciousness, Hoffman explores the possibility that humans might not possess the free will we so strongly believe in.
___________
Watch the Full Episode:
• Proof That Reality Is ...
___________
Know Thyself
Main TH-cam Channel: / andreduqum
Instagram: / knowthyself
Website: www.knowthyself.one
Listen to all episodes on Audio:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4FSiemt...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
André Duqum
Instagram: / andreduqum
Meraki Media
merakimedia.com
/ merakimedia
Why does the system require any conscious agents making any decisions? Damn it was getting really good at the end: “You can know it by being it.” Preach it brother!
I don't control what I forget and you can't tell someone having a panic attack to stop. "Stop having a panic attack you have free will" that doesn't work.
Most people who try and describe freewill it only makes sense to them.
okashasunami32 I think you’re on the right track. In the double slit experiment, is it a wave or a particle? The answer is yes.
That neuron exists in some way (which may be surprising to us if we understood the ultimate reality) such that if we look into anyone’s brain we see neurons, not pudding. It may exist as information in a hologram that isn’t rendered until we look, but it exists.
To say things don’t exist until perceived is oversimplification. When you try to define ‘What is an observer’ or ‘What is perception’ things get messy.
How about cerebral paralysis? Or people who die from brain cancer?
Unless you channel with someone like Dolores Cannon has done so many times in the past to stop that person's progression, normal life will continue.
You are selling the man short when you call him a cognitive psychologist. He is professor of Neuro science at UC Irvine. He is leading team of mathematicians and physicists who are attempting, and succeeding they believe, to develop mathematical equations to describe the actions of consciousness. If that is not radical enough for you, he describes the purpose and actions of the cosmos with a larger vision than any of the religion. I think his idea that we are consciousness discovering itself is powerful enough to supplant the religions we are familiar with. And BTW, he does not see free will as an illusion, but as a component part of our actions.
Let me make myself clear. Outside the matrix we have only consciousness. This is capable of doing anything it wants. The matrix is simply an illusionary projection and mind game to play. The technicality of the game is limited to it's nature and can only be accuratly measured by the number system which runs from 1-9. Anything higher than 9 and it falls back onto itself in a spiral. Eg.9+7 is 16. 1+6 is 7 again. Everything in the matrix is bound by this rule including thoughts. Before a thought even ends up in the subconcious the simulation of it already takes place. The big problem with maths is that random calculations cannot be done with it to measure the matrix simulation.So, there is something wrong with maths and sience. As a researcher however, I am more than happy with Hoffman.
How about dementia?
I believe he is wrong about "neurons dont exist until perceived ". They do exist. They become "perceived", become measured by the device doing the measuring. If we had another type of "measuring" tool it would be perceived within that devices construct. Meaning: Instrument type A produces an A measurement. Instrument type B would produce a B measurement. And so on. But that neuron still exists in the universe. But what do I know. I paint houses. 😀
Perhaps he's speaking figuratively, as in, "the thought that fires the neuron doesn't pre-exist - it's /called/ into existence". Or something like that(?)
@@ibodhidogma Interesting contemplation.... That's on a whole other level... very interesting. Are you saying that in order to have a thought, it requires activating neurons. But how are the neurons able to make a thought unless there is some sort of thought before the neurons are fired? Hmmm
@@okashasunami32 Neurons as physical objects don't exist in any way, shape or form. Science itself has proved this by disproving what's called "local realism" - the efforts that were granted the Nobel Prize for Physics in '22. Summed up, "local realism" entails locality (that objects are *only* influenced by other objects within its immediate surroundings) and realism (that physical objects have standalone existence and would exist as such whether they're being observed or not).
Both are false. All the serious loopholes offered by scientists have been closed out and the results are very clear.
That said, this isn't to say that there isn't a world out there. It's just not what we think of as physical reality and all physical objects within it. So when we talk about neurons, what we're *really* saying is that neurons are a simplified representation of what's actually going on, but neurons in and of themselves don't actually exist.
To put that another way, think of a video game. Even if you're not a programmer, you understand that the images and gaming mechanics on the screen aren't the actual game itself, right? The actual game is the plethora of code and hardware in the gaming system (I'm not saying the world's a computer simulation btw). The same principle applies here, except the images on the screen in the metaphor I just used apply to the entire physical universe.
Great update to plato's cave.
Don't go too far towards the gnostic rejection of (and disdain for) the world of "matter".
Yes, Matter is not that which is substantial. And that does not mean that there is not a substance (standing below) giving rise to apparent phenomena.
There is a mechanism behind the apparent.
