Patrick Haggard - Is Free Will an Illusion?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2021
- Some philosophers and scientists claim that because every event is determined by prior events, including every event in our brains, free will cannot be real. What are the arguments and evidence? Key is the Libet experiment, which seems to show that our brains have already made a decision-we see electrical activity-before we are conscious of making the decision.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on Free Will: bit.ly/3ocMkTF
Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist and current Deputy Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, where he is a professor in the department of Psychology.
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 think this is a problem of semantics. Every conversation about free will should begin with a definition.
Free Will - The notion that one is an individual center of responsibility.
Responsibility - A social deception or lie created to facilitate a stable society but has no real basis in reality.
@@TheDeepening718 wrong. Free will is the ability to focus ones mind thats it. Your definition implies some mystical supernatural nonsense.
Very true. I keep stating the same thing.
@@TheDeepening718 Thanks for that succint and logically accurate description. Well stated. 👍
amen!
I occasionally suffer from temporal lobe seizures. So, the results of the Libet experiment do not surprise me. When I have a temporal lobe seizure, I feel like I'm able to predict what is about to happen in the next second or two because I've somehow already experienced it. My "prediction" feels like a memory of a past event. And the illusion is totally convincing. During the seizure, which lasts a minute or two, every little detail of my experience, including senses and internal thoughts, feel as if they happened long before, and I'm recalling them like a memory just a second or two before they actually happen. Unfortunately, the seizure is also accompanied pain and discomfort that starts in my head and travels down through my digestive tract. But amazingly, I remain fully conscious and interactive. People around me have no idea what I'm experiencing. I've even had conversations with people while a seizure is in progress. I felt as if I was predicting (with 100% accuracy) how the conversation would evolve. But what is crucial to note is that I felt as if I still had free will, and yet I never deviate from my "memory" of the "prediction." That seems like good anecdotal evidence that free will is just an illusion.
Thanks for sharing your experience of frontal lobe seizure déjà vu. It's a very interesting phenomenon. As you suggest, it's most likely the result of "a memory-based illusion, originating from the erroneous activation of the epistemic feeling of familiarity." refer Déjà Experiences in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (Illman et al, 2012). However, I don't think this relates to the Libet results.
Follow on from this and in light of the research by Antonio Damasio (and others) indicating that feelings underpin subjective consciousness, I wonder whether your sense of "free will" during the seizures might indicate you were also experiencing an "expanded present". Here, the future acts as an "attractor" increasing the sense of connection to upcoming events and generating memories. I understand the episodic/working memory is involved. I've read research describing "memory of the future" and its effects on the subjective experience of time. I wonder, whether during your next experience of frontal lobe seizure déjà vu, you could resist the "attractor"? Akin to a technic used to induce lucid dreaming, ask yourself "am I dreaming?" If you answer "no!" then try to exercise some volition or begin to shape an intention. It might turn out that the illusion of "free will" is itself an illusion.
@@paulkeogh7077 When I'm having a temporal lobe seizure, I often attempt to steer myself towards a novel future just to see if I can, but it always feels like I can't. For example, I had a seizure while I was inside an unfamiliar building, so I decided to walk down a hallway that I had never seen before. But I also felt like I already made that choice and experienced the walk long ago, and now the experience was merely unfolding just as I remembered it. I felt as if I knew what I was about to see before I saw it, even though that's impossible since I've never been there before. I had memories of seeing unique paintings on the walls, and I remembered my thoughts about them, just before I actually saw them for the very first time. It's a very surreal experience to feel like your remembering your future. One could make the argument that I made a "free will" choice to walk down that unfamiliar hallway, or one could argue that my brain deterministically drove that behavior because of my past experiences and current state of mind predetermined me to seek out that novel experience. Regardless, my experience clearly shows that our concept of time is very malleable, and we should be skeptical of our implicit understanding of "free will."
I remember that happening to me as a child but I can only remember it happening once.
I still remember clearly how strange it felt, even though it was nearly 50 years ago!
I told my parents, who were there with me at the time. They told me it was just "deja vu". No pain or other symptoms with me during this episode but otherwise it was just as you described, even down to the conversation I was involved in.
@@GamesEngineer good to hear you’ve tried using your volition during episodes. Given every decision you take is against the background experience of déjà vu or déjà vécu (more accurately), it’s probably impossible to feel like you have free will. Still, you demonstrate it’s possible to use volition, only every choice feels predestined.
So he didn't freely choose to do this interview. He had to.
exactly..
My 25 year marrige proves that I never had free will to choose. Ha!
And you had no choice but to write that comment ;-)
No real free speech and no real free will. My God.
A wonderful scientific observation.
It may not be that he didn't have agency so to choose, rather that he never had agency to begin with, and science does not discuss agency -- because it has to do with freewill from a soul/spirit, rather than mere brain.
