Henry Stapp - Can Brains Have Free Will?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2021
- Free will seems the simplest of notions. Why then is free will so vexing to philosophers? Here's why: no one knows how free will works! Science, seemingly, permits no 'gaps'-'joints' in the structure of the world-in which free will can operate. The brain seems like an all-physical system working according to physical laws. How then a will that's fully free?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on free will: bit.ly/3dXWFig
Henry Stapp is an American physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics. He earned a BS in Physics from the University of Michigan, and an MA in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”
OR - I refuse to answer that question because it's composed of a nebulous term dipped in presumptions.
He is right. Compatibilism is logically inconsistent. If you believe in determinism you must believe in no free will. You can't have it both.
Thats peter van iwagon view but philpapers most PHD philosophers believe in compatablism. I do think we have a level of free will.
Stupidity beyond that is the stupidity who force you to write this comment...
A better answer for Henry Sapp providing evidence of free will as being a psychological process (as opposed to mechanistic determinism) would be to point to the simple fact that we all experience ourselves as having free will. There actually couldn't be any stronger evidence. To say otherwise would be analogous to, in a murder trial, having a prosecutor put an eye-witness on the stand to prove the defendant committed the murder. The defense attorney can always cross-examine the eye-witness on the details of his observation (the lighting was bad, etc.), but for the defense attorney to ask the eye-witness to "prove" that he had the observation at all would be non-sensical.
Fascinating conversation. Bravo.
Ayn Rand explained it better, free will is - the brain’s ability to focus.
Free will is an ability of the human brain, almost like another sense if you like.
The brain has the ability to intercept/categorise and conceptualise sensory input, alongside that it has the ability to focus on or not focus on any particular input, and the name we call that process is free will.
And at root of all this is biological electronics, that respond on environmental input
7:18 This is the entire point. Classical determinism isn't correct, so you can't argue against Free Will with that starting assumption. You'd need to prove Free Will/Consciousness is an entirely mechanistic process (which I doubt will ever happen).
Classical determinism isn't required. It's not about arguing against free will, it's about free will not being substantiated. Quantum randomness does not mean you chose to have the thoughts and values you have, and that doesn't even make sense. This is the problem for proponents of free will; you don't choose the desires or thoughts you have, and to say that you do is to say that you chose the thoughts or desires to choose _those_ thoughts and desires, and so on. It's an infinite regress problem. Some quantum fluctuation that caused you to feel a certain way you didn't choose is not free will.
@@cloudoftime First off, no one said free will is the result of ‘quantum fluctuations’-that’s a complete strawman. Second, when you say free will must be “substantiated”, you’re already using determinism. You’re implying it needs a basis, a source, a cause. You’re assuming cause and effect is fundamental; Quantum Mechanics shows it’s not. That’s why your line of thinking makes you see an “infinite regress”, just like so many incomplete/inconsistent theories that yield infinities.
@@hckytwn3192 There's a difference between a straw man, and an reasonable inference based on information provided. Referring to quantum randomness as a source of this freedom, entails that some quantum action was the cause of the result. Do you choose the resolution of the quantum action? No. So no, it wasn't a straw man, but you are assumption that it was says a lot about your reasoning.
Secondly, I am referring to substantive reasons for arguments and claims. You are providing claims here yourself, so if you are trying to accuse me of relying upon determinism, then you are doing the very same thing. You are contradicting yourself.
We experience cause and effect. When we experience thoughts and desires, we are not choosing those thoughts and desires. In order for you to choose what thought you have, you would have to think about the thought before you think it, and that is impossible. You have an infinite regress problem that you have to deal with here. This is experientially the case. It leads to an infinite regress conceptually, but you don't have to go to infinite to get there you just have to go two steps. You can experience this yourself. This is not difficult.
@@cloudoftime Tell what statement made you 'reasonably infer' that I (or even the guest) is invoking "quantum randomness"? Seriously, *please quote me*--I don't see anything I said that could possibly gets you to that point. Also, at 5:03 the guest makes it pretty clear he's NOT talking about quantum randomness as the source/cause. He's specifically talking about *how* you get from that quantum state to the 'classical' state--specifically *what* collapses the wavefunction. It's not about the randomness, it's about the transition point to the classical. This is called the Measurement Problem and it's probably the biggest open question about QM.
However, what I am saying is more fundamental: Reality is non-deterministic, so you can't assume any system is inherently deterministic. Because quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, it has no 'infinite regress' problem. (i.e. no one asks, "what causes the probability?"). It's fundamental. Therefore, there is no inherent 'infinite regress' problem of consciousness--or anything actually. The universe has shown you it doesn't rely on deterministic systems at it's very base level. That's your starting point. You can't have a starting assumption that conflicts with that. Therefore, you'd have to *prove* consciousness is a purely deterministic system. You'd have to *prove* that your free will needs to come from "somewhere".
***You can't assume determinism***. That is my only claim here. 😋
@@cloudoftime I subscribe to what You wrote with my both hands!
(I do not know if the above sentence is correct in English)
The issue that determinism does not quite add up is obviously very difficult to describe, and is a reason why there is a sense of free will that people try to describe; hopefully conversation continues just to adequately define the issue, let alone the answer. Might help to set aside the solutions for awhile to sufficiently lay out the actual question
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
Very interesting video - as usual THANK YOU (and of course an ongoing question...ad infinitum)
great TEACHERS
My issue with the absolute majority of discussions about free will (FW) is that they start from wrong grounds. The first step in reasoning necessitates the definition of a test T, feasible at least in principle and unambiguous, that tells _bona fide_ FW apart from _an illusion_ of FW. A definition of FW is not only epistemically inadequate most of the time; it's in fact ontologically superfluous: First thing first, I don't yet care what "real" FW is before I know how to tell it from "illusory" FW. Talking without the T defined involves certain amount of jaw flapping, usually resulting in declaring FW either "real" or "illusory." The exact difference of either of these terms from its opposite is invariably and suddenly left as an exercise to the unfortunate unsuspecting reader. :)
"Jaw flapping" is a perfect description of most of these FW discussions. It's talking for the sake of talking.
maybe you have it backwards? as far as i understand it, the question is: (1) "we" view the universe as deterministic (2) in our experiences it appears as if we make choices that are not pre-determined. These two are incompatible so either: (A) we need a materialistic model for (say) cognition that supports non-determinism, or (B) we need a materialistic model for cognition that explains the illusion of making actual choices.
So, we are not really testing FW vs i-FW against each other (which would demand the test you talk about), but rather refining our materialistic+deterministic worldview: a solution will not be a test FW vs i-FW, but hypotheses about how either one could come to exist within our scientific worldview.
Which is why FW-people turn to the possible sources of non-determinism and i-FW just say 'nahh you (and in fact we) are delusional'.
and philosophers love it because they spent centuries arguing whether we made our own choices given that God already knew what we would choose even before we where born :P
:|
@@mnp3a "We" who? I was talking specifically about any theories making claims about FW. You may have expanded the scope a lot-and narrowed in other dimensions. :) "we view the universe as deterministic"-sure, _some_ do. Outline (I prefer not to use the word "define," this is a discussion-killer, among myriad other reasons) what is "deterministic". Is turbulence deterministic? Any thermal noise may derail any prediction about a complicated interconnected system. And when we come to the (A)/(B) dilemma you describe, I do not even try to touch on what "cognition" or "intellect" is. It's easy to wave hands and say "but cognition! you have it, so you must know." But to start on a theory, there has to be at least a rough outline of what the theory is about, what its objects are, how they can possibly interact. In my view, there is not a cohesive scientific theory of how brain produces mind, and I do not expect it any time soon, unfortunately. "Neural correlates" of cognition is the current fad. I thought that the famous paper on dead salmon fMRI will end this muddy flow of experimental papers. Nope. And what will amassing this heap of blurry and noisy data achieve?
