This needs a setup that explains the Libet experiments and why some people think it shows there is no such thing as free will in people. A good explanation is found in the papers of Alfred Mele who also demolishes Libet's interpretation of his own experiments.
In this example, the subject’s will was already decided to squeeze the ball and the question was not one of “if” but one of “when”. The readiness potential would, then, be subsequent to the act of will to squeeze the ball and an act of free will.
The cooperation of the participants is itself an act of Free Will, as is the choice to accept rather than reject hypnotic suggestions. This experiment proves nothing.
If you recognise the 2 forms of time, forward and backward time, then freewill operates in forward time, determinism in backward time(retro-causality), so there is no dichotomy. Both are true, but you have to define your frame of reference.
Wherever free will hides, it is not making it easy to find.... My hunch is that free will hides in the realm of moral values starting with self awareness and confronting how we respond to moral situations. Trouble is, what I call morality may not even figure on someone else's map...
I disagree because everybody experiences free will in much simpeler situations, like choosing between vanilla and chocolate. The consequences of attributing free will to humans lies in the realms you are talking about. If people have free will then that has great moral consequences. The reason why we experience free will when making a choice is what remains the question, because we can all think of numerous examples where people experience free will in situations where we feel they are not responsible (ie. children, surreptitious advertising)
PT says of hypnosis: "nobody really understands what it is or how it works" but goes on to assume it removes will from the equation. This is interesting when one considers hypnosis might plausibly be the the willingness of an individual to do what someone else has suggested. In such a situation we would expect readiness potential to remain the same would we not?
When observer, such as human being, measure quantum wave function / particle; randomness is from the measurement by observer (classical), not from the wave function (quantum)
I think first is unconscious/subconscious preparation, and free will is consciousness making the choice on wether to act upon the now conscious thought.
@@snoutysnouterson It's not as simple as that. Through manipulation you are unaware of, i.e. surreptitious advertising you can make choices that you feel are free -"I chose Pepsi because i wanted to try something new" but we say are not really free choices.
@@LoadRunner101 I agree, i made it as simple as possible so its easy to understand, but its of course extremely complicated. I know what you are saying about pepsi or coke, but lets say somoneone did something horrible to you and you wanted to punch them, but you decided not to, thats what I'm calling the free will part. I appreciate our thoughts and compulsions are not under our control, but i personally belive that our conciousness has the final say before we act.
@@snoutysnouterson If your thoughts are not under your control then also the thought it's better to not seek revenge is not under your control. Remains the question why we all experience free will.
You have no control over the next thought; or the one after that. You may not be able to change what you do next. But I think we can rewire our brains to change our future actions.
If you have no control over the next thought and can't change what you will do next, as humans, we will only rewire our brains if that is where this deterministic ride takes us. Maybe it is possible that in the future we'll be able to make adjustments to the brain that lead to us no longer being a slave to determinism. But it will be determinism that gets us there
@@dennisnegrido686 ,some say thoughts transcend. I am not one of those. Consciousness is an emergence of a complex brain. Once the brain stops making energy the organ dies, and consciousness ceases. Nothing transcendence here. I remain open to be proven wrong. Peace.
@@cps_Zen_Run It certainly does transcends the physical. Take for example traumatic experiences. Those who suffered from them although it happened a long long time ago they still remember it vividly like it's happening just like the first time they had it. It even affects them physically. It's more than just about memory of past experiences that were processed by the brain. Consciousness is a very complicated thing.
Of course you have control over your next thought. If you didn't, then everything would go on autopilot. You dont have much control over your vocabulary etc but you must use conscious efforts to bring many words or thought's in your mind. Some thoughts of course are Involuntary, but not all of them. So to be clear, we dont have control over the quality or dynamic of thoughts, but we can consiously bring thoughts in our consciousness, move it away and bring it back later again. For example i can think of a lion, i can erase it from my mind and focus somewhere else and then bring it back if i want to. In that sense i can control the next thought..
Tse is in the right track. The brain is a wonderful and incredibly complex entity with nearly a trillion neurons with each neuron including about a billion microtubules. In this regard, the Libet experiment is at best scratching the surface.
Try this: give a post hypnotic suggestion to “click on ‘1’ or on ‘2’ after seeing the red arrow depending on which number is correct” Let’s see what the unconscious does when asked to make choices ... forget the conscious which may have a different feedback purpose. Some subjects in my example might select 1 or 2 and others might not know what to do ... then study THAT as to how decisions are actually made or influenced in brains. The existence or denial of “free” choice is premature until we understand a lot more about neurological processes that lead to actual decisions. Imo anyway.
“Willingness” may be a sensation and therefore the perception of willing, with parallels to 'readiness potential'. Though true ‘will’ might very well have a subconscious component; if you can define ‘will’ as equivalent to the sum total of one's deepest convictions from your discriminated, ignored and heeded, pool of knowledge. Empiricalistic study (the repeatability of happenings to show evidence of a rule for consistency) will never prove free will by it's very definition, science is based on this. It makes object out of subject, this is why science will always reduce mind to brain rather than see it in a metaphysical reciprocation of subject posed in object via dialectic. Philosophy will always be the bulwark of free will: even quantum speculation of indeterminacy, as long as it isn't objectified and solved (scientific advancement stops at making object of a subject) can never come to a conclusion in favor of free will. It is set up from the beginning to deny it by its very method. There is no free will where empiricalism is abstractly accepted as the ultimate answer.
You didn't quite get it. They are not trying to prove that there is no freewill/will, but rather, they are trying to find out if consciousness is wholly physical or metaphysical or a combination of both? But as for the moment, data gathered in studies supports the idea that there is no freewill/will or a true freewill/will and consciousness as they suspect(or theorize) is connected to a repository of consciousness which they have no idea whatsoever. To put it plainly, a persons consciousness is not actually his/hers (meaning the person doesn't owns it and has NO COMPLETE CONTROL over it) but tries to navigate or operate (live a life) in this world using the limited control that the person has that comes with it(consciousness). That's why they thought of freewill as a trick of the person's mind and that it doesn't actually exists. What exists is that all of our actions and everything that happen around us are all predetermined(but because we have a part to that limited control, no matter how big or small it is, we are deemed responsible for our actions.
@@dennisnegrido686 Like I said, it's all about projecting empirical cause and effect beyond immediate apperception and reifying that abstractly from a mechanistic standpoint (which is a supposition of empiricalism). I understood it fine, what I was responding to was the suggestion that science could overtake philosophy on an argument for free will.
@@dennisnegrido686 Your clearfication of what they're saying is well conveyed. Working with the laws helps complement our exercising of freewill, atleast in this deminsion. -- what would riding a motorcycle be without light, gravity, air, or the consequences that brings forth the very thrill of life, riding a motorcycle. -- what would life be without good vs bad(God vs devil), spirit vs ego. Not saying life is entirely dualistic, as I think Spirit is transcendent to that of the ego's right vs wrong conception from the lower mind. Life and death, brings about an ineffable... meaning alone that, pondering the question of freewill is seemingly inadequate. What would freewill be, without what they're trying to use to say that it's only an illusion, be... Freewill to me is navigating the ship through the ocean; life. I think we're conscious in consciousness; like soul is connected to God; radio having a signal but not owning the signal -- it is the signal opposed to being the radio. Like a person is not the brain, flesh or bone, they're Spirit; the substance, essence of the very breathe of life within. Consciousness -- not everybody has awareness; they're levels beyond simple physical recognition. Spirituality -- not all have awakened. Even when you do, you only get out of bed to enter the trails.. of life. Conviction -- co creator, fragment of God realization that brings forth dharma, or since a duty. I look up to great people like JFK and wonder why... so few have that conviction. Freewill would have to do with everything mentally, spiritually, emotionally, physically simultaneously.