Is it just me or does this argument against freewill prove freewill? First we have a random task such as spontaneously twitching your hand. Isn't the obvious question going to be, who (or what) is creating the initial cascade of brain function to twitch the hand? The way he explains it, it makes perfect sense to me that processing the desire to twitch the hand, through the brain, in order to report the intention through language, would cause the report to follow the decision by, in this case, 800 milliseconds. It would seem, according to his explanation, that the process could equally reasonably be that our consciousness decides to do something, triggers the brain to begin the physical process, which sends chemical and electrical signals through the body, triggers the pathways for physical awareness, prepares our language centers, and then executes the action and the reporting at the same time ending up with a "decision to total execution time" of about 1 second.
No. The argument does not prove freewill. If your hand twitches before you’re aware of it, then the decision was made for you. Chaos is not free will any more than determinism.
You’re asked to signal your intent and it’s a surprise that your brain activity is slightly ahead in the process. The thought process must be built like a computer program from the ground up. It’s not until the program is finished that you can then signal its completion.
I've never thought of this, the fact they want you to signal when you want to move your arm or wrist, so your thinking about moving your arm or wrist before actually move it or you wouldn't be able to say now, but is that the point? Because if you want to do something if it's not second nature like breathing or blinking then you would have to think about first 🤷
@C Bar saying that though am convinced we do not have freewill because of the fact I can not choose to like the things I do not like and vice versa, I can not choose my desires, I don't even know why I desire the things I desire I just desire them.
This feels like drawing the wrong inference from the experiment. What if the physical action that indicates intent is just generally slower to manifest, so much so that it overshoots the time which indicates the subsequent "potential buildup" in the brain ? That would indicate agreement to the "Cartesian" view.
Yep, you're right. Their only acceptable interpretation of the experiment is the one that supports their worldview. It's classic confirmation bias, interpreting evidence to fit your model.
In Libet's experiment there was no physical action to indicate intent. The physical action was moving the hand. What the subjects were asked to do was mentally note, and subsequently report the point on the timer when they first became aware of the intent to move the hand. The experiment showed that the brain activity for the decision preceded the reported awareness of it by most of a second.
@C Bar I agree with your conclusion, but I think the more sensible interpretation consistent with the Cartesian model is to simply realize that "we" (i.e. our identification with the "self" as perceived as consciousness) is more than, and not identical with, our stream of conscious awareness. Mindfulness meditation, as you allude to above, is a way of tapping in to this realization. This would also add insight to the comment below by Gary M. Pollitt PhD regarding how we are able to physically react by way of physical movements in certain extreme situations -- like when a baseball is headed towards our face at 100 mph -- before our conscious mind is even aware of the danger. This view that we are more than our stream of conscious attention is in accord with the ancient mystical realizations of eastern meditation practices, and is reflected in what's commonly referred to in the West as the Perennial Philosophy.
@C Bar I don't see how that is relevant in this experiment. They are not really responding to anything, all they are seeing is a rotating clock indicator that's continuous and can be anticipated. They're not being prompted, the clock is only there to give them a reference for when they felt the urge to move their hand.
@C Bar They choose whether or not they will move their hand.
the real question is "is he ever getting closer to truth!??"
My thoughts exactly. He never seems to.
He won't lol
The truth is that there is nothing called The truth....Our Brian's have been conditioned from childhood about a supernatural power or God.
When we find out Religion is not suitable then as rationalists we strive for the absolute truth(which is just the brain wanting to replace the God with the absolute truth)
There is nothing called absolute truth.
@@Raj0520 Yo, I guess Bunch of you needs lies like junky, also freewill is Too Much also. Let do somethink that you guys will feel better if freewill is take it away from you. Ok 😎
@@godthecreatoryhvh681 bro what? Do you speak english
the Libet experiment showed that the mind is ready to do any act, not to specifically raise an arm. unless you're dead, you are always ready to make an act and produce those electrical impulse. but a specific readable impulse to raise your arm you cannot find. this neuropsychologist is so sure of himself.
I've watched a bunch of these, and I feel this is the first person who wasn't even worth interviewing.
They would be at LEAST ninety percent of the interviewees. 😜
Why?
Why
agreed
@Caramel Completely agree
We CANNOT consider reality to be deterministic AT ALL. Not until we can conclusively demonstrate that quantum physics is at it's core deterministic. From what we've seen so far, the moment and outcome when the wave function collapses is a probabilistic event.
The problem of scientists is that they have to interpret data.
And scientists are terrible at it.
This scientist has just destroyed whole justice system 🙄
I suspected it all along…. I’m not responsible for _anything_ I do.
“We the jury find the defendant ‘Not guilty by reason of Lack of Agency’ “.
@@MendTheWorld Jury doesn't have the right to make decisions as well 😁
This scientist is very silly.
Materialism is silly
Only analysing the data in terms of 'known physical structures' will never lead to a breakthrough. Blinkered thinking.
@@huwwiliams8426 even "known physical structure" can be misinterpreted 😁
The experiment mentioned in the video was interpreted very differently with many other scientists 😁
If you know a better method to get to an understanding of the world and to working theories that can be used to predict things, please share and demonstrate that whatever you propose actually works.
Everything has a cause, even your consciousness. We have watched ourselves doing things for so long, that we believe we are the cause.