And fMRI is probably the most sensitive instrument we have. I have a kinda bitter feeling that there is not even an idea how to start sciencing in this area. In this sense, I don't "have it backwards": there is not even a shaky foundation to seriously pull such weighty questions as FW vs IFW. If you are asking it operationally, then define an empirical test. I do not say it's a bad question, at these baby steps all questions are good, if they are asked in an answerable way, even if relative to an operational, temporary scaffolding.
It may sound similar, but is not really similar to asking "is gravity a force?" In physics, there is a smorgasbord of theories, so you'll ask "in which theory?" In... um, mind science?.. does it exist?.. there are simply none yet.
@@cykkm :) i wasnt saying your argument is wrong, just trying to clarify the discussion.
yes, it'd make sense to leave FW alone until we understand better how "mind" works, but this is not what they are doing -- since the question is unavoidable given differences in beliefs about the world.
now, you mention turbulences and this again goes backwards relative to the argument they give!
people saying there is no freewill because universe is deterministic are not saying you can actually determine this sort of stuff and probably wouldnt care for it: they just say "it's determined even if its impossible to actually calculate it".
at least that is approx how Sabine Hossenfelder puts it
I dont agree at all, and I like your argument, but it still makes sense to entertain this question (FW vs i-FW) to problematize our beliefs. Not sure i'm making myself clear.
Bravo . . .
When a person causes something to happen, there is a sense that more is happening than the physical components that determine the action; in particular that there is a will involved without an outside force controlling that action, or free. The conscious awareness just before an action could be measuring such a sense of free will, whether or not the physical components that determine the action happen before, or perhaps as a completion of the action, or that the action is using free will, or something else
@@mikekane2492 when the physical doesn't add up to describe reality
@@jamesruscheinski8602 How does your lack of knowledge of it adding up mean that it doesn't add up? This is an argument from ignorance or a claim of omniscience.
Not being directly aware of the physical actions causing the experience isn't evidence of some mystical realm.
@@cloudoftime not adding up is not a lack of knowledge, nor is it omniscience
@@jamesruscheinski8602 By you asserting that it doesn't add up, that means that you're either asserting you know all of the pieces, which would be omniscience, or you are admitting that you don't have all the pieces, and that you aren't omniscient, which would mean that you can't say you know it doesn't add up.
@@cloudoftime when say two apples plus two apples is not five apples is neither omniscience nor ignorance
Brilliant open mind.
love you guys.
I am curious why they assigned the problem of free will post-Newton. It's been a while, but if I'm remembering correctly, determinism and free will date back to at least the Greek classical philosophers.
Hasta donde entendí no pudo definir qué es realmente el proceso psicológico, cuando bien podría ser resultado de un proceso físico. El problema para los deterministas es que, si el "libre albedrío" es determinado solo por procesos físicos, se mantendrá siempre inexplicable, siendo que un electrón a la velocidad de la luz golpeando contra una neurona podría cambiar la mente de las personas.
Is that the problem or the assertion? It seems to be that the determinists would agree with you: "free will" is inexplicable and is merely an illusion.
I got stuck on the idea of free will when I realized that its impossible to do anything you truly don't want to, you my be choosing the lesser of 2 evils but there's always a reason for everything we do we just usually focus on why we dont want to doing something instead of why we are doing it
Free will in psychological process could act causally on quantum mechanics through measurement (from random to deterministic? Maybe the measurement problem in quantum mechanics has something to do with free will?
The brain is a distributed network. Meaning is not represented by single neural firing, but patterns of them.
If will is to act casually through quantum indeterminance, this will would have to know exactly how to manipulate neural patterns, coordinating many quantum events to carry out the desired outcome.
I understand the appeal to this kind of speculation, but the explanation requires more assumed complexity than it solves.
Energy could be a mechanism for free will? Energy can be used for motion (free), and can be directed into an action (will)?
Interesting.
The deterministic argument was made long ago when billiard balls were used to express causal relationships (or not, if you’re Hume.) We’ve moved past that a little bit in our understanding of this realm.
Determinism when it comes to free will works a little differently. The concept of determinism in this sense is just that _something else_ is the determining factor behind the will that you experience, whether that is predictably mechanistic or random. If the result of a random quantum fluctuation determines how you feel, or what you think, that isn't freedom of your will. It was determined by something other that you.
@@cloudoftime did a random quantum fluctuation cause you to reply? 🤓 Just being a smart Alec.
@@mgmcd1 I get you are being a smart Alec, but I don't know. Based on current alleged understanding it could be the case that had something to do with it. I didn't choose the desire to have these conversations. As the words pop into my head, I don't think about thinking about them before I think about them (because how would that work?).
Quantum - background noise of reality.
Reality, over which we have no influence.
@@cloudoftime "I don't think about thinking about them before i think about them" This is why discussions on free will always leads to a dead-end - they produce infinite loop errors in peoples brains... >.
Determinism in some ways sounds like a force beyond the person that is causing a person to act on something else. Can be more difficult to say that determinism is causing a person to do something than for the person to be doing something through free will. There might be a power of free will present in reality somehow that can be used to cause deterministic physical actions could make more sense than a deterministic force causing physical actions?
Might be? How?
To me, free will just means that you are free to use your will.
here we go---ok, so during these Robert L. Kuhn series, some of us discussed CONSCIOUNBESS----i gave my strong understandings (humbly and only with a 54 yr old bs in bio, not working in that field, but have read all kinds of pretty heavy duty science including brain studies)----C is the conversation between brain and its flesh and blood part we call mind---this occurs because we have sophisticated language in which to do this---we say things like "should or shouldn't i do this or that"-including remembering past discussions on that action via memory. Worms cows, and most birds do not do this (a cardinal will peck at your side view mirror not knowing it is himself---cats do that too)---so, certainly THEY do not have FREE WILL---they run on instinct. But we humans have so much more power of thought---thought that can direct decisions---yet, i am in the large camp that Henry Sapp mentions early on---those that believe only in a mechanistic world which when thought into, implies no free will. Others split the world into 2 parts---mechanistic and psychological----he implies that quantum mechanics supports this psychological part of the world---i understand this because our brain viewing of the double slit experiment, seems to influence outcomes---i, like Einstein, believe this is wrong and that there is more to this QP and this double slit experiment than we realize at this point. (if not observed by humans or human made machines, it seems that a particle can go through 2 slits at once---if observed, it only goes through one slit)--thus, wave vs particle nature of material. Therefore, he says that a choice just does not come out of the blue (meaning he believes in free will . e states his psychological part of his brain can choose to send his son to Stanford or Harvard----but what if his son is not smart enough?---or, his supposed free will does not want to go to either school or any higher education (btw, the son never chose this man to be his father, never chose his own name, never chose his academic ability and so on). If QP is not fully understood (actually it isn't understood at all---it is only observed and used, but NOT understood,) then his idea to choose the psychological over the material basis for free will, falls apart). His description of the materialistic is not quite right either---he says that all processes are pre determined (FATE)---not so---nature has a way of changing its own self. Anyway, let me state why i do not believe in free will----simply stated, every so called CHOICE i make (which i call picking), is based on a previous pick. My father picked my mother and thus my dna is from those 2. What if my mother died b4 i was conceived---or, lived no where near my father's reach or connection? And his and her parents situation being the same thing. The laws of nature do not allow for free will---i am not able to choose to lift a building. So it seems to me, all my choices//picks are based on dna and my environment. Surely i can CHOOSE vanilla over chocolate ice cream. But what if my constitution gets stomach cramps from chocolate----the choice is made for me---unless i am WILLING to suffer for the sake of that wonderful choc flavor---but then i say to you, i am constituted to be brave or risky---did i chose those?---Hardly.
Now, assume there is "quantum uncertainty" spreading out up to macroscopic scale too and the many worlds interpretation is chosen as basis here. (so yes, here a lot of SF for now)
The mind could be able to interact with a kind of standing wave of probabilities (no idea how)
The moment before our decision, the universe is then like split in a myriad of different outcomes (many worlds theory) and the mind can then select (so no idea how) possible paths or worlds.