Free will is all about choice and options. The illusion is to think having options has anything to do with being able to select any one of them in the actual circumstances. No mystery at all.
Working, scientifically, to identify every mechanism of cause and effect in the mind ... is certainly something we need to keep doing. But it's odd, to say the least, to hear very intelligent people framing those efforts as: trying to understand "free will" or trying to see if we have "free will", ... when it's an absolutely, logically impossible thing for anyone to have. A feeling of freedom exists. We all recognize this. Narratives of freedom exist. Most of us indulge in this, as a metaphoric truth; even though it's not a literal truth. But it's where-from any impulse arises ... that's really at issue. If each impulse of thought and feeling (the precursors and instigators of every at-issue action) arise as: effect from (any) prior necessitating cause, then we don't have free will; period. On the other hand, if these (at least many and often) thoughts, feelings, and actions arise WITHOUT (any) prior necessitating cause, then we can't avoid that we're really talking about: literally something (super-frequent events within the mind) coming from: quite literally: nothing. No cause whatsoever. Even in that literally impossible scenario, that still wouldn't be "freedom" of will, because: (in that case) we could no more freely choose which thoughts/feelings/urges/impulses arise from quick and repeating moments of: *literally nothing* paradoxically *literally happening* in the mind ... than we could: freely choose which thoughts/feelings/urges/impulses that follow and arise from ... immediately prior causes. Even within the context of humoring the paradox, we still wouldn't really be talking about actually free will. We don't have it. Logically speaking, it literally can't exist. If we want to ask "Where's the problem?", ... then perhaps we should be talking about the costs of the "Free will" narrative; in how it has severe consequences of a self-defeating "justice" system that focuses on retribution based on anger directed at non-existent free willed people, rather than approaching justice systems and social systems (and all related values) as a matter of traceable and alterable (thus: improvable) cause and effect.
If in fact no individual has Free Will then isn't a Justice system, how it is currently run in our country or at any time and culture in history, the result of natural laws of physics? But to ask to change our current system, is that not in itself a Will at work? Or is it more of the flux of natural laws beyond our control to change the future?
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that quantum mechanics may play a role in thought and could be a component of free will. Choices don't have to be without cause for free will to exist, because probabilistic occurrences are both scientifically possible and allow for some degree of free will, depending on how you define free will of course.
@@MS-tz1ml re "You don't seem to have considered the possibility that quantum mechanics may play a role in thought and could be a component of free will. " --- I did. ---------------------------------- re "Choices don't have to be without cause for free will to exist" -- They do. ------------------------------- "probabilistic occurrences" -- is either a way of saying: a.) can't be predicted because we don't know enough about what's causing the variances or b.) true randomness, arising from literally: uncaused causes; aka: magic. Per "a", it's not actually random. We just can't predict it. Per "b", it is actually random. Neither "a" nor "b" grant free will.
@@ApPersonaNonGrata No, quantum mechanics is actually probabilistic according to scientific consensus. It sounds hard to believe but you have to remember that physics is very strange at the quantum level. If you read up on it you will see, though it is a tough thing for anyone to truly wrap their head around.
@@MS-tz1ml re "quantum mechanics is actually probabilistic according to scientific consensus. It sounds hard to believe " === I granted it. I didn't refute it.
Although they may indeed be connected, I think they can be studied separately. Consciousness is the Observer, the Witness. Currently, Free Will is an illusion. In truth, the illusion of Free Will is just another illusion. Perhaps I am completely wrong, and I can remain open minded. Peace.
interesting ... i think that from a materialistic point of view it's really hard to defend "free will" , while is a pretty obvious property of a dualistic body/consciousness reality .
@@dennisnegrido686 the good scientists yes . But as usually many others are influenced by their own theories, ideas. We see it even in this pandemic , it's one year that i dont listen 2 doctors saying the same thing , everyone have his own idea about how to heal , how to prevent , how to act ...And they menace each other , they go into legal wars . Now , if they have so different ideas regarding a virus you can imagine how a personal point of view influence research (and results) in something so "volatile" like consciousness.
It seems like this takes for granted that hypnotic suggestion is not Free Will. I think this is not supported. No one suggests that free will is completely independent of environment/outside input. I cannot will myself to shoot fire from my hands (unfortunately.) Either will is limited by physics, or holds a shape that determines what is physically possible. It is possible that hypnosis deforms the will, causing a brain signal that is clearly not autonomic, but also does not feel like will. I admit that will is very hard to nail down well enough to test. But since the existence of will is a necessary condition for perception to be truthful, only the most persuasive evidence is permissible.
The number of true sentences derivable from a contradiction is the largest infinity. So, even if the universe is uncountably infinite (not sure what that would mean physically), with enough time and resources an epistemic agent capable of counter-factual reasoning could eventually learn anything, except maybe true unprovables. Humans can assume contradictions, usually to their detriment, but we have learned over time to use the power of contradiction for hypothetical, scientific reasoning. By using such reasoning, we open ourselves to whatever possibilities we can achieve as humans. Ability is doing what is possible, not what is impossible. So, free will is our ability to prune from among as many possibilities we can think to a conclusion that aligns (to some degree of accuracy and precision) with reality. Our ability to choose among options is our use of that alignment to “steer” our way as possibilities open up to us. When I say possibilities, I mean two different senses. Our intuitive notion of possibility is what can happen in reality, and humans can make predictions about that. We make predictions by aligning what we *think* is possible i.e., our epistemic possibilities, to what is really possible.
If they are hypnotized to press the button they are still choosing to press the button. The hypnotherapist they are working with should have explained this to them. It makes the whole experiment moot. People who are hypnotized are willing participants choosing to go along with the suggestions. This is the very base of hypnotism.
Peter Ulric is correct, it is possible to subplant a physical action into a person without their conscious awareness (free will) of what they are doing. I have performed hypnosis where I was able to do the same (though not everyone is suseptable), subplant a physical action by a audible/ visual cue that was performed without the individuals conscious awareness of their action. This should alarm many of us that this could be also used for non humanistic ways. My guess is the advertising industry ia well aware of this aspect.
Free will to me implies something that is unlimited. With memory being limited (one can never hold all information) any thought/action/choice stemming from memory is limited implying no free will. Free will then could be a movement that is choiceless. I could be wrong.
It could be that brain presents an option to consciousness whereupon, based on how consciousness feels about it, the brain proceeds (or not). It seems natural that conscious decisions would work this way - no?
Doesn’t free will demand the ‘mind over matter’ in some way? That is, cause and effect means that one particle is moving in a direction, and certain speed. It interacts with another particle with other attributes, and they interact following quantum mechanics, going off in other directions, or getting absorbed or any other phenomena following laws, and so do the zillions and zillions other particles, the result of which is, at higher levels, is macro objects moving in time. Chemical reactions occur, signals move around, muscles operate, etc. How would free will work in the context of cause and effect by things that make up everything we know, following physical laws on how objects in the universe move and interact (what we observe as change generally)? Doesn’t it mean that our collection of all these particles, exquisitely organized into brains and bodies, are somehow operated on by the results of the very same collection of particles?
