Відео

The chess example is not really a good one. You see, choosing a figure to move is, by definition, not free will at all. First, you have a set of chess rules and patterns you follow. Second, you have the whole set of your body conditions, which will make you act more or less risky. Third, you have an opponent who might be able to trick you into making certain moves. There is not much freedom left here, and even if you sit completely isolated, your brain will validate your move by modeling the opponent's future steps. Again, this is based on patterns you know and your concentration level, which will vary depending on factors like when and how you last ate. A much harder argument is art. Painting or playing music, for instance, requires your consciousness to act in the moment, expressing your feelings or will. This argument would be far more difficult to disassemble, as, even though art might have boundaries like technique or style-these are just forms. The content within the form, in fact, might align with both definitions of free will.

17 seconds in and you're already misleading your audience with the survey that shows 11 percent of philosophers don't believe in free will. The same survey shows 59 % claiming compatibilism, which is a redefinition of free will that doesn't deny hard determinism or free will impossibilism. The 18% percent that hold libertarianism to be true are almost all Christian philosophers of religion.

Almost but not molecules, the things our senses cannot perceive as our eyes do not perceive most of light (not perfect example but hopefully understood) we re present a map for our brains not the territory

Loved this ❤. The illustration of game play is insightful. If the desire is to win and only one solution is known then there will be no free will involved. But if a solution is not known there will be plenty of free will choices being made!!!

Making predictions is something every sentinel creature does every waking moment but it has nothing to do with truth claims. There might be just one future but that does not mean it’s predetermined in a fatalistic way, but of course everything is determined by something! The inability to predict the future accurately is what enable free will to exist. If a being was to know the future it would have no free will.

Excellent discussion Thanks❤ It seems the human dashboard is effectively a VR in which all our human qualia must exist. Do other species have different dashboards?

Excellent. Thank you.

There is no causation. Just never ending thermodynamic entropy which marches on absolutely with time.lol

So physicists use non casual determinism? The falling egg will break. When the egg breaks it does not effect the egg in the past but it does indicate that the egg probably fell. This does not alter the state of the egg in the past as the past is imutable as far as we can tell. But we can collect evidence that would lead to a hypothesis that the egg must have fallen. This is a knowledge update, not a past-state altering event.

Physicist here. No one has abandoned causality. Determinism is still extremely fundamental and the basis of everything we do. When we do a calculation we usually timestep it, so there is a clear cause and effect. When people are talking about "gravitational astronomy" *cosmology, the whole model it built on cause and effect relationships, such as the CMB causation, or evolutionary models of the universe including dark matter... This guy is chatting absolute breeze :')

Loved Kastrup's comments around the discussion about behaviorism and then bodies and corpses around 1:30:00-1:50:50. i felt that was the turning point for me when his explanations overcame most of my reasoned doubts. What a cool moment in philosophy this is.

Crossing my fingers that Part 2 drops tomorrow

Very few public intellectuals are balanced enough to integrate negative feedback. Props to both of you

@0:33 I mean... I will probably listen, since i like your vids. But dude. Just be straight up front for a change? No logical deduction can prove anything "real". I thought philosophers knew this. You can only show your axioms (if consistent) lead to theorems. No theorem ever is about the real world. Some (perhaps infinitely many in some branches of physics, say) *_might_* be true when mapped to some real world relations (and I think so, otherwise I'd give up physics), maybe for your ideas too if the real world conforms to your axioms. Other youtube logic bros though... my God, why do people pay them any credence?

What about dr. Sam Parnia? (including his AWARE-II study and the latest book) Edit: 24:50 it's mentioned a little 49:00-53:00 on the relation of math (Probability Theory, Bayes Theorem) with philosophy and religion.

Wow, BK has really chilled out haha. I understand him usually being on the defense because his serious scholarship is often approached in bad faith like it is a new age religion. It is important to be able to actually name the issues and address them head on. This is a fantastic discussion! Really good questions and answers. Can't wait for part 2!

B Ketchup is one of the most arrogant dudes ever. Dude just talks with undying conviction so people believe him.