Still, this preference would be indeed only be the result of competing values ( our history, our memories, our insights, imagination, our genes, feelings, the environment etc) and these values fluctuate, sometimes wildly, even till right before the decision (think influence person nearby or the will to prove free choice). It seems impossible to determine that cloud of values with great accuracy. There is an element of non quantum randomness added already there.
If all those electrochemical pathways in the brain are sensitive to quantum unpredictability than we add another vagueness.
We could be aware of the uncertainties going on, and call this free will because we know we are not predetermined. Is that real free will however ? Perhaps, again only "vaguely" at best.
Still, too much tolerance in justice system is allowed since that then becomes part of those "competing values" and it could lead to even worse decision making. It follows though that the influence of our environment is very important.
thank you---very good analysis---and yes in the justice system, eventho we know when a child is born, or later, they would be crazy to CHOOSE to commit murder or robbery that could lead to murder.---But yet, we must separate them from other normal people---AM indians left the old behind---were they choosing to be cruel?---They had to---so many examples of that kind in the instinctive animal kingdom.
@@philipose66 Yes, it's not often mentioned on here on this channel how a possible absence of free will has consequences for the justice system But most likely, it wouldn't make a difference (??) Only the way we judge personally would change.
Free Will is the power of the aware soul which is separate from physical brain's processes but temporarily dwelling inside the brain for a chance to choose to have faith for its salvation.
You've made a claim here, but I see no argument or evidence.
@@cloudoftime Okay, let me explain : If choices are driven by physical laws of nature, then why do we still have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make which should be impossible if all our time is taken or bound by physical laws ? ...... Let me repeat, if choices are just product of natural physical cause and effect, then why does physical law allow us to still have time to decide what choices to make which would not be necessary because nature already has it ready for you - making us all no different than a clueless programmed robots ? The fact that we can have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make screams loudly that physical laws are NOT controlling us, which means we are an existence outside this physical world. We are non-physical souls temporarily dwelling inside our human physical shells for a chance to believe for our souls' salvation, I believe.
is the questioning of a physical system really outside the physical system.... mmm back to the old collapse of the wave function problem and the ideas of John Wheeler on a participatory universe . A dumb computer with memory banks could run an algorithm on whether to choose A or B given pre- existing criteria - free will is just optimisation of decision making - a trivial materialistic process in the end - in principle predictable and capable of simulation. In a sense I dont know in advance what will be the output of the progam but its causally closed - am I missing something?
Energy is consciousness that psychologically makes things happen by free will through quantum mechanics into classic reality?
Program START
1. Choice is simply one's ability to alter local entropy.
2. If our mental program releases energy, we can effect entropy, thereby exercising "choice".
3. Our program state at the moment of choice was previously determined by inputs from two systems,
the closed (ie. universe) via forward propagating neural network weighting of sensory data (ie. nature)
and the open (ie. mental) via backward propagating neural network re-weighting of previous data
(ie self-nurture).
4. It is this reinterpretation, rebalancing or back propagation of neural weightings (ie. learning), or lack there
of that is deterministic in the above moment of choice.
If "choice" requires prior program development and available energy to be released to effect entropy
(ie. change) then we can see the following anecdotes.
1. Babies and the unconscious have ineffective or non-operating programs and thus have limited free will.
2. Education and experience increases program development and thus increases effective free will.
3. Babies and the sick or injured have less energy for deployment and thus will have limited free will.
4. Being young or rich increases available energy for deployment and thus will have more effective free will.
5. Writers, meditation and dreams (ie. sleep) increases back propagation and thus have more effective free will.
Effective free will develops via the increases in forward propagating experience, self reflective back propagation's program development and increases in effective free energy available for release at the moment of choice.
It is possible to live largely without free will or with an ever increasing or decreasing amount of it.
Some systems (ie. people) never develop the internal program for self programming, some know how to but choose not to, others lose their ability to exercise it, some (ie. myself) make it their entire purpose (ie. main program).
Question:
If the "free" part of "free will" comes from the self programming back propagating process and typically must be learned from others (ie. this thread teaching you now) is it really "free will" or simply deterministic choices caused by the external system that taught you this process in the first place?
Answer:
The self programming process is a customizable tool. The results of your own self programming and individual weightings are the "free will" components of choice.
Now that you have read this and the initial framework for self programming has been transferred to your system, the choice is up to you whether you run and develop it further in your life.
What it means, where it takes you and how you develop your own program and "free will" is your choice now.
Program END
Can a completely deterministic system create the illusion of free will in some of its parts? How does a completely deterministic universe create the illusion of free will in the minds of human beings--minds which are literally pieces of that completely deterministic universe? Does the illusion of free will need to be "true" in order to be useful? Can the illusion of free will be the consequence of something evolutionarily useful? Suppose, for example, that the illusion of free will is a side effect of evolving brains that possess the ability to mentally simulate the world and make complex plans. Suppose the illusion of free will, mental simulations of the world, and complex planning all come as part of the same package. Then wouldn't saying that "we need to give up the illusion of free will" be tantamount to saying "we need to give up mental simulations of the world and complex plans?" As long as we have mental simulations and complex plans, is it even possible to give up the illusion of free will, much less assume that giving up the illusion of free will is somehow "good" for us?
Yes, because the way we think about free will informs how we think about moral actions.
If we think our choices are a consequence of our hardware, we can then see damaging or toxic behavior as a hardware issue, and then talk about treatment rather than punishment.
There's a lot of resistance to the idea that free will isn't real, because this dismantles many models people hold as sacred. Cosmic justice makes no sense without free will.
But if we dispense with the idea of cosmic justice, this too opens up channels of compassion where we might otherwise be judgmental of each other.
That was more than I meant to write when I started, but yes the way we think about free will matters.
The cerebral organ is pretty much instinctive, and therefore, not necessarily attribute to "free will". Free will is not much of a capacity, but more of an activity from the psychic active force (known as "mental active force" for humans.) "Free will" cannot be instinctive, but an autonomous active force.
Only in a world where the future is not already determined can free will exist.
And how would we know if we were exercising our free will or are just following a pre-
selected script ? 🤔
The value of such speculation seems to be very questionable. Since no solid answer will ever be found.
Maybe all this speculation is making it a more complex question than it needs to be.
But, if free will is "determined" by the psychological, how can we properly call it free, even if we separate the psychological from the physical?
One way of learning for any biological brain is the nature in which they live. Experiments alone are not enough, but free will and a sound mind does help.
What free will?
It's Open 💖⚡🎶
Also Brains, is Living Beings,
All Living Beings is Eternal,
Will, is a Eternal Life-Ability,
goes in Developing-Circuits, from minimum to maximum,
circuit after circuit, in the Developing-Spiral.
Will, is the eternal extention of the Life-Desire.(MOTOR of Life)
Free will is the key axis of human experience, while determinism is the combination of all consciousness and is equally valid. It's impossible to understand logically because from the logic persepctive it is a paradox.
"Free will is the key axis of human experience" - why is that? It depends on definition of free will. We can decide whatever we want within certain boundaries, the "want" part is something we can't decide. So, we can't control our motivations, we can act according to our motivations. So, if free will is the ability to act or decide according to what you want to do - you have it. The problem arises when people for whatever reason assume that we should have a will independent of any external or internal physical causes, otherwise it is not free. If you will something because you are hungry or something like that, due to some interactions between your neurons anyway and you could not will otherwise in that exact same circumstances, does it mean you do not have free will?
@@dmitriy4708 hunger is not free will... Free will arises from the non-physical.
@@DaGrybo What difference does it make? If there is something that determines your decisions - it is not free. For a free will to be different from physical there must be something outside cause and effect entirely, essentially uncaused cause that make decisions without any influence by anything else and all humans must have it. Not that we have any evidence at all that we can decide something without underlying cause behind it.
@@dmitriy9053 no no, there is no underlying substance to make you decide in the logical sense. You have equal lets say rights to chose one or another, and you pick. Is it to serve yourself or is it to serve another. This is the beauty of being alive. But don't be fooled by the infinite spectrum of consciousness, which is deterministic.