Things that go on in the human brain may be very complex and hidden from us but I don't think that necessarily implies we have any degree of free will of our own. Free will is just a belief or an illusion or it may be something that is very real. Ultimately I think that what we perceive as being free will must come from somewhere and something. There could be many things that influence our thoughts and actions so unless we can actually see those things then how can anyone really say whether free will is real or not? I don't think free will just comes from thin air. There are some people who seem to believe that you can get something from nothing but personally I don't believe that is possible. There's always a reason and cause for everything that happens even if we are not able to find those underlying causes and reasons.
@@chrisc1257 there’s meaning in that you and I are having this experience. The fact that we are communicating proves we are. Is there any value to the statement? Maybe. Everything we feel, think, learn, and experience is because we are; but there’s no objective meaning
ANYONE is capable of being hypnotized with some exceptions. The person being hypnotized must be capable of understanding the instructions that is being given to him/her. Therefore, those who can't be hypnotized are drunks, mentally challenged people, and young children. Contrary to popular belief, the more intelligent a person is - the easier it is to be hypnotized.
@@garychartrand7378 good evening Gary. I thank you so mutch to answered me. IT exacly what I whant to know. I never imagîne môre intélîgent iq the easy it is. Gary if one day you think I can help you what so ever it will be my pleasure. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
For me, all this shows; which is obvious to me anyway. Is that: Brain activity is brain activity. As we all know brain activity can be initialised by any of our senses and more. Hypnotism is just the method used as the trigger in this experiment. The action of the brain is still the same. This by no means proves that free will, consciousness or adrenaline fuelled evasive reaction to visual stimulus (coupled with our memories, filed under dangers to avoid) could not be the trigger under more normal circumstances.
Ok look, this is just called muscle memory. It’s not a big deal. If you do anything often enough, the action becomes automatic. They’ve tapped into that with this experiment, but I don’t see why he’s making it seem as if it’s some big breakthrough. It’s just muscle memory.
@@dennisnegrido686 There doesn’t seem to be a difference between what the interviewee is saying, and what we normally think of as muscle memory. For example, I do martial arts, and there are certain attacks across the year that I’ve seen so often that I’ve learned how to respond to without thinking. In fact, in a competition, your body is often reacting without thinking because the actions are so fast. There’s not enough time. How is this different from what the interviewee says his experiment does? He uses hypnosis to achieve similar results, but it all boils down to actions that happen before you have time to “think” about them.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying Our brain is a very fast processor of information. What you are talking about is reflex action. Reflex action is physical and can be timed and measured scientifically( and by your opponent )With much training any person can develop a very fast reflex. But consciousness is way much different. Take for example emotions. You can't measure it scientifically. You can't say a kilo of anger, or a ton of sadness, a meter of happiness. Even if you do try you're just making an idiomatic expression. It's all wordplay. In reality you can't measure these things. Emotions is only a facet of consciousness. It's a very complicated thing to deal with. That's why they're trying very hard to know more about it.
@@dennisnegrido686 I agree with everything you said up until your last statement. My point is that I don’t think the experiment this interviewee did is very effective at determining much about consciousness. His experiment doesn’t seem to be probing the depths of consciousness. His experiment seems more comparable to muscle memory. Already hypnotism is kind of dodgy, as they have to first find subjects who are susceptible, and that’s not a large percentage of the population. But then, what they have them doing is really quite basic. Consciousness is this complex phenomenon, and they’re experimenting with involuntary muscle reactions. If these people did an experiment where they could precisely tell what someone was going to do 10 years from now, well, that would be something. Instead, they’re excited about involuntary reactions from those who are prone to hypnotism.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying The reason why they're doing physical experiments on consciousness is that they're trying to find out where the boundary lies between the physical part and the metaphysical part of the human psyche. Until know they haven't found it. It seems like they're closely intertwined but the metaphysical part had more control and capabilities over the physical part. Imagine a person who lost two of his legs in an accident and lived, and tries to live the rest of his life without legs but with a positive outlook. That's the power of the metaphysical over the physical. And besides they can only measure the physical part of consciousness and not the other.
Till this day they only have variations of the libet experiment, by virtue of all these Libet-like experiments that aren't actually reproductions of the experiment itself. To me this smells of "replication crisis" all over again, sometimes unfortunately I think that if it wasn't for the great developments made from Neurobiology, Neuroscience as a field would be vacuous with how off-the-tangent it's become
Do not try to understand those whom do not care to understand you. In the material world we may not be free to walk away from sexual pleasure, governing policy, duality, food/drink, sleep, death. In Spirit we have the ability to free ourselves, in life, from that ego narrative of a mental construct: -- I am my thoughts; I am my beliefs. -- I am my skin, bones, brain. -- im identifiable by my skin color, country, culture and who society told me I am. Listening to anybody or anything outside of yourself will never be found anything free, you will only ever be at the mercy of their feet; bound. Spirit is Truth, Truth is Light, Light is Knowledge, Knowledge is of Life, Life is of God, I am; God. I will what I apply through the life force in me, expressing outwards creative flow, shaping my experience in this reality. Death is bound; life is freedom. Looking outside yourself, you are bound. Going within, that which is life, is free. Freewill. Some choose to be bound; others find life.
I still don't understand the fuss about free will. Thinking of free from that perspective I find myself even more demystified Free will reminds me of the spam filter classifying my other information inbox.
Funny, I thought you couldn't give someone a post hypnotic suggestion unless they were in agreement with the suggestion.... maybe that's just movie hype. Surely the interviewee isn't suggesting that we're all under a hypnotic state, all the time... Free Will only applies to moral decisions... the rest is just 'will'.
It could be we are auto preprogrammed, and that "the voices/enteties" people have in their head is trying to avoid bad things that happened in our life through this programming. Pluss we have free will to do what we want, and also have to use free will to avoid bad things that was preprogrammed. Autopreprogrammed was done many times until it got lessest wars and robbery and accidents and such.
We have to make a difference about freewill, Nature, and time. For the sake of , make it real clear. When we say T=0 , it is not into a realty, where human kind live there every Day Life. We need understand quantum Physics, quantum mecanic. Because to make all the engrenages fine tune in are univers, Nature will always makes are univers roleling smoothly, and without paradoxe, or a bang sudenly with caos at a certains points. Freewill is Working like this, on a not a superposition between realty. Superposition it is not a good Word. IT is more like...() Sorry I Will be back about the good words to use instaed of superposition. IT is so important the good meaning, make it simplier to figure that out. Philippe Martin sincères amitiés
im not sure i have free will , jus like im not sure i even exist , wtf is - i - ? my whole life is power of suggestion conditioned response brainwashing how can there be any free will ?
Doesn't the experiment add validity to determinism? We have the same brain state whether we are consciously or unconsciously performing an act. This shows me that while we may believe we produced an act, we are no more responsible for it than the hypnotized.
His colleague interpreted it that way. He did this experiment with a woman that said what you just said. But she is jumping the gun in my mind because the whole presumption of there project relies on hypnosis to be 100% effective. Peter Tse believes in free will fyi, he wrote an entire book on it
Yes but readiness potential is responsible for an automatic action without our consious interference. When the consious perception is present the arm doesn't move automatically. And libetw performed experiments with the person blocking the RP and mentioned "free won't". So RP must be some kind of automatic bias or automatic anticipation and not the final consious decision to move or not to move. In by what meaning we define free will; Are we talking about the automatic biases? Or are we talking about the consious decision between perhaps opposite unconscious biases?