And the "observer effect" being twaddle (read Heisenberg) … is no support for procedural rendering.
Existence is quite capable of rendering discrete 3D "frames" in which "matter" appears, fleetingly, in the Moment.
Your perception of the errors of your fellow academics is sharp and correction is indeed necessary.
The necessary correction is to the paradigm through which data and models are viewed.
Modeling consciousness mathematically might be possible, but the framing paradigm will render interpretations an nonsensical as interpretations of QM. And your model is seeded by an atomistic paradigm …
I would go the other way. Start with the One, indivisible and undivided in which, in the moment, voids which we call "strings" briefly cavitate into being.
If that helps to escape Atomism (empty-space-ism), for the full picture, escape time-centeredness (persistence of matter beyond the moment) too.
There is a physicality, there is a substance, and all phenomena appear only in the Moment.
The motions of that singular superfluid/supersoliid "quantum object" are "consciousness" and it thoroughly "observes" all "matter" between the Moments.
All it takes, really, is listening to your brother Physicists:
Time is an illusion, Matter made of nothing, and Space is not empty.
These are truths, and you certainly have part of the paradigm necessary to understanding them.
Last clue.
In the West, drop Aristotle and listen to Thales.
In the East, Advaita (the understanding, not the mind-training system) agrees with, and even implies the quantum and relative behavours.
Explaining the double-slit experiment in terms of the mechanism which produces "gravity" is a good exercise for an Advaita practitioner, and forces the necessary paradigm correction.
You could call Existence an analog (infinite precision) computer on a vibrating/pulsating superfluid substrate as a single "quantum object"/"wave function".
Keep going deeper into the mystery, dear explorers ;)
What influences brain activity?
Decisions are 'not' Choices. There is a "because" at the source of a 'decision'...not the case with a 'choice'...'because' is not there. 🙏
"Neurons don't exist when they are not perceived."
What did this interview even get to?
Right lol i thought i was tripping
I believe the notion of free will and chance are not only incomprehensible to us, but that they don't even exist as we imagine them to. Trying to rationalize them is a fools errand.
I think free will is an emergent property, despite the neurologists’ assertions to the contrary. It’s like trying to explain football using quantum mechanics. Two different worlds.
If you had only stars, would you predict the periodic table? If you had only the periodic table, would you predict biological life? If you had only biology would you predict human consciousness?
When we study neurons without a full understanding of consciousness, I think it’s a stretch to say free will does not exist. You won’t find it at the level of neurons, or in the past as Sam Harris tries to do with his thought experiment of replaying the tape. It’s not there. It’s right here at this instant.
Zombies eat brains.
They can't afford groceries.
TIL I have no brain.
How babies Whois’s born with no baby brain?
“Neurons don’t exist when they aren’t measured” is a kin to “If a tree falls, no one’s around, does it make a sound”
Both scenarios imply that the universe only “renders” what can be perceived. So he’s saying that, because I can’t see his brain right now; it doesn’t exist. This isn’t true because the universe doesn’t run on magic… everything is a type of machinery that must be connected and communicating for things to happen.
If there isn’t a brain in his head right now, that would mean that all of physics and everything is just a fiction, and doesn’t actually “operate” as a machinery.
Almost as if this place is a 3d point map, rendering things as they would be if it were real. Like a 3d LCD screen built with subatomic particles.
A stimulation…
Exactly. What we interpret as the laws of physics *is* just a convenient fiction to make sense of the world that we're perceiving w/ our five senses. We don't actually understand what's really going on.
That said, I'd shy away from calling the world a "simulation". That makes it sound like we're in a computer in some other physical universe somewhere and, to my mind, there's no good reason to think that that's the case.
Who am I?
Now why’d you have to go and bring that up?!
You are a dissociated alter (a technical way of saying you're a multiple personality) within the universal mind that is the identity of Reality itself. As to *who* you are, that is the purpose of your existence - to engage in an infinite sea of different experiences to eternally reevaluate and reaffirm your own existence, which is something you can only ever know yourself.
Simply put, others can tell you who and what you are in a very broad sense - but the deeply felt truth of the matter is something only you can answer. No one else.
If free will exists, then nothing you choose would matter.
Free Willy 🐳
What does that even mean? It “matters” (just like all phenomena “matters”) based on the meaning you give it. That doesn’t make our choices irrelevant… we exist to experience the phenomenon of deciding which things matter to us, then interacting with it.
There is no free will. !!!!
That was a lot of word salad to me
What part didn’t you understand? It’s definitely complex, but this is next level stuff so I getcha… but it’s definitely not word salad.