@@DaGrybo it is unclear to me what do you want to say. Could you please give me an example how free will arise from non-physical, what is the underlying non-physical cause of it and how it is different from hunger or anything physical?
You would think that the more you inquire about free will the more you learn about the subject, but it's been the opposite for me I now can't stand this notion of free will, I've found that some people absolutely have a propensity to help, a fundamental instinctual internal compassion a will into altruistic action, witch really intails a one awerness many minds dilemma. Other people simply don't care rationality has a great defense affect that doesn't bide with emotions roughly speaking free will is in junction with predetermined causes, just my little conjecture.
As long as there is uncertainty then there is free will
I don’t think we have free will. A choice is determined from events that happen before and your physical makeup, including microbes. If we do have any choice, it’s extremely limited.
if you put two cookies on the table arent your free to chose which one to eat first ?
@@francesco5581 Nope, because you are constantly predicting which one is best based on your experience or mood. If you are absolutely full, is it your choice not to have any? Or if your gut bio is made of predominately carbohydrates craving microbes that communicates with the brain it needs as many as it can get.
@@anthonycraig274 On a pure deterministic/materialist standpoint yes you are correct even if fall fast into the philosophical zombies problem.
I belive as long as there are ethical choices there will be free will.
@@ajanote5559 What does ethical choice really mean?
Two words: petitio principii. Seems that scientists aren’t capable to conjecture another starting point, even when they’re fully aware of the phenomenological limitations of knowledge.I suggest a return to kant’s work about the necessity of the construction of a valid metaphysical science, because scientists only learn the scientific method, therefore, they really don’t understand that science is build over a complete metaphysical principle: the principle of causality. People must understand that metaphysics is not an “opus copus exoterical mambo jambo”, although many charlatans use this word in many twisted ways. An epistemologicallly valid metaphysics won’t amplify knowledge, but it will prevent many wrong paths.
In the case of the experiments with raising an arm and moving a clicker, does determinism sufficiently explain why the brain is causing neural signals to move certain muscles for the action, especially when it happens at the very time a person wants to do that action?
Yes, there is a causal connection between the neurons firing and the moving of muscles, but how do you precisely measure when "a person wants to do that action"?
@@hckytwn3192 concern about what is causing brain to send neuron signals for certain muscle movements; if brain action is being determined, who or what is determining the brain to cause physical action?
@@hckytwn3192 when person is consciously aware of action
@@hckytwn3192 in determinism, what determines the brain to cause an action?
@@jamesruscheinski8602 sure… but how and where do you measure that? The problem is answering where that “want” originates from. If you can’t do that you can’t say “when”.
If choices are driven by physical laws of nature, then why do we still have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make which should be impossible if all our time is taken or bound by physical laws ?
Computing is a part of this process and it takes some time.
The water falls from the waterfall, because thats what the laws of nature say, but it takes a while for it to fly down.
@@jareknowak8712 water from waterfalls had already flown as clouds, before it came down, driven by physical laws.
@@evaadam3635 It does not change anything, every process needs some time.
@@jareknowak8712 Natural processes are designed by God to manage the Physical Universe. Our human physical body was also designed by God to serve as temporary dwelling for our lost souls. However, our "supernatural aware free soul" was NOT designed by God but His own FREE SPLIT, His own Image as many religions describe it.
When the eighteenth century sculptor/poet, William Blake, wrote what his angel had said to him, "Little creature form'd of Joy and Mirth, go love without the help any Thing on Earth.," he may have meant, 'Live life with imagination.' Imagination is, I think, where free will resides. Exercising the imagination therefore, is the epitome of consciousness. Marco Biagini (see below), I think, is wise in seeing the limits of one of the ways we apply our ability to think; that what we call 'science.' I see we are only beginning to acquire knowledge of our existence. I think it is good that 'A-I' may expand our knowledge of the mechanistic world, but imagination will trump that worthwhile pursuit for some time to come. After all, at this time, we recognize only half of the universe we live in.
How is imagination free? When something occurs to you, in imagination, were you free to choose to think about that imagined thing? How were you able to choose to think about it, without first thinking about it to have it as a choice to think about? And how did you choose to think about it to choose to think about it, without choosing it to think about before that? You have an infinite regress problem.
If everything in classic mechanics happens due to energy, then everything in classic mechanics happens through free will?
With quantum mechanics coming from energy, free will could be worked into quantum mechanics by energy?
Freedom is relative.
Interesting, Henry is looking pretty damn healthy for someone who is supposed to be 93 years old...
We have a “randomness of subatomic particles give you freedom” argument. To be clear, I think our understanding subatomic particles may be incorrect. It is entirely possible the the randomness of their behavior only appears random to us.
Lol ok kid u get a c
We are that "us"
I agree that there is a lot of science that could be incorrect, particulary in the subatomic or quantum realm
@@christianbaughn199 Not to nitpick on syntax, but technically, _all_ of science might be incorrect, by definition. It’s just that some aspects are so statistically likely, they are effectively certain.
As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, I’m in no position to opine on the potential sources of error, or their likelihood, only that the human brain evolved _without_ a conscious awareness of quantum mechanics.
That argument is made significantly harder with the advent of Bell's inequality
To me it's obvious that we have free will. Yes we are still restricted by countless factors but there is a space in which we regularly choose between A, B and C. It's amazing that you have to get to quantum mechanics to reach this conclusion!
This comment is meant to be in jest, right?
@@wingsuiter2392 maybe the most basic answer is the right one ?
You haven't been paying attention if this is what you consider "obvious".
@@wthomas7955 or people are just debating free will because it does not fit their materialistic/reductionist credo ?
@@francesco5581 they are debating the existence of free will because the have no choice to do otherwise.
The world is materialistic and we have free will constrained by nature, nurture, life experiences, and local pressures that bias a decision. Nature has provided the human brain with the capability to override determinism in the brain by using mental energy/force (will) that is not deterministic.
The freedom of the WILL to have free time to decide what to choose to believe or not to believe is not constrained by nature and, so, is SUPERNATURAL. Your notion that natural physical law allows matter to take a break from its laws so to have free time to decide on its own what choices to make, is gross violation of natural physical laws that drives physical cause and physical effect all the time - making your basic science OBSOLETE.
@@evaadam3635 LOL. You're trying to pull the old Red Herring logic trick. No one is talking about "free time." No one is talking about "take a break from its laws." The only things that are "supernatural" are natural things that haven't been explain by science yet. There are neural networks that make up "me" and "you." They, and "you" and "me" are natural, not supernatural. Those networks can focus attention and intentionality on other neural processes using energy to make a choice among alternatives, that is, deciding. This brief video sheds light on this topic. ua-cam.com/video/D47eBlLb8Ag/v-deo.html
@@georgegrubbs2966 ..but according to you, the world is MATERIALISTIC.... So, tell us, what physical law that allows material neural processes to entertain belief in the Holy Spirit that defies your material science - grossly violating the natural physical laws of cause and effect in physics. If you can not, then please confess that you are just wildly guessing and then apologize.
@@georgegrubbs2966 ..by the way, even if you did not mention free time, the fact is, IT TAKES TIME TO DECIDE WHAT CHOICES TO MAKE...and if we are all just physical matter driven by physical laws all the time, where our choices are already made in advance by nature, then why do we still have free time to decide what choices to make which would be impossible if we are driven by physical laws all the time and also choices are already ready handed by nature to us ? Don't you notice that you are not making any iota of sense here ? Shame !