Lawrence - your statement at circa 2:30 of this video that the readiness potential appearing before the actor reports "willing" the act proves that there is something other than "free will" acting is TOTALLY UNPROVEN. The "readiness" potential is a measured increase in energetic activity, sure. BUT -- you have no idea what the information content is of that activity, if there is any at all, nor do you know when, how, by who/what the decision is made to act or the chain of causal relationships involved and what initiated same. You conclusion is riddled with numerous unproven assumptions. This is sloppy science, or better - not science at all, but preconceived conclusions in search of justification.
Determinism has failed. Consciousness is not an illusion created by the brain. The brain is a basic animal. It makes choices between two options a or b. It does not make a 'No' choice to stop something. You can see this when your consciousness is focused on something else. Someone asks you a question and your mind gives a response that sometimes you would not have consciously chosen. Or before you drive home you decide to go somewhere close to home instead. You know exactly how to drive there. Then on the way home you let your mind focus on another issue and you will find yourself at home. The brain literally just did what it normally is required to do. Any of these type of tests show that what you consciously want will not be carried out by the brain, the brain will only do what it is used to. As such, in martial arts you repeat, repeat, repeat until it becomes second nature then you try to remove consciousness from the equation and try to let the brain do what it has learnt so that it is not delayed by redundant 'what ifs' that come from consciousness.
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
This is very a good concept, especialy when those who practice this way of living as mother Teresa did. You definetly touch by the Grasse , Dive you are. I am a good freind of the few personnes like you. My pleasure. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
I think you got that story from an old book of myths. Actually it doesn’t read very well, is full of historical and scientific inaccuracies. And it revolves around a very wicked and vial entity called god. Thumbs down. I suggest reading the Tao Te Ching by Laozi
@@cps_Zen_RunThis is from that "inaccurate book". Repent and follow Jesus Christ. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! II Timothy 3:1-5 NKJV
@@cps_Zen_Run as one who studdies the book, the mystics who written it, the origins it derived from, the metaphorical meanings, cosmological narrative, spiritual enlightenment, you are entirely wrong in that assumption. From that mental position, I would say such person doesn't have control of their next thoughts. Only because I see you applying a biased, uniformed, no fuks given type attitude. The beauty of awareness -- the illuminated mind -- you have so many perspectives of a single thing that all correlate, correspond, synchronize in symmetry that it's not that you don't have no control, rather you do have control in which angel you want to observe something from.
I seriously don't understand why its difficult to understand and accept the fact that each action we ''chose'' to make is a result of intial stuff we did not chose. If you were born conscious in the body of donald trump as a baby. You would have made the exact same career. We do not have free will. But we need this illusion. We need to think we do. Or it will be total chaos. Thats it. There is nothing to add. This topic should be closed!
from a materialistic point of view your point is acceptable. you need duality to have a different "trump" . A different "soul" would have made different choices .
@@francesco5581 do you mean there were chances that donald trump would have chosen to be an imam. Or a football player Or a techno artist. If only his soul was different? I think if his soul was given the body of a baby in saudi arabia. By now he would believe strongly that he will be punished by god if he eats porc.
As a Goddess i am full of Graces, i can do not not to share my wisdom because evil people are playing blind and deaf but i will really share my wisdom for Pure Love of Humanity !
I hope we are not just focusing on human free will. Having free will isn't just a human trait. The concept of free will is as flexible as religion. And just as indefinable.
@@williamesselman3102 The true religion ? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Said every religion we have ever had. And all with the same absolute conviction that they are right. 🙄
It's pointless to use meaningless choices as evidence that free will doesn't exist. This show has so much potential, but every episode is disappointing.
Isn't the Will affiliated with Consciousness rather than strictly biological functions, and what exactly does Science know about Consciousness? If so, how do we know we can even physically observe what we call the Will to measure it in an individual? Will Science get to a point where it can measure the Will under temptation to choose between actions that are immoral vs moral? Take Christ's claim that any man who lusts after a woman in his thoughts has already committed adultery...can Science measure whether a married man is tempted (or not) just by looking at another woman and then determine if the quantum flux of the future with his wife disintegrates while the quantum flux of drama with the other woman, who recognized the married man's intentions, materializes in that very moment of the tempting thought? And what can we make of the Christian teaching that one is commanded to abandon one's own Free Will to obey God's Will, while in science today, many claim we should abandon our illusion of a Free Will to observe and accept our place in the Natural Laws of Physics?
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
This needs a setup that explains the Libet experiments and why some people think it shows there is no such thing as free will in people. A good explanation is found in the papers of Alfred Mele who also demolishes Libet's interpretation of his own experiments.
In this example, the subject’s will was already decided to squeeze the ball and the question was not one of “if” but one of “when”. The readiness potential would, then, be subsequent to the act of will to squeeze the ball and an act of free will.
The cooperation of the participants is itself an act of Free Will, as is the choice to accept rather than reject hypnotic suggestions. This experiment proves nothing.
If you recognise the 2 forms of time, forward and backward time, then freewill operates in forward time, determinism in backward time(retro-causality), so there is no dichotomy. Both are true, but you have to define your frame of reference.
Wherever free will hides, it is not making it easy to find.... My hunch is that free will hides in the realm of moral values starting with self awareness and confronting how we respond to moral situations. Trouble is, what I call morality may not even figure on someone else's map...
I disagree because everybody experiences free will in much simpeler situations, like choosing between vanilla and chocolate. The consequences of attributing free will to humans lies in the realms you are talking about. If people have free will then that has great moral consequences. The reason why we experience free will when making a choice is what remains the question, because we can all think of numerous examples where people experience free will in situations where we feel they are not responsible (ie. children, surreptitious advertising)
Free will is a new pair of shoes.
@@chrisc1257 that's probably why women are more sophisticated about it...
PT says of hypnosis: "nobody really understands what it is or how it works" but goes on to assume it removes will from the equation. This is interesting when one considers hypnosis might plausibly be the the willingness of an individual to do what someone else has suggested. In such a situation we would expect readiness potential to remain the same would we not?
No
When observer, such as human being, measure quantum wave function / particle; randomness is from the measurement by observer (classical), not from the wave function (quantum)
Could free will be the action, preceded by conscious preparation?
Consciousness needs no preparation. It is the Observer.
I think first is unconscious/subconscious preparation, and free will is consciousness making the choice on wether to act upon the now conscious thought.
@@snoutysnouterson It's not as simple as that. Through manipulation you are unaware of, i.e. surreptitious advertising you can make choices that you feel are free -"I chose Pepsi because i wanted to try something new" but we say are not really free choices.
@@LoadRunner101 I agree, i made it as simple as possible so its easy to understand, but its of course extremely complicated.
I know what you are saying about pepsi or coke, but lets say somoneone did something horrible to you and you wanted to punch them, but you decided not to, thats what I'm calling the free will part. I appreciate our thoughts and compulsions are not under our control, but i personally belive that our conciousness has the final say before we act.
@@snoutysnouterson If your thoughts are not under your control then also the thought it's better to not seek revenge is not under your control. Remains the question why we all experience free will.