Absolute Philosophy, kudos for the effort, but let’s break this down because your case for free will is holding about as much water as a colander. 1. The Chess and Wants Example: You claim deliberation during chess proves freedom of action because the player considers moves based on reasoning. But here’s the twist: that reasoning stems from desires (to win) and beliefs (which move is better)-neither of which you freely chose or create. Those inputs come from prior conditioning, experiences, and innate tendencies. Your 'freedom' is really just the predictable unfolding of these factors. You don't even create the smalles urge that arises. 2. Deliberation Proves Free Will: You emphasize deliberation as proof of choice, but deliberation is just a process of weighing inputs-inputs you didn’t author. You’re not choosing your reasons; you’re reacting to them. Deliberation isn’t freedom; it’s just a more complex form of causation playing out. 3. Uncaused Decisions as Free Will: Saying decisions are 'uncaused causes' doesn’t solve the problem-it’s metaphysical hand-waving. If a decision is uncaused, it’s random and not under control. If it’s caused, it’s determined by prior events. Either way, free will is nowhere to be found. Calling decisions 'uncaused causes' is like calling a rabbit out of a hat an explanation-it’s not. 4. Physics Doesn’t Help Your Case: Your reliance on Russell’s critique of causation misses the mark. Determinism doesn’t have to be classical billiard-ball causality. The determinism relevant here is simply that all actions arise from prior conditions. Quantum randomness doesn’t help you-it replaces determined outcomes with probabilistic ones, and randomness isn’t freedom. 5. 'You Could Have Done Otherwise': The claim that you can act on different reasons doesn’t hold water. The reasons you choose are dictated by your desires, beliefs, urges and past experiences-none of which you control or create. Sure, you *feel* like you could have done otherwise, but that’s just the illusion of choice created by how the brain processes decision-making. 6. The Final Blow: There Is No 'You': Here’s the kicker: not only is free will an illusion, but so is the 'self' that claims to have it. The 'I' that you believe is deliberating, choosing, and acting is just a thought-a fleeting, constructed sense of identity arising in consciousness. Desires, thoughts, and actions happen, but there’s no independent entity orchestrating them. Free will requires an 'I' to own and direct the will, but no such 'I' exists. So, while your philosophical gymnastics are entertaining, your arguments don’t stick the landing. The truth is simpler and more liberating: there’s no self to imprison, no free will to defend, and no need to grasp at illusions. Life unfolds-spontaneous, causeless, free in its own way. Maybe give that a think. 😉

This was great. At first I was annoyed because the host said he had at least read Nutshell but then talked as if Bernardo claimed emprical research was enough. But, as the conversation rolled on, it became a delight to hear Bernardo asked specific questions and ready to elaborate from multiple points of view. I really hope that their next conversation does start as Bernardo requested, with the host making his argument for God would be meta-conscious. Bernardo is very fun to watch when he goes into question mode. Hopefully, they've recorded it and it's dropping tomorrow :)

Event causal decisions? How is that also not an uncaused cause? That would mean worms, bacteria and robots have free will.

If you look back in your own history you never "did otherwise" and therefore never could have "done otherwise". It is fully possible to imagine what "doing otherwise" would have been like. It is a part of the human minds capacity. The reason you in fact did not "do otherwise" is because of the initial state of the universe at that time made you do what you actually did instead. The human brain is part of cause and effect aka casual determinism. When you take the decision to chose x or y you feel like the choice is free but once you decide it is because of the current state of the universe in that moment.

It's weird. First he denies causation then affirms it. He also didn't support being able to do otherwise sufficiently. Suppose the universe were to be rewound to a minute ago a billion times, I'd write the same comment every time. If I did actually write something else, it would just be random. If atoms control our brains (as it seems), no free will.

I truly hope that most viewers share my impression that this stance and its discussion is outright bullshit in a philosophical sense (H. G. Frankfurt). Bad metaphysics. Bad epistemology. Bad definition of consciousness. - How could I ever loose my consciousness, which I do e.g. during narcosis or epileptic seizures, if it were independent from my brain? You assume that substantial consciousness might be temporarily unconscious which for me is an evident contradictio in se adiecto. Like it or not, daily clinical experience strongly supports physicalism. - Any relevant (clinically, ethically, etc.) state of consciousness is someone's experience - "there is something it is like to x" is an incomplete definition of consciousness; actually "it is somehow for someone to x" is the complete definition. Don't get confused by pseudoscientific ego-less buddhistic lay monks who got lost in speculation.