@@evaadam3635 Again, you are interjecting Red Herrings. Is "grossly violating" worse than "violating"? Are you familiar with quantum mechanics? If so, then you understand that at the fundamental level of reality, probability reigns supreme, not determinism, while keeping with materialism. Are you familiar with hierarchical dynamical systems? If so, you understand that causality is bottom-up and top-down, and feed-forward and feed backward, an incredibly complex architecture that permits executive management of deterministic processes, the executive management (mainly the prefrontal cortex) has decision-making capability by evaluating alternative courses of action and then invokes intentionality and action - all within microseconds. Finally, I am sure you studied Newton's Laws of Motion. The First Law: "An object at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by a force." The key here "unless acted upon by a force." In the brain's case, the force (which requires energy) is focused intervention by the prefrontal cortex -- all done in an algorithmic fashion under biological principles, all of which is natural and material at bottom. Nature has done a remarkable job, but as we all know, nature makes tragic mistakes now and then in the form of DNA anomalies and other birth defects.
Free will is not an illusion. How else can you make a choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. The only thing is. It comes with a delay. So what's all the fuzz about???
those ppl -who say we dont have will -are sick dont waste 1 second with them .
Didn't Hume address this in his theory of causation? That the mechanical view of science is an inference that gives rise to reason and reinforces reason; but is actually tentative? That causation is never anything more than constant conjunction within the framework of consciousness?
That causation is a tendency of the brain to organize its consciousness around consistent, repetitive apprehensions; but that these apprehensions do not perceive necessary connections(as in a rope between two separate objects), only an inference, or assumption, of a connection.
When a moving billiard ball impacts a stationary billiard ball what do we see? Usually we see the moving ball stop and the stationary ball move. Science assumes there is a transfer of kinetic "energy" and that the "law" of conservation of momentum CAUSES the stationary ball to move in a particular way. Laws are enforced, by an enforcer. The enforcer is who? The mind or "energy". I cannot see the "energy" transfer I can only see the motion and the objects. Therefore when the two balls separate there is no necessary connection there is only spooky "action at a distance": inference enforced by the mind.
The mechanical universe is an illusion created by a lazy brain that has to survive in a world full of threats of death.
From the movie "Runaway Train" with Rebecca De Mornay, Jon Voight, and Eric Roberts: " You don't know what you can do, what you can't. You're a coward."
Recognizing that we can't know it to be more than an inference doesn't mean it actually _is_ what you claim; that would also be an inference you are making. You are contradicting yourself.
@@cloudoftime Can you "recognize" the difference between an inference and an impression? When an apple falls from a tree is it because of gravity? That's an inference. When you see someone pick an apple from a tree that's an impression (necessary connection). One you can see the connection, the other you cannot see any connection. It's just a mental assumption.
@@kallianpublico7517 in·fer·ence
/ˈinf(ə)rəns/
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
You coming to the conclusion that there is spooky action because you can't confirm a connection between the two, is an inference you are making, by definition. You are doing the very same thing you are attempting to criticize.
@@cloudoftime evidence can be circumstantial or it can be a fingerprint. Science isn't verified by lawyers, try again.
@@kallianpublico7517 Why are you trying to disregard the "reasoning" in that definition? Try again
So if the physical world is deterministic there is no free will because things are already determined. If free will is random then that is not good either. Ok...so then if free will is determined in some non-physical realm, but remember I said "determined" (albeit in non-physical world), then for the same reason as in sentence one there is no free will. No?
In other words isn't the quarrel with word "determined" and also with word "random"?
Why can't there be a notion of effective or apparent (for all practical purposes) free will simply because of lack of complete knowledge of a deterministic physical world?
The low level processes are deterministic, but the high level ideas such as a human making a decision cannot be instantaneously derived from those low level processes - because of unavailable detailed enough knowledge, isn't that good enough?
The physical universe was deterministic, being bound by physical laws, before God intoduced free lost souls to it for a chance to choose what to believe freely for their salvation. The physical world now is undeterministic because no one knows what others will believe next for any reason that can affect their destiny because they are all free what to choose to believe that even God can not predict.
@@evaadam3635 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without explanation.
@@SandipChitale The existence of our supernatural non-physical "Awareness with Free Choice" is more than enough extraordinary evidence that supports the belief in the existence of supernatural Almighty Divine Aware Source. This is saner than staring at Darwin's Iguana as our Original Mama.
@@evaadam3635 Many claims above that require evidence that they are supernatural. Try being conscious and free willing under general anesthesia, or under the influence of drugs or brain damage.
@@SandipChitale Our supernatural AWARENESS (that i believe is the soul) is our free observing SUBJECT that receives what the OBJECT of physical brain conveys, be it thoughts, ideas, memories, etc. In other words, the brain is the window of our free soul to see the outside world - similar to a computer which is our window to browse the internet. If the computer crashes, then we can not browse, the same way as if the brain is corrupted or dead, then there would be no awareness or consciousness where our soul can not pick up the outside world. For awareness or consciousness to occur, the observing subject must be separate and free from the object being observed which, in this case, between aware soul that serves as the free SUBJECT and the physical brain that serves as the OBJECT to be observed. There is no possible way that free awareness can occur if both the subject and the object is not separate. Once again, if you are just part of physical brain driven by physical laws all the time like a programmed clueless robot, then how can you have free time to focus and be aware of what the brain conveys ? The fact that you can have free time to freely focus and be aware screams that you are a supernatural being separate from physical brain. Think deep, sir.
This very question is designed to be confrontational and requires a religion versus science debate. I do not like any questions that deliberately entrap a listener/reader into confrontation ... but ... if you know me I will argue any side in a debate.
So a lion who sees an easy kill but who has just fed has a decision to make, does it kill the prey when it is not hungry or does it let the prey live and hopefully kill it tomorrow when it is hungry. Is that an example of a brain having free will?
After great angst I decided to divorce my wife ... did God or the universe plan this for me and then drive me to the conclusion or did I make the decision of my own free will? BTW: I made the wrong decision but my ex-wife died from an aneurism before I had a chance to tell her.
I like this channel because it usually makes me think and learn but I believe this vlog is simply for sensational purposes.
As a Muslim the fact that there are the halal(Islamically allowable) and haram (Islamically forbidden) things or/and deeds to choose in one life is sufficient to prove that everyone has freewill in his life time.
And also the fact that there is compulsion in choosing one religion in alQuranic teaching enhance the free will claim.
Everyone is free to choose/to decide for example to take or not to take alcoholic beverage in one life time for whatever reasons - religion, health or ...- wether available or not in one disposal - so it is free will for any intelligent person.
كمسلم اقول لك هؤلاء قوم أنكروا فطرتهم أنكروا المسلمات العقلية والفطرية .فقط نحمد الله أن جعلنا مسلمين على بصيرة ونور وأن في ديننا الاسلام جواب لكل من تاه.
islam has answer for any questions.
But the indeterminism in quantum processes can be shown statistically to be random, not influenced at all by the mind.
Why then q behaves differently when we read from a photon detector in double slit?
@@jareknowak8712 Because you've physically interfered with the experiment by changing the measuring apparatus.
So….. compatiblism. I believe that’s what you’re trying to describe.
Again, if choices are driven by physical laws of nature, then why do we still have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make which should be impossible if all our time is taken or bound by physical laws ? ...... Let me repeat, if choices are just product of natural physical cause and effect, then why does physical law allow us to still have time to decide what choices to make which would not be necessary because nature already has it ready for you - making us all no different than a clueless programmed robots ? The fact that we can have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make screams loudly that physical laws are NOT controlling us, which means we are an existence outside this physical world. We are non-physical souls temporarily dwelling inside our human physical shells for a chance to believe for our souls' salvation, I believe.
I guess they think that the free time you talk about is part of the delusion :/ I wonder: what would be the evolutive advantages of developing such an illusion?
@@mnp3a The existence of our supernatural non-physical "Awareness with Free Choice" is more than enough extraordinary evidence that supports the belief in the existence of supernatural Almighty Divine Aware Source. This is saner than staring at Darwin's Evolution of Iguana as our Original Mama which is the genuine delusion, funny as well.
So, he makes some evaluations and decides it's better to send his son to Stanford than to Harvard. If he thinks that's incompatible with determinism because it's non physical that is very much a separate issue. We already know the issue is could have done otherwise. We know this because of the link between free will and moral responsibility.