You have no control over the next thought; or the one after that. You may not be able to change what you do next. But I think we can rewire our brains to change our future actions.
If you have no control over the next thought and can't change what you will do next, as humans, we will only rewire our brains if that is where this deterministic ride takes us. Maybe it is possible that in the future we'll be able to make adjustments to the brain that lead to us no longer being a slave to determinism. But it will be determinism that gets us there
rewiring the brain(neuroplasticity) is physical. But consciousness according to data transcends the physical
@@dennisnegrido686 ,some say thoughts transcend. I am not one of those. Consciousness is an emergence of a complex brain. Once the brain stops making energy the organ dies, and consciousness ceases. Nothing transcendence here. I remain open to be proven wrong. Peace.
@@cps_Zen_Run It certainly does transcends the physical. Take for example traumatic experiences. Those who suffered from them although it happened a long long time ago they still remember it vividly like it's happening just like the first time they had it. It even affects them physically. It's more than just about memory of past experiences that were processed by the brain. Consciousness is a very complicated thing.
Of course you have control over your next thought. If you didn't, then everything would go on autopilot. You dont have much control over your vocabulary etc but you must use conscious efforts to bring many words or thought's in your mind. Some thoughts of course are Involuntary, but not all of them. So to be clear, we dont have control over the quality or dynamic of thoughts, but we can consiously bring thoughts in our consciousness, move it away and bring it back later again. For example i can think of a lion, i can erase it from my mind and focus somewhere else and then bring it back if i want to. In that sense i can control the next thought..
Tse is in the right track. The brain is a wonderful and incredibly complex entity with nearly a trillion neurons with each neuron including about a billion microtubules. In this regard, the Libet experiment is at best scratching the surface.
Try this: give a post hypnotic suggestion to “click on ‘1’ or on ‘2’ after seeing the red arrow depending on which number is correct”
Let’s see what the unconscious does when asked to make choices ... forget the conscious which may have a different feedback purpose.
Some subjects in my example might select 1 or 2 and others might not know what to do ... then study THAT as to how decisions are actually made or influenced in brains. The existence or denial of “free” choice is premature until we understand a lot more about neurological processes that lead to actual decisions. Imo anyway.
Our will seems most free when the choices are trivial. E.g., pick a card, coke or pepsi, chinese or mexican restaurant.
“Willingness” may be a sensation and therefore the perception of willing, with parallels to 'readiness potential'. Though true ‘will’ might very well have a subconscious component; if you can define ‘will’ as equivalent to the sum total of one's deepest convictions from your discriminated, ignored and heeded, pool of knowledge.
Empiricalistic study (the repeatability of happenings to show evidence of a rule for consistency) will never prove free will by it's very definition, science is based on this. It makes object out of subject, this is why science will always reduce mind to brain rather than see it in a metaphysical reciprocation of subject posed in object via dialectic. Philosophy will always be the bulwark of free will: even quantum speculation of indeterminacy, as long as it isn't objectified and solved (scientific advancement stops at making object of a subject) can never come to a conclusion in favor of free will. It is set up from the beginning to deny it by its very method. There is no free will where empiricalism is abstractly accepted as the ultimate answer.
You didn't quite get it. They are not trying to prove that there is no freewill/will, but rather, they are trying to find out if consciousness is wholly physical or metaphysical or a combination of both? But as for the moment, data gathered in studies supports the idea that there is no freewill/will or a true freewill/will and consciousness as they suspect(or theorize) is connected to a repository of consciousness which they have no idea whatsoever. To put it plainly, a persons consciousness is not actually his/hers (meaning the person doesn't owns it and has NO COMPLETE CONTROL over it) but tries to navigate or operate (live a life) in this world using the limited control that the person has that comes with it(consciousness). That's why they thought of freewill as a trick of the person's mind and that it doesn't actually exists. What exists is that all of our actions and everything that happen around us are all predetermined(but because we have a part to that limited control, no matter how big or small it is, we are deemed responsible for our actions.
@@dennisnegrido686 Like I said, it's all about projecting empirical cause and effect beyond immediate apperception and reifying that abstractly from a mechanistic standpoint (which is a supposition of empiricalism).
I understood it fine, what I was responding to was the suggestion that science could overtake philosophy on an argument for free will.
@@dennisnegrido686 Your clearfication of what they're saying is well conveyed.
Working with the laws helps complement our exercising of freewill, atleast in this deminsion.
-- what would riding a motorcycle be without light, gravity, air, or the consequences that brings forth the very thrill of life, riding a motorcycle.
-- what would life be without good vs bad(God vs devil), spirit vs ego. Not saying life is entirely dualistic, as I think Spirit is transcendent to that of the ego's right vs wrong conception from the lower mind.
Life and death, brings about an ineffable... meaning alone that, pondering the question of freewill is seemingly inadequate.
What would freewill be, without what they're trying to use to say that it's only an illusion, be...
Freewill to me is navigating the ship through the ocean; life.
I think we're conscious in consciousness; like soul is connected to God; radio having a signal but not owning the signal -- it is the signal opposed to being the radio.
Like a person is not the brain, flesh or bone, they're Spirit; the substance, essence of the very breathe of life within.
Consciousness -- not everybody has awareness; they're levels beyond simple physical recognition.
Spirituality -- not all have awakened. Even when you do, you only get out of bed to enter the trails.. of life.
Conviction -- co creator, fragment of God realization that brings forth dharma, or since a duty.
I look up to great people like JFK and wonder why... so few have that conviction.
Freewill would have to do with everything mentally, spiritually, emotionally, physically simultaneously.
@@samueltheil4032 All thought begins with philosophy. When those thoughts become substantiated, you have science.
Free will is all about choice and options. The illusion is to think having options has anything to do with being able to select any one of them in the actual circumstances.
No mystery at all.
The police stopped: you're going to fast! Slow down!
I replied: hey officer, you want me to do something against my will?
Working, scientifically, to identify every mechanism of cause and effect in the mind ... is certainly something we need to keep doing.
But it's odd, to say the least, to hear very intelligent people framing those efforts as:
trying to understand "free will" or trying to see if we have "free will", ...
when it's an absolutely, logically impossible thing for anyone to have.
A feeling of freedom exists. We all recognize this.
Narratives of freedom exist. Most of us indulge in this, as a metaphoric truth; even though it's not a literal truth.
But it's where-from any impulse arises ... that's really at issue.
If each impulse of thought and feeling (the precursors and instigators of every at-issue action) arise as:
effect from (any) prior necessitating cause, then we don't have free will; period.
On the other hand, if these (at least many and often) thoughts, feelings, and actions arise WITHOUT (any) prior necessitating cause, then we can't avoid that we're really talking about:
literally something (super-frequent events within the mind) coming from:
quite literally: nothing. No cause whatsoever.
Even in that literally impossible scenario, that still wouldn't be "freedom" of will, because:
(in that case) we could no more freely choose which thoughts/feelings/urges/impulses arise from quick and repeating moments of:
*literally nothing* paradoxically *literally happening* in the mind ... than we could:
freely choose which thoughts/feelings/urges/impulses that follow and arise from ... immediately prior causes.
Even within the context of humoring the paradox, we still wouldn't really be talking about actually free will.
We don't have it.
Logically speaking, it literally can't exist.