What is Kastrup point? He believes the 2nd Law and the concept of entropy, but denies that we can ingest low entropy, exemplified by the apple, which ultimately comes from the sun.

Great interview, really insightful questions

Thank for debunking Kastrups nonsense- can you do the same for idealism please ?

This is great. Polite, well articulated and respectful points, despite some disagreement. This is how it should be done, rather than silly mediated debates that achieve nothing.

It seemed an embarrassed bluff to defend his sci-fi speculation. I like the dashboard idea to describe the incredible extent to which our brain transduces/interprets/creates a "reality" out of the quantum soup, but I think he's making a cult out of it. Interesting that last question, hashed out and hashed out then seemingly resolved as definitional to his model, whether correct or not. It was great the way Kastrup approached that. Hmmm.

Kastrup's recent interview on [his] Daemonic possession OMG ua-cam.com/video/DsP0C6tdQIA/v-deo.html 😱

After watching the whole interview, I gather that Bernardo is REALLY enthusiastic about identifying as a monkey. For some reason, he finds it appropriate to push his simian identity onto the rest of us, who are humans. The faux outrage over sexism because a man referred to a third person example as a male, really is just so tiresome.

"Consciousness is the canvas on which the material universe is painted" Schrodinger.

You are wrong, bernardo kastrup idealism holds up 100%

I wish more people online would confirm whether or not their view on idealism is of the epistemological nature or the ontological nature that would make things so clear: thanks for doing this in your video. I personally am an ontological materialist out of intuition, but an epistemological idealist out of skepticism and arguably logic: interesting how that works isn't it 🤣

I wouldn't say that according to Wittgenstein all there is are facts. Facts are all that we can describe using meaningful language, things we can philosophise about. See the theses 6.4 and onwards, especially 6.522. The things you talk about post 49:30, our duties for example, are what's mystical according to Tractatus. They cannot be put to words, nevertheless they can be shown. There is a great work of a Polish philosopher named Bogusław Wolniewicz that explores Wittgenstein's Tractatus in much depth, but well... it's mainly in Polish so I guess you are going to miss out on it.

1:16:00 again on mathematics

If physical reality and our minds are aspects of a 'mind at large' - then the insights of 'mind' about physical reality are the insights of 'mind-at-large'. Therefore, things like mathematics, patterns, and geometry are in fact true representations (albeit 'isomorphic') of mind-at-large

The fact that only 20% report NDE does not mean that the rest do not have. How many of us remember our dreams?

Great interview! I was hoping you'd press Kastrup a little more on the "How does meta-consciousness arise from phenomenal consciousness?" question, but hopefully you will do that next time. In particular, I think there are other hard problems of consciousness--the problems of intentionality and reason, at the very least, and maybe more--which, if these features of mind are also irreducible, force us by the same logic to accept these features of mind as being fundamental to reality alongside phenomenal consciousness. To appeal to "re-representation" you'd first need representation, which requires intentionality or "aboutness". And just like how I think it's impossible to get phenomenal consciousness from non-phenomenality, I think it's impossible to get intentionality from non-intentional building blocks, or rationality from non-rational building blocks. Insofar as pure phenomenality is non-intentional and non-rational, we don't get intentionality and reason for free by appealing to evolution, any more than physicalists can appeal to evolution to explain phenomenal consciousness. In other words, there's a constitutive problem, not just a "historical" one. If the underlying thing being appealed--matter, in the case of physicalism--cannot, even in principle, give rise to what we are trying to explain--phenomenal consciousness--evolution won't help us. But likewise, if pure phenomenality cannot in principle give rise to *real* intentionality or rationality, I don't think we can just say "evolution" and solve the problem. He'd first have show how phenomenality can constitute or ground intentionality/reason in the here and now, before being able to appeal to evolutionary processes. And I don't think that's possible. He could reject intentionality as an illusion and say that there's nothing more to intentional states than their phenomenality, but that brings with it a whole new set of problems (not least of all, that there is no genuine re-representation happening in meta-consciousness).