The question is what would have been different if he'd decided Harvard was better? Would the past prior to the choice have been different?
If so he's saying the choice is compatible with predeterminism in the relevant way we're concerned with. If not equally he's saying free will is incompatible with determinism in the relevant way were concerned with.
And of course we don't know which since he doesn't talk about the topic at all.
what if his son chooses to not go to either---btw, did the father or son choose for the son to be qualified to go to those schools?---Did the father choose to have a son?---did the son choose that farther who happens to have that father's propensities?----you'd have to be born with a blank slate and choose your dna and your environment----and still the laws out of the big bang would determine choices
@@philipose66
Yes that's right. At the heart of it free will is an easy problem.
Always circumstances we did not choose would have to have been different in order for us to have done otherwise.
That's why predetermined choices are as good as it gets.
This just goes over most people heads.
@@stephenlawrence4821 just to expand a bit---the over the head people get confused when the term "pre -determined" is used because then they feel sorry for us---why live, if the end is known (the thing is, is that the end is not known by us---the results of our picks is not known by us)---why 'pick' if the pick was already chosen--etc---also, pre determined kinda connotates that nature is not free wheeling. As far as regular people believing in free will, that does not bother me as much as other things, because i see the illusion of free will as a necessary belief at this stage of our evolution. (can i say "it is the fun part of life"?)---and it does justify our human laws
@@philipose66
We evaluate options just as the man said.
We don't need to add we could have made a different choice without the need for unchosen circumstances to have been different.
That's wholly unhelpful.
@@stephenlawrence4821 to be honest, i am not understanding what you just said---do you think i was implying "different choices"?--??? also, evaluating options is like saying we have free will to make a choice and that process occurs through EVALUATION---i say the same thing as before---any evaluation is pre determined by trillions of past evaluations//choices//picks. from the big bang on. Our human so called choices differ from a worms, cows, whales based on all the unfolding of the BB
I know of no proof for the existence of free will or the lack there of. It is one of several questions for which we currently have insufficient information. So, this becomes a philosophical question. We can not base the answer to the question on observation. We must therefore based the answer on subjective analysis. We just make the assumption that we do indeed have free will because this provides the greater utility.
Free Will is a moral imperative. If the individual does not have free will; then, the individual does not bear any responsibility for their actions.
Swapping 'free will' with 'understanding' works too, in your comment.
@@projectmalus Understanding means to have knowledge. Free will means to make a choice free of external control.
@@JustAThought01 Yes, understanding seems to be about having and using knowledge, and free will depends on knowledge...take a biological instinct, the desire for sweets or the attraction of blinking red objects. Understanding they are a kind of trap gives one free will, regardless of that external control inherent in being a human.
Of course this is based on 'understanding' which is proved how, without becoming circular reasoning?
Our thoughts must be a quantum process, simply because there's no other thing that could explain them. Our entire bodies are made from quantum stuff, so we should ask how are thoughts different.
If everything is made from particles, what do we mean by mechanical than, it seems larger amount of particles gain certain physical attributes when acting as an isolated whole. Objects can't have free will, natural nuclear forces prevents particles from forming autonomous structures. Life is an exception, particles of our bodies were carefully selected to accommodate biological physics. It's the same particle's entire environment is made off, but their composition is not mechanical, particles in our body are connected and capable of displacing their physical properties according to demands of organic structures. Our bodies are not random phenomena, but were selected and forced into place for a purpose.
So we can see how mechanical illusion of the matter begins to fall apart, general physics can become utilized into meaningful actions.
What about physical motion itself, why stuff moves, i can think of two, perhaps three main physical principles at play, depends on how we approach explanation.
Most stuff in the universe is in constant motion because of vacuum, particles were pulled into the void by a negative pressure. There's so much empty space, so atoms tend to spread around equally. Once they absorb available kinetic energy, this property makes them move around at constant speed, to infinity. The only thing that can change their velocity without direct interaction is gravity, space itself can make particles accelerate or slow down, causing them to gain or lose energy momentum.
The only things that does not move due to force of vacuum are stars, since particles were pulled together by gravity, not by pressure or friction with other particles. And stars move because space between them is connected. The difference is, stars don't gain velocity by initial push from some form of pressure, this is a very counterintuitive physical phenomena. So stuff has different density and mass, those mechanical properties results as a push in some direction. But if particles gets pulled into a star formation, something strange happens and another force except influence over their physical properties. It's like pressure friction and buoyancy gets suspended, so a state of plasma can form. When particles behave as plasma, they can do all kinds of unexpected stuff, this freedom from mechanical geometry is another piece of the puzzle how can free will exist. The universe allows special physical states of existence, that's the most important conclusion.
I’ve never heard of “negative pressure”, or that a vacuum could apply a force to anything. Maybe I missed something along the way.
@@MendTheWorld It's complicated, if nothing can't exist in our universe, then absolute vacuum is impossible. So i switched terminology a little bit and try to describe a special state of pressure inside a container of infinite volume. Because our container has no walls, whatever leaks into it will expand forever, this is what i meant by negative pressure.
I had to do it because i wanted to expose the epistemological difference between initial acceleration of stuff being expelled into space and force of gravity forcing the near vacuum of space to compress hydrogen into a star. Those two modes of motion are the same from the perspective of Newton's laws, but have completely different causes and effects.
I have a problem with Robert's use of the phrase "mechanism of free will" If it is a mechanism than that already assumes determinism. Using the term "mechanism" prejudges the issue. Determinism and quantum mechanics are too fine grained for understanding the psychological. The psychological is our way of understanding who we are and why we do what we do. Understanding things in terms of mechanisms doesn't help us understand ourselves. The psychological can in part be explained by the interaction of beliefs and emotions. But there is nothing mechanistic about these interactions. Why we act has to do with what situations mean to us and this meaning is created by the focus of our awareness from myriad particulars to a coherent whole. This coherence does not come about through any mechanism that we know of. It is a part of everyday experience the movement of awareness from particulars to a whole. This is how we understand ourselves, and positing physical forces or mechanisms defeats this self understanding.
The brain isn't the only thing influencing decisions. Our spirit is within us too, that we clearly cannot adequately measure w/ current tech. & science. So, we can't conclude that we don't have God-granted free will.
"Deeper spirits"...? Don't be ridiculous.
@@wthomas7955 It's the answer. Just like how God created everything from nothing. Science and our 3 lb brains cannot grasp how, but it's the only explanation. God tells us the answers. And, you or anybody else cannot disprove that. So, it's not ridiculous, when in 2021, the world's brightest minds, technology, and history of it all is left without answers. And, it's also not rediculous that humans don't have a scientific explanation, since the Biblical answer is already given. They aren't expected to find a measurable solution. We just experience and observe the truth that we make our own choices. We can stew over options. Not every response is an immediate reaction or decision to do anything. If there was a governing puppet master making our choices, why would they "let us in" to the their selection process, over months let's say, on which car to buy? I hope you see my point and that this helps, to share this perspective. God is the giver of our life, a Higher Power. His ways are perfect, they work, and are repeatable. By His grace, He allowed us to have choice, that we might choose to genuinely love. When it takes denying and humbling ourselves to settle in on that understanding, the scientific world will never get there, since they're largely after self-righteous and monetary gain from finding an answer that doesn't glorify God or give Him any credit. I hope some people get what I'm saying.
Your final decision is your ultimate decision. Free will regards the choice you make.
Was it free will that caused me to decide to stop watching this right in the middle? Or was it predetermined that I stop watching?
It was predetermined.
I believe modern physics failed to understand the fundamental difference between only an ordinary matter and a matter, engaged in a large scale exchange of energetic forces. In that sense, ordinary matter is free to be what is, but the rest of the material is going through some transformations and processes.
Life begins with a sun, this process extend over the entire solar system, probably through the entire galaxy before we can boil it down to our own existence. But it's still the same thing, our life depends on a physical chain of events, different from general physics of the universe. It's not like life, but life is a part of that special physical flow or process, separated from general physics as a fundament of reality.