If we want to ask "Where's the problem?", ... then perhaps we should be talking about the costs of the "Free will" narrative; in how it has severe consequences of a self-defeating "justice" system that focuses on retribution based on anger directed at non-existent free willed people, rather than approaching justice systems and social systems (and all related values) as a matter of traceable and alterable (thus: improvable) cause and effect.
If in fact no individual has Free Will then isn't a Justice system, how it is currently run in our country or at any time and culture in history, the result of natural laws of physics? But to ask to change our current system, is that not in itself a Will at work? Or is it more of the flux of natural laws beyond our control to change the future?
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that quantum mechanics may play a role in thought and could be a component of free will. Choices don't have to be without cause for free will to exist, because probabilistic occurrences are both scientifically possible and allow for some degree of free will, depending on how you define free will of course.
@@MS-tz1ml
re "You don't seem to have considered the possibility that quantum mechanics may play a role in thought and could be a component of free will. "
---
I did.
----------------------------------
re "Choices don't have to be without cause for free will to exist"
--
They do.
-------------------------------
"probabilistic occurrences"
--
is either a way of saying:
a.) can't be predicted because we don't know enough about what's causing the variances
or
b.) true randomness, arising from literally:
uncaused causes;
aka: magic.
Per "a", it's not actually random. We just can't predict it.
Per "b", it is actually random.
Neither "a" nor "b" grant free will.
@@ApPersonaNonGrata No, quantum mechanics is actually probabilistic according to scientific consensus. It sounds hard to believe but you have to remember that physics is very strange at the quantum level. If you read up on it you will see, though it is a tough thing for anyone to truly wrap their head around.
@@MS-tz1ml re "quantum mechanics is actually probabilistic according to scientific consensus. It sounds hard to believe "
===
I granted it.
I didn't refute it.
Studying free will requires previously having a coherent explanation of Consciousness. Otherwise they will be hitting the road.
Although they may indeed be connected, I think they can be studied separately. Consciousness is the Observer, the Witness. Currently, Free Will is an illusion. In truth, the illusion of Free Will is just another illusion. Perhaps I am completely wrong, and I can remain open minded. Peace.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you stated it. Very well said.
Is the readiness potential the first thing in brain that starts an action?
We assume, as we must. Without assumption we starve.
interesting ... i think that from a materialistic point of view it's really hard to defend "free will" , while is a pretty obvious property of a dualistic body/consciousness reality .
They're not trying to defend nor deny freewill, but rather they're trying to find out what consciousness really is?
@@dennisnegrido686 the good scientists yes . But as usually many others are influenced by their own theories, ideas. We see it even in this pandemic , it's one year that i dont listen 2 doctors saying the same thing , everyone have his own idea about how to heal , how to prevent , how to act ...And they menace each other , they go into legal wars . Now , if they have so different ideas regarding a virus you can imagine how a personal point of view influence research (and results) in something so "volatile" like consciousness.
Really now, dualism is long since dead.
It seems like this takes for granted that hypnotic suggestion is not Free Will. I think this is not supported. No one suggests that free will is completely independent of environment/outside input. I cannot will myself to shoot fire from my hands (unfortunately.) Either will is limited by physics, or holds a shape that determines what is physically possible.
It is possible that hypnosis deforms the will, causing a brain signal that is clearly not autonomic, but also does not feel like will. I admit that will is very hard to nail down well enough to test. But since the existence of will is a necessary condition for perception to be truthful, only the most persuasive evidence is permissible.
Could the readiness potential be carrying option(s) in the brain that leads to decision?
The number of true sentences derivable from a contradiction is the largest infinity. So, even if the universe is uncountably infinite (not sure what that would mean physically), with enough time and resources an epistemic agent capable of counter-factual reasoning could eventually learn anything, except maybe true unprovables. Humans can assume contradictions, usually to their detriment, but we have learned over time to use the power of contradiction for hypothetical, scientific reasoning. By using such reasoning, we open ourselves to whatever possibilities we can achieve as humans. Ability is doing what is possible, not what is impossible. So, free will is our ability to prune from among as many possibilities we can think to a conclusion that aligns (to some degree of accuracy and precision) with reality. Our ability to choose among options is our use of that alignment to “steer” our way as possibilities open up to us.
When I say possibilities, I mean two different senses. Our intuitive notion of possibility is what can happen in reality, and humans can make predictions about that. We make predictions by aligning what we *think* is possible i.e., our epistemic possibilities, to what is really possible.
If they are hypnotized to press the button they are still choosing to press the button. The hypnotherapist they are working with should have explained this to them. It makes the whole experiment moot. People who are hypnotized are willing participants choosing to go along with the suggestions. This is the very base of hypnotism.
Peter Ulric is correct, it is possible to subplant a physical action into a person without their conscious awareness (free will) of what they are doing. I have performed hypnosis where I was able to do the same (though not everyone is suseptable), subplant a physical action by a audible/ visual cue that was performed without the individuals conscious awareness of their action. This should alarm many of us that this could be also used for non humanistic ways. My guess is the advertising industry ia well aware of this aspect.
It's not a guess. Take it for fact.
The problem may be centered around the speed of light. We can never experience the 'now'.
Is the conscious will associated with any neural activity linked to action?
Free will to me implies something that is unlimited. With memory being limited (one can never hold all information) any thought/action/choice stemming from memory is limited implying no free will. Free will then could be a movement that is choiceless. I could be wrong.
It could be that brain presents an option to consciousness whereupon, based on how consciousness feels about it, the brain proceeds (or not). It seems natural that conscious decisions would work this way - no?
Doesn’t free will demand the ‘mind over matter’ in some way? That is, cause and effect means that one particle is moving in a direction, and certain speed. It interacts with another particle with other attributes, and they interact following quantum mechanics, going off in other directions, or getting absorbed or any other phenomena following laws, and so do the zillions and zillions other particles, the result of which is, at higher levels, is macro objects moving in time. Chemical reactions occur, signals move around, muscles operate, etc. How would free will work in the context of cause and effect by things that make up everything we know, following physical laws on how objects in the universe move and interact (what we observe as change generally)? Doesn’t it mean that our collection of all these particles, exquisitely organized into brains and bodies, are somehow operated on by the results of the very same collection of particles?
Things that go on in the human brain may be very complex and hidden from us but I don't think that necessarily implies we have any degree of free will of our own. Free will is just a belief or an illusion or it may be something that is very real. Ultimately I think that what we perceive as being free will must come from somewhere and something. There could be many things that influence our thoughts and actions so unless we can actually see those things then how can anyone really say whether free will is real or not? I don't think free will just comes from thin air. There are some people who seem to believe that you can get something from nothing but personally I don't believe that is possible. There's always a reason and cause for everything that happens even if we are not able to find those underlying causes and reasons.
The brain is analyzing the brain.
No sir. Consciousness analyzes the brain. The brain is a slave to consciousness.
Every time Dr. Tse says "you know"
I go yes... Yes he does know
Best experiment is to ask ourselves "Who am I?"
Who am I Gamling ? - You are our King ! - And do you trust your King ? - Your men , My Lord, will follow you to whatever end - To whatever end ...
Why?
@@benjamingod61 There is no REAL meaning to the quote "I think therefore I am". Complete fiction. Rabble and rot.