There is no unique Markov blanket - Friston is just bullshitting and obfuscating. His mathematical drivel is not even well-defined or self-consistent. Paper after pathetic paper. [1] Citations: [1] The Emperor's New Clothes

Another masterclass from bernardo 💯👌

Thank you for asking questions to Bernado which I've not seen him answer before! I love that you put in so much effort into learning his ideas, and I love how Bernado seemingly loves being asked questions that he hasn't encountered before. Great interview, can't wait for the next.

Wonderful and interesting conversation. I so much look forward to next part and would love to hear you challenge Bernardo on his view of Mind at Large in relation to his discussions with his friend Rupert Spira who insists that Consciousness is meta conscious and is in essense unconditional love. Bernardo agreed with Rupert in one of their last conversations on YT but it really still doesn’t sound like what Bernardo is telling us here. Thank you for making and sharing this 🙏

@50: BK is hanging way too much there on "quantum fields". Does he even realize they are fictional accounting tools? (He should, since he denies scientific concepts reality before, no?) QFT is a lovely theory, but it is not fundamental. Hilbert space is also a fiction, another "accounting tool" (Has massive irremovable gauge redundancy, so cannot be physical). The spinor fields are mathematical objects, not physical objects, we use them in QM and QFT to transform (rotate, boost and dilate mostly) the frame defining the observables to the co-moving frame of an elementary particle. The elementary particles are what are real, and they're not fields. We describe them using fields. The only real field needed in physics (to date) is 4D spacetime. If you want, also fibre bundles attached, but we don't even need fibre bundles, since 4D nontrivial topology is sufficient to account for the fibers in at least the Standard Model, and account for non-local effects as needed in entangled systems. If there really is supersymmetry, or strings, than yeah, we'd need more than 4D Riemannian spacetime.

@34:00 our _physical body_ has an upper bound on information processing capacity. Not our soul, at least not if you understand the human soul is non-physical. The _physical expression_ of the soul's Mind is what is limited, not necessarily the Mind itself. There is no theory of the limits of the mind (imagination, insight, creativity) that anyone knows of, since there is no information theoretic theory of subjective mind. Friston's is not a theory of mind, his is a theory of brain, or brain+, which is only the _physical_ expressive power of the mind. The brain has already extraordinary capacity to express our Mind's thoughts, our souls are not spiritually aware enough yet to really saturate our brain capacity, plus we have hard drives these days. Pretty useful when the brain gets too hot.

I agree that "wants" is too simple of a term, because we don't identify with our wants. But really our values, ambitions, personality, etc are just different types of these "wants" that Alex speaks of. But we identify with those things, it seems that we are made of our values, ambitions and personality. So even if these things determine our decisions, that is still us making the decision. Even if I live in a deterministic universe where I could not have done otherwise, I still think that I have free will because I (my wants, or in other words my values, personality and ambitions) am doing the determining.

The Idealist difficulty: how does mind/experience/consciousness (maybe something like the dreamer and dreamworlds) produce the hard stuff of reality? The Physicalist: how does stuff produce mind/experience/consciousness (here they posit emergence or epiphenomenon)? Whatever the universe is, it is first a first-person experience: and that experience is what constitites reality...we only find later fields, particles, electrochemical neural firings, etc. So obviously physicalism pervades our everyday life but if we meditate or take certain drugs (i.e. Huxley's account in "The Portals of Perception"), we become idealists as we experience reality as just fluctuations of our own perspective. Hence, it seems that experientalism (the variety and range of our experiences) or perspectivism (reality is always 1st-person...always from the point if view of w. what's it like to be something...and we are looking at reality from the human, which is sensorily and cognitively limited and no guarantee reality IS or ISN'T just matter or just mind. There is a relationship between mind and matter which neither of these philisophies is able to imagine, let alone express without gaps. Great discussion and Q&A!

We created the airplane which does not have consciousness, so we gave it a dashboard form of sensors. In effect, a second hand artificial type of consciousness.

as a believer in free will and self-causing causes, i expect you'll believe me when i say this post caused itself.

a little unfriendly title on the yt thumnail.

He has some fascinating stuff, of course, but I get the impression he both argues deceptively when his model is potentially undercut ... and he is in his own bubble so much (where he acts as authority) that he isn't used to being challenged and gets away with bluffing complete confidence in his ideas that isn't really supported. It can't hold up to the deep dive the host is taking here.