Not only in our heads, organic physics manifests on enormous structures out there, this strange complexity allows many weird phenomena, like existence of imaginary, dream like worlds and intelligent awareness within a physical reality.
It's like saying, physics existed before material emergence of the universe, we are still part of an unknown anomaly that changed some forces into particles and space-time.
Arguing free will can't exist because the mechanical nature of reality is the same as saying nothing could ever emerge from quantum foam chaos and illusive force fields, but something obviously happened regardless of impossible chances and non-existent probabilities. If material reality exists, free will must be one of its logical consequences.
You made a grand claim here, but you didn't provide anything to substantiate it. How exactly is free will a logical consequence of anything? How is free will even possible?
@@cloudoftime My comment was about physical foundations of the processes. The question of free will is a nonsense as it is, was trying to describe the very nature of physical activities instead.
Specially, the difference between stuff contained in some local fields, compared to all other atoms floating freely out there in the open space, never becoming a part of any solid and lasting formation.
Then i was playing with paradoxes containing various degrees of freedoms and transformations, trying to show the question is really not that well formulated as we thought up to the only few hundreds of years ago.
Didn't even touch some essential mathematical concepts like vectors or fields, necessary to grasp a bigger picture. Force fields are spheres of physical influence over some area, but forces work as vectors, channeling power trough infinitely small dots. And spheres of influence can extend into anything, while vectors are completely determined phenomena. So we have these contradictions present everywhere we look, like how many possible vectors of force can exist inside our conscious mind field. As many as we like, i guess, but we must make our mind go out and grab them.
@@xspotbox4400 So, you didn't respond to the question. You claimed that free will is a logical consequence. How? All you did here was say you were talking about other concepts.
@@cloudoftime If you want a short, short answer, you should go to some church or simply watch more TV.
Did you even read my comments, fields are open constructs, they extend over the entire universe, vectors are precise as things can be. Things like that are important, forces are fields, actions are vectors. So the question of possible freedom would be what makes those vectors. Answer is fields, but fields are always open, by definition, not contained and bounded by anything, only disturbed, induced, interfered,... this is why physics is chances, probabilities and possibly also corruption, not possible to be perfectly contained and controlled.
This is not the answer you seek, i know, i don't have any, it's only something philosophers do. Can't be a philosopher if you're not free to love the very essence of those problems, so take your time and enjoy the fantastic journey.
@@xspotbox4400 So, you still didn't explain, you just repeated yourself and offered gate-keeping rhetoric about your personal opinion on philosophy in general. And your response for the "short answer" wasn't an answer at all.
You claimed free will is a necessary consequence. How? All your irrelevant offerings and avoidance aren't substantiating your claims. Your can try to pick apart my character based on your assumptions all you want, but that isn't an argument for your claims. Yes, I did read your reply, and it doesn't answer the question.
Your further claim about "possible freedom" is not consistent with your claim about "necessary freedom". That's one problem. Another issue is that "possible freedom in what makes vectors" does not entail freedom of the will.
You can keep responding with irrelevant points, but that isn't doing anything for your position.
Brain are electronics. Can they?
Energy uses quantum mechanics to make things happen in classic mechanics by free will?
Quantum effects introduce randomness into the physical system which I'll admit disrupts determinism, however it is quite a significant leap to assume that this randomness enables free will. Flipping a coin to make a decision is quite the opposite of deliberation. I find it hard to swallow that psychological processes occur in a metaphysical realm where free will abounds, and that the transmission of the results of decisions made there are magically conveyed to the physical universe by subtle tweaking of quantum events that ultimately nudge our brain's neurons to carry out our wishes.
The question isn't whether we have free will or not, but to what extent are we truly free from our will
Free from our will? So you mean what limits our will because you can't be free from your will and be free..
Or the sincere will of use it?
@@maxphilly exactly, i should've said free from the tyranny of our will
Can the brain be millisec ahead of our senses? like in the future. Maybe we live in the pass and our brains in the future. That way you can explain freewill and deja vu
If I understand correctly, this is what experiments actually show.
Average person lives 80 miliseconds in the past.
@@jareknowak8712 So, if I’m “above average”, does that mean I live 79 milliseconds in the past, or 81? 🤔
Yup, the avg smart person is so smart that they run laps around themselves. Free will is real, to overcomplicate it. Demonstrates your own demise. Theirs a reason why these scientists have heated debates ahha because they don't realize how much of a waste of time it is to overthink things. Hence, why they can't stop talking about the same thing they've already solved over and over again. I already the definite answer, free will is real. I'm educated enough to understand moving onto much more intelligent things.
Isn’t this phycological process taking place in the brain? If yes, then, brain being physical, the phycological process taking place in the brain might not be independent of the physical. Doesn’t that make everything, including phycological a physical phenomena? Free will, like consciousness, might just be another place-holder like dark energy and dark matter, till we have some evidence to the contrary.
(Prof. R. L. Kuhn) ? .. can BRAINS possess - free will? Well? What about the ''discharge'' (Excrement end?) termination point? - * Me! Never experienced = free will there in concern of that part of ''our'' human anatomy! (FACT) (Just some humor! FORGIVE me! Can't ''help'' MYSELF - at times! It's -- FREE WILL !! I guess!)
Can you please do a video on the double slit experiment as this gives a clue about consciousness that is simply baffling
Denial in the Physicist Community.
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
@@dongshengdi773 Interesting. Where can I read more about this, other than the People you already mentioned? :)
@@A3Kr0n it’s called the observer effect ? The outcome of the experiment changes depending on whether the data is observed or not
Can brains have free wifi?
NTS: great/80
Free will makes no sense!! You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
You are not the physical body but separate from it. You are free to consider or ignore urges of your physical body that is NOT you. It is your body that urges, not you. You are an aware soul with free will dwelling temporarily inside the human physical shell.
@@evaadam3635 No. That makes no sense. I’m not separated from my body.
All my decisions are based and influenced by outside influences as well as my memories, my experiences my believes, my knowledge and all those inner influences.
@@evaadam3635 you are the physical body buddy.
Don’t eat food for 5 days straight then you can spew your nonsense about ‘souls’.
@@jeff-8511 if you are not separated from your body, just driven by physical laws ALL THE TIME, then why does your WILL have free time to focus and be aware ? This would be impossible to do ! Again, if all your time is taken by physical laws as physical matter, then your WILL would never have free time to decide what choices to make because nature already made choices ready for you, right ?
@@_BobaFett_ your body will die and rot but your immortal soul survives who will leave your dead body to return to Heaven if you have faith in a loving God. Otherwise your soul would return to a cold dark emptiness (hell) if you have no faith.
Ask a squid if they've free will they are very intelligent
Quantum freewill? The brain is a physical organ. That transcends cause and effect?
Thoughts actually come out of nothing.
They may appear to come out of nothing, but I'd argue they are generated by processes in the brain.
@@Anarchy421 Let's here it
@@LordTetsuoShima you want the entire field of neuroscience explained in a youtube comment? Doesn't seem reasonable.
@@uninspired3583 Yes give me the ELI5
@@LordTetsuoShima I'll do better than that. Read "the hidden spring" by Mark Solms, and "how the mind works" by Stephen Pinker. These books have what you need.
Free will is a possibility to not follow the laws of physics. You through a bird, but bird does not move by parabola.
What you describe--the possibility to not follow the laws of physics--is referred to as "super-duper free will" and it's not clear that we have that. What we may have is the ability to make decisions that are constrained by the laws of physics. eg. turning left instead of right.
@@Anarchy421 laws of physics can not describe turning left instead of turning right, so they are not the basis anyway.
@@matterasmachine they describe it, You just dont understand in how complex way.
@@jareknowak8712 you are just believer
Why do you keep engaging guests on the question of """"free will"""" when you refuse to even attempt a rudimentary definition?
"Here's why: no one knows how free will works! "
NO - the why is because nobody who opines about free will agrees on what it is to begin with. You can't answer the question if there are ten different and significant variation of it!