@@chrisc1257 there’s meaning in that you and I are having this experience. The fact that we are communicating proves we are. Is there any value to the statement? Maybe. Everything we feel, think, learn, and experience is because we are; but there’s no objective meaning
@@joegibbskins One being can communicate with another lesser being in a simulated environment.
Perhaps where there is a will there may not be a way in every case.
the proper use of free will deprives the universe of its perfect randomness .
Maybe free will is a terrible illusion, but certainly it's the most fascinating one to have.
🎯
I would like further investigation. I think it might be invaluable for our justice system.
if we don't have free will, we wouldn't need consciousness. because a robot doesn't need consciousness to execute his deterministic algorithm.
@@georgechristou7982 You have an incomplete version of robots. Check out Conscious Robots by Paul Kwatz.
Good morning Dr Lawrence. I am currious about hypnose. I always tought it is not possible hypnose some personnes it is true? Philippe Martin
ANYONE is capable of being hypnotized with some exceptions. The person being hypnotized must be capable of understanding the instructions that is being given to him/her. Therefore, those who can't be hypnotized are drunks, mentally challenged people, and young children. Contrary to popular belief, the more intelligent a person is - the easier it is to be hypnotized.
@@garychartrand7378 good evening Gary. I thank you so mutch to answered me. IT exacly what I whant to know. I never imagîne môre intélîgent iq the easy it is. Gary if one day you think I can help you what so ever it will be my pleasure. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
@@philippemartin6081 thanks Philippe.I will keep your offer in mind. Good day and Bless you.
For me, all this shows; which is obvious to me anyway. Is that:
Brain activity is brain activity. As we all know brain activity can be initialised by any of our senses and more.
Hypnotism is just the method used as the trigger in this experiment. The action of the brain is still the same.
This by no means proves that free will, consciousness or adrenaline fuelled evasive reaction to visual stimulus (coupled with our memories, filed under dangers to avoid) could not be the trigger under more normal circumstances.
Questioning "free will" is an act of will?
NO!! It is an act of ignorance or at best a distraction.
The brain is slave to consciousness according to data. A slave who questions his master doesn't make him free, but only an unruly slave.
Ok look, this is just called muscle memory. It’s not a big deal. If you do anything often enough, the action becomes automatic. They’ve tapped into that with this experiment, but I don’t see why he’s making it seem as if it’s some big breakthrough. It’s just muscle memory.
I'm sorry sir, it's not just muscle memory. It's about what consciousness really is?
@@dennisnegrido686 There doesn’t seem to be a difference between what the interviewee is saying, and what we normally think of as muscle memory. For example, I do martial arts, and there are certain attacks across the year that I’ve seen so often that I’ve learned how to respond to without thinking. In fact, in a competition, your body is often reacting without thinking because the actions are so fast. There’s not enough time. How is this different from what the interviewee says his experiment does? He uses hypnosis to achieve similar results, but it all boils down to actions that happen before you have time to “think” about them.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying Our brain is a very fast processor of information. What you are talking about is reflex action. Reflex action is physical and can be timed and measured scientifically( and by your opponent )With much training any person can develop a very fast reflex. But consciousness is way much different. Take for example emotions. You can't measure it scientifically. You can't say a kilo of anger, or a ton of sadness, a meter of happiness. Even if you do try you're just making an idiomatic expression. It's all wordplay. In reality you can't measure these things. Emotions is only a facet of consciousness. It's a very complicated thing to deal with. That's why they're trying very hard to know more about it.
@@dennisnegrido686 I agree with everything you said up until your last statement. My point is that I don’t think the experiment this interviewee did is very effective at determining much about consciousness. His experiment doesn’t seem to be probing the depths of consciousness. His experiment seems more comparable to muscle memory. Already hypnotism is kind of dodgy, as they have to first find subjects who are susceptible, and that’s not a large percentage of the population. But then, what they have them doing is really quite basic. Consciousness is this complex phenomenon, and they’re experimenting with involuntary muscle reactions. If these people did an experiment where they could precisely tell what someone was going to do 10 years from now, well, that would be something. Instead, they’re excited about involuntary reactions from those who are prone to hypnotism.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying The reason why they're doing physical experiments on consciousness is that they're trying to find out where the boundary lies between the physical part and the metaphysical part of the human psyche. Until know they haven't found it. It seems like they're closely intertwined but the metaphysical part had more control and capabilities over the physical part. Imagine a person who lost two of his legs in an accident and lived, and tries to live the rest of his life without legs but with a positive outlook. That's the power of the metaphysical over the physical. And besides they can only measure the physical part of consciousness and not the other.
It it was such a game changing experiment, why can't they reproduce it???
Till this day they only have variations of the libet experiment, by virtue of all these Libet-like experiments that aren't actually reproductions of the experiment itself. To me this smells of "replication crisis" all over again, sometimes unfortunately I think that if it wasn't for the great developments made from Neurobiology, Neuroscience as a field would be vacuous with how off-the-tangent it's become
if we hypnotize every human on earth we will go back to the caves,i dont know how fast
it's like with gravity. u are free to go wherever u want. (on the surfice of Earth.)
With money you can go elsewhere. So is there free will really? Cos it feels like free will is ‘influenced’ a lot by $$
In you.
It may tell something about hypnoses...
Do not try to understand those whom do not care to understand you.
In the material world we may not be free to walk away from sexual pleasure, governing policy, duality, food/drink, sleep, death.
In Spirit we have the ability to free ourselves, in life, from that ego narrative of a mental construct:
-- I am my thoughts; I am my beliefs.
-- I am my skin, bones, brain.
-- im identifiable by my skin color, country, culture and who society told me I am.
Listening to anybody or anything outside of yourself will never be found anything free, you will only ever be at the mercy of their feet; bound.
Spirit is Truth, Truth is Light, Light is Knowledge, Knowledge is of Life, Life is of God, I am; God.
I will what I apply through the life force in me, expressing outwards creative flow, shaping my experience in this reality.
Death is bound; life is freedom.
Looking outside yourself, you are bound.
Going within, that which is life, is free.
Freewill. Some choose to be bound; others find life.
I still don't understand the fuss about free will.
Thinking of free from that perspective I find myself even more demystified
Free will reminds me of the spam filter classifying my other information inbox.
Funny, I thought you couldn't give someone a post hypnotic suggestion unless they were in agreement with the suggestion.... maybe that's just movie hype. Surely the interviewee isn't suggesting that we're all under a hypnotic state, all the time...
Free Will only applies to moral decisions... the rest is just 'will'.
It could be we are auto preprogrammed, and that "the voices/enteties" people have in their head is trying to avoid bad things that happened in our life through this programming. Pluss we have free will to do what we want, and also have to use free will to avoid bad things that was preprogrammed. Autopreprogrammed was done many times until it got lessest wars and robbery and accidents and such.
Yes, yes you are so close to fact.
We have to make a difference about freewill, Nature, and time. For the sake of , make it real clear. When we say T=0 , it is not into a realty, where human kind live there every Day Life. We need understand quantum Physics, quantum mecanic. Because to make all the engrenages fine tune in are univers, Nature will always makes are univers roleling smoothly, and without paradoxe, or a bang sudenly with caos at a certains points. Freewill is Working like this, on a not a superposition between realty. Superposition it is not a good Word. IT is more like...() Sorry I Will be back about the good words to use instaed of superposition. IT is so important the good meaning, make it simplier to figure that out. Philippe Martin sincères amitiés
We can make a dead move his hand. Its reflexes. The experiment seems to me wrong.