"Philosophy is merely the byproduct of misunderstanding language." - _Wittgenstein_
What I don't understand is if there is no free will, then why did the brain develop? The brain only exists for the sole purpose of surviving. It is a survival tool (how to recognise predators, how to escape from a predator etc...) So if everything is pre-determined and in a sense prey can not escape predator or a predator could not catch prey, then why would the brain evolve if it is obsolete?
hey you have free will dont waste time of this bullshit topic the real question is why i have free will to search about truth.which is in islam
@@firasitani5874 I left Islam a long time ago but thx.
@@tajmahal6533 By God, Wise people from other religions enter Islam and foolish people leave it. Praise be to God for the blessing of Islam, and His blessing is sufficient for it.
@@tajmahal6533 I swear. Wise people from other religions enter Islam and foolish people leave it. Praise be to God for the blessing of Islam, and His blessing is sufficient for it.
@@firasitani5874 The Quran is filled with scientific errors and laws that today would be considered barbaric. If you read the Quran in an objective manner and leave your bias and fear aside you will come to the same conclusion as me.
Wrong question
Persons can have free will
Brains will have some physiological activity
Wow! Clarity.
More like this.
Less wallowing in nonsense, please.
The obsession with quantum is still concerning, but the right conclusion beats total nonsense.
Psychological process is the point, not quantum nonsense.
What was clear about this? The guy claimed "there is room" without even explaining how, while moving the goalposts of free will, and incorrectly referring to the "law of insufficient reason" (it's the principle of sufficient reason).
@@cloudoftime
My comments are relative to other guests in the series.
While he was stuck with unraveling the silly attempt to make a quantum connection, he still made some compelling points. I'd like to hear more...
You're question wasn't asked.
That's unfortunate.
I suspect he misspoke on your second point.
I'm going to watch again with your concerns in mind.
Thank you for the insights...
@@Christopher_Bachm So your comment on this video wasn't about this video? Seems odd to me, but if you say so...
I'm curious, what did you find compelling? I didn't really hear him explain anything.
@@cloudoftime
Google says you're both half right on terms -
Law should be principle.
Insufficient was correct.
@@Christopher_Bachm The PSR and the principal of insufficient reason are different things. Did you read the definitions?
X-Files
Earthling human beings (love) think that "free will" means freedom to appreciate this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it. And not be imprisoned and enslaved by the hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
But the hostile evangelical vampires (greed) think that "free will" means freedom to suck the joy out of life and devour the planet like a ravenous cancer. And freedom to imprison and enslave humans (love).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
🐨There's a lot to contemplate here.🤔If no one has free will then should societies throughout the world begin to reevaluate their country's judicial system?🤔And what a dilemma for those who hold faith in religion (specifically the Christian Bible) where an omnipotent God direct mankind to "choose" and reprimand for choosing wrong.🛐❓🙄🐨
Did you choose to birth yourself?
Did you “will” yourself into your mother’s womb and then “will” your body receiving nutrients for 9 months?
The answer is ‘no’ to all questions.
Thus, no person has a ‘free will’.
There is no free will, but Your example doesnt prove it.
You’ve just picked events that are beyond someone’s control. You might as well have said because there is gravity and we can’t fly that we have no free well. Your argument is invalid. This guy is onto something when he suggests that quantum theory creates an opportunity for possibilities and that a possibility has to be selected.
He's just moving the goal posts, as people typically do with this topic.
First, it's the _principle of sufficient reason_ he is referring to, not "the law of insufficient reason", as he stated. That's a different concept.
That said, changing "free will" to mean "prior reasons impact future choices" does not get freedom of the will. Those prior reasons are still acquired through no mechanism which was the free choice of the individual. And adding quantum uncertainty does not provide anymore freedom of choice. The choice is either made for reasons, which are values experienced by an individual, not chosen freely, or the choice is randomly forced by some quantum fluctuation; either way, the individual did not choose the formation of those values freely.
There is that magic word again - quantum. The word quantum is for smuggling in magical stuff, as champagne is to winemakers.
nice!
wouldn't you agree that, in this discussion, it is completely non-magical? or do you think it is possible to discuss whether the whole universe is deterministic without taking into account quantum stuff? :/
@@mnp3a i think you should explain what you mean
@@mnp3a we must de mystify quantum physics---E knew that---"many worlds"?---waves collapsing based on human viewing?---i don't buy it----this is tough though>>>is the world completely determined?---i'd say that nature is variable--very simply---so many moving parts they can get jumbled---that is not magic---magic occurs by design of things and events by pros---human manipulation for the purpose of fun and fooling.
Someone has to talk about it, and Henry isn't the one with obvious metaphysical prejudice.
Calling it magical stuff doesn't even address it; it's ideological handwaving at best.
There is no such thing as free will
I don't see how this argument allows room for free will in the sense that actually matters to people. People want to say "I could have done this but I chose to do that instead." The reality is that only one thing happened, and people tell themselves a story about how they "willed it" to happen that way. Every other possibility of how that situation might have gone down is just your brain simulating different outcomes given different circumstances, but there were only one set of circumstances and one outcome.
When you make a "plan" and things go according to it, you say "I made decisions that caused it to happen that way." In reality, your brain just did a simulation that happened to match up to the outcome. You have to just brute force some metaphysical component into the equation for free will to exist, and if you're willing to allow that as a possibility then you may as well brute force free will itself. It might make more sense to think of free will as a framework that people use to understand themselves and each other. It's a convenient tool to assign agency to ourselves and build social relationships on the assumption that others have the same agency. In that sense I guess it would be fair to call free will a psychological phenomenon, but that just sounds like another way to say that it's an illusion. When people talk about free will, they are suggesting that they can literally have an influence on the course of events in the universe, and unless they can step outside the universe, change it's arrangement, and step back in, then they don't have free will in the sense that people actually care about.
mr Stapp talks without saying anything.
The physical brain has no free will because it is bound by physical laws that drive its processes. It is the supernatural aware free soul that has free will dwelling temporarily inside the brain. A man without a soul is like an animal driven by natural instincts, not free and so not accountable.
Everything in the universe can be explained mechanistically. Everything. The only thing in question is why anything exists at all. Quantum mechanics is mechanistic and does not answer that primordial question.
The answer to that is consciousness
I have problems with apologetic views. You may be right. But you do not know this for sure. In the same way someone claiming that you are wrong and his/her point of view is right falls into the same category. Leaving all options open is the best way to handle experience and knowledge.
There are viable arguments on both sides. What is missing is the truth. And can tha trutht ever be "objective"?
Physicists don't understand the physics of the Universe prior to the formation of matter. That is enough to falsify your claim.
@@Samsara_is_dukkha Your first sentence is STILL a perfect paraphrase of my comment (even though you tried to modify it from your original statement, which was, "Physicists don't understand the physics of the universe prior to the Big Bang"). And, once again, how does paraphrasing my statement falsify my statement?
@@RolandHuettmann Two plus two always equals four. That may be an apologetic view, but it is irrefutably true in the same logical sense that cause/effect or action/reaction is true. Even if no one knows "WHY" things are as they are, we DO have a very good grasp on how they evolve over time. All I'm saying is that quantum physics is just as mechanistic as classical physics, and doesn't even begin to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. And no, for the moment, I don't think existence has to do with some nebulous idea called "mind," or "consciousness." But I would be happy to change my opinion if some scientist makes real and provable ground shaking discoveries about the nature of consciousness as it relates to reality.
How to you go from quantum mechanics to "psychological processes'? Probabilities are just another kind of determinism and has nothing to do with choice, as far as I can tell. We may have free will and may actually be making choices (though, I admit, the older I get, the more I'm skeptical) but I can't see how probabilistic outcomes can be construed as "free" as we can "determine" what the probable outcomes are, thus forcing us to various predetermined outcomes by definition .
The fact that people can't see the answer in the question itself is hilarious 2021 folks
Are you saying there is an answer or that it is unanswerable as stated?
Which is what exactly?