1:43 confusing "will" with "intention"
What do the no free will advocates think when Mike Tyson punches them in the mouth?
im not sure i have free will , jus like
im not sure i even exist , wtf is - i - ?
my whole life is power of suggestion
conditioned response brainwashing
how can there be any free will ?
6:40 There's your problem right there
You should actually spell out the problem rather than pointing to it. How can you assume that people *just* knows what it is?
Freewill is a squirrel gathering nuts for the future.
Doesn't the experiment add validity to determinism? We have the same brain state whether we are consciously or unconsciously performing an act. This shows me that while we may believe we produced an act, we are no more responsible for it than the hypnotized.
His colleague interpreted it that way. He did this experiment with a woman that said what you just said. But she is jumping the gun in my mind because the whole presumption of there project relies on hypnosis to be 100% effective. Peter Tse believes in free will fyi, he wrote an entire book on it
Yes but readiness potential is responsible for an automatic action without our consious interference. When the consious perception is present the arm doesn't move automatically. And libetw performed experiments with the person blocking the RP and mentioned "free won't". So RP must be some kind of automatic bias or automatic anticipation and not the final consious decision to move or not to move. In by what meaning we define free will; Are we talking about the automatic biases? Or are we talking about the consious decision between perhaps opposite unconscious biases?
Lawrence - your statement at circa 2:30 of this video that the readiness potential appearing before the actor reports "willing" the act proves that there is something other than "free will" acting is TOTALLY UNPROVEN.
The "readiness" potential is a measured increase in energetic activity, sure.
BUT -- you have no idea what the information content is of that activity, if there is any at all, nor do you know when, how, by who/what the decision is made to act or the chain of causal relationships involved and what initiated same.
You conclusion is riddled with numerous unproven assumptions.
This is sloppy science, or better - not science at all, but preconceived conclusions in search of justification.
I choose not to be intimidated by my detractors, i will be heard, i will be seen ! No one can manipulate me in putting me down !
Relevance to the topic? I'm just wondering.
Determinism has failed. Consciousness is not an illusion created by the brain. The brain is a basic animal. It makes choices between two options a or b. It does not make a 'No' choice to stop something.
You can see this when your consciousness is focused on something else. Someone asks you a question and your mind gives a response that sometimes you would not have consciously chosen.
Or before you drive home you decide to go somewhere close to home instead. You know exactly how to drive there. Then on the way home you let your mind focus on another issue and you will find yourself at home. The brain literally just did what it normally is required to do.
Any of these type of tests show that what you consciously want will not be carried out by the brain, the brain will only do what it is used to.
As such, in martial arts you repeat, repeat, repeat until it becomes second nature then you try to remove consciousness from the equation and try to let the brain do what it has learnt so that it is not delayed by redundant 'what ifs' that come from consciousness.
First
it would be too much to ask to let the interviewee speak? my goodness, the interviewer's ego is infinite.
Free will - an abstract concept, necessary for the functioning of society, mainly for punishment purposes.
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
This is very a good concept, especialy when those who practice this way of living as mother Teresa did. You definetly touch by the Grasse , Dive you are. I am a good freind of the few personnes like you. My pleasure. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
We are all algorithms. We might even be living in a big old simulation.
Too much A.I.mindedness. Get real. Get a life.
This guy went to the same speech class as Elon Musk
Follow Jesus Christ
For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
I think you got that story from an old book of myths. Actually it doesn’t read very well, is full of historical and scientific inaccuracies. And it revolves around a very wicked and vial entity called god. Thumbs down. I suggest reading the Tao Te Ching by Laozi
@@cps_Zen_RunThis is from that "inaccurate book". Repent and follow Jesus Christ.
But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
II Timothy 3:1-5 NKJV
@@cps_Zen_Run as one who studdies the book, the mystics who written it, the origins it derived from, the metaphorical meanings, cosmological narrative, spiritual enlightenment, you are entirely wrong in that assumption.
From that mental position, I would say such person doesn't have control of their next thoughts.
Only because I see you applying a biased, uniformed, no fuks given type attitude.
The beauty of awareness -- the illuminated mind -- you have so many perspectives of a single thing that all correlate, correspond, synchronize in symmetry that it's not that you don't have no control, rather you do have control in which angel you want to observe something from.
Sometimes i am silent for awhile so that they will miss me hehehehe !
I look forward to your continued silence. I thank you in advance. Peace.
I seriously don't understand why its difficult to understand and accept the fact that each action we ''chose'' to make is a result of intial stuff we did not chose.
If you were born conscious in the body of donald trump as a baby. You would have made the exact same career.
We do not have free will.
But we need this illusion.
We need to think we do.
Or it will be total chaos.
Thats it. There is nothing to add.
This topic should be closed!
You have free won't
from a materialistic point of view your point is acceptable. you need duality to have a different "trump" . A different "soul" would have made different choices .
Then you must like Einstein's block universe idea,I guess.
@@francesco5581 do you mean there were chances that donald trump would have chosen to be an imam. Or a football player Or a techno artist. If only his soul was different?
I think if his soul was given the body of a baby in saudi arabia.
By now he would believe strongly that he will be punished by god if he eats porc.
That absolves people of all responsibility for anything. You were compelled to make your argument; it wasn't thought up by you.
As a Goddess i am full of Graces, i can do not not to share my wisdom because evil people are playing blind and deaf but i will really share my wisdom for Pure Love of Humanity !
That’s hawt
I hope we are not just focusing on human free will. Having free will isn't just a human trait.
The concept of free will is as flexible as religion. And just as indefinable.
James 1:27
@@williamesselman3102
🙄
@@thomasridley8675 just saying, true religion is easy to recognize and very easy to Define.
@@williamesselman3102
The true religion ? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Said every religion we have ever had. And all with the same absolute conviction that they are right. 🙄
@@thomasridley8675 well, if they aren't caring for others who can't care for themselves it is false religion.
I am the Best Unstructured Female Doctor, i am evaluating this channel !
It's pointless to use meaningless choices as evidence that free will doesn't exist. This show has so much potential, but every episode is disappointing.
I can control what will be the future topic of this channel,i am a magnet, i am the big controller, i am a manipulator for good purposes !
This dude is such a clown lol
sayin that yourself is being delusional, u cannot judge him lmao
Isn't the Will affiliated with Consciousness rather than strictly biological functions, and what exactly does Science know about Consciousness? If so, how do we know we can even physically observe what we call the Will to measure it in an individual?
Will Science get to a point where it can measure the Will under temptation to choose between actions that are immoral vs moral? Take Christ's claim that any man who lusts after a woman in his thoughts has already committed adultery...can Science measure whether a married man is tempted (or not) just by looking at another woman and then determine if the quantum flux of the future with his wife disintegrates while the quantum flux of drama with the other woman, who recognized the married man's intentions, materializes in that very moment of the tempting thought?
And what can we make of the Christian teaching that one is commanded to abandon one's own Free Will to obey God's Will, while in science today, many claim we should abandon our illusion of a Free Will to observe and accept our place in the Natural Laws of Physics?
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
I am a Leader behind the scene, i don’t hold title, no big position in government, not Church leader, not prayer group leader, i am just a church goer, my destiny helping people go to heaven and make others happy ,a Santa Claus everyday !
Do you like your own comments ?