We can 'choose' what we eat. But we certainly don't have a choice in having to eat if we want to survive.
@@silvercloud1641 "If we wanna survive" sounds like a free choice to me.
Some people choose to die by means of starvation rather then survive.
Some politicians do 😁
This scientist is ridiculous!
@@giorgirazmadze5102 Isn't "If we want to survive" not a choice but an end?
@@scoreprinceton No, if I choose to kill myself
@@giorgirazmadze5102 Sure. But not much of a "choice" for life that's 'programmed' to live. For those that live, how is eating a choice?
Excellent talk. Thank you, Patrick Haggard.
How much time passes between the person feeling the conscious intention to move wrist / arm and indicating or reporting it on the clock, in the way that the Libet experiment was done?
The Libet experiments prove free will via "free will not". This man is mistaken. There is the ability to cancel any action the brain could carry out and there is no brain function that produces this action, as it's only in a "readiness potential state", the brain hasn't activated yet. So, how are you cancelling said action before it happens when your brain has yet to activate?... free will.
If Libet told the experimental participants beforehand that they should make a movement with their wrist whenever they chose to do so, then of course the decision of the participant to agree to do so came before the movement itself, and had to have been the product of a prior conscious mental act.
Excellent point.
An interesting pivot from his last point (on the supposed consequences of neuro for society and the legal system), is Prof. Haggards´ prescriptive intuition. At that point he has all ready left his chair, so to speak. As he attributed Hume as saying. That is to say, that as soon as he goes on to discuss the implications of these findings, he seems to discuss normative judgements that all are entangled with the basic folk intuition of free will.
Is there any weight to conceiving such a dissonance as motivating a suspension of judgement in whether one of the positions should be rejected?
The dissonance being (given these Libet experiments -or others- are convincing) between neurobiological findings, pointing towards a rejecting of free will; And the fundamental intuition that our very actions are caused on our own accord (or other moral pregnant concepts like blame, claims, wrongness, duty, and so on). Our autonomy as antecedent our actions.
After all, you don´t even need to accept these claims to be a proponent of a metaphysical position which rejects free will.
I do agree these findings in any case seem to raise foundational questions for normative practice in society. Maybe. Maybe we would have to rethink our whole justice system. The Norwegian justice system, for instance, is founded on the principle of rehabilitation over retribution. This seems like an example of the sort of line our societies maybe would have to implement, drawing a line from these conclusions.
This, I think, would be positive regardless of whether free will is real or not.
Except, maybe not so. If we suffer bad faith, as a consequence of disbelieving free will, as Sartre would have it. In case this is compatible with empirical studies of psychology or whatever relevant (if someone knows, I´d be grateful for any readings) for determining whether disbelieving free will correlates with immorality or thoughts, emotions or habits that would seem to instantiate them.
I do think these points all are contained to some degree in what is said in the above interview, but I wanted to extend on them somewhat.
In any case I still hold a button on free will. This is because I find it hard to conceive of morals without agency. I find it hard to conceive of agency with out free will. I find it hard to conceive of people in society without morals. But I am open for either of these intuitions should be moderated. Just not by how much, and by virtue of what?
I think agency is a useful story that we should keep as such. However, accepting the fact that free will as we perceive it is an illusion is an inevitability and imperative in objective areas of life/society. The Norwegians f.e. probably don't suffer a society coroding existential crisis from a justice system that acknowledges the irrationally behind retribution over rehabilitation.
@@alancollins8294 Yeah, thanks, Alan! So then I gather that you think the Norwegian justice system in founded on implicitly rejecting some classical common cases of responsibility. Which in turn implies rejecting the conception of free will in a juridical sense. And that this doesn´t seem to have grave consequences. Even though this rejection may be a dissonance in conjunction with the belief in free will. If so, I think that might be true. That is, that this doesn´t have grave consequences. At least in some obvious, immediate moral or psychological sense.
(A possibility of responsibility being perceived as misattributed to our actions, as a consequence of our disbelieving free will, I *do* think is problematic. This is because of me believing in morals and that "ought" requires agency and the possibility of doing otherwise)
However (and this may or may not apply to your point), I´d still maintain that a lot of normative judgements seem to somehow short circuit without the presupposition of free will. I believe this applies also to the very judgements Haggards made in the above video.
Any thoughts on this? I think maybe that I´m detect that you are consciously trying to avoid this trap by using the words "useful" instead of something like "ought" or "should" in your reply above. It would be interesting to hear in what sense you conceive of "useful"? Is this conception stripped of any sense of "ought"/"should"/or any ethical dimension? And if/if not- does it even matter?
@@olemarkusnordhagen6988 Yes, I have no choice but to threaten responsibility by rejecting FW but I want to preserve it's function, which is ultimately to manage behavior, as best I can.
A person that feels responsible is more likely to behave morally which is useful in the sense that it is pro-social and conducive to the goal of well being humans generally strive for. Irrespective of whether or not determinism is true it has a purpose.
Shame, Regret etc. serve similar functions. They decrease the likelihood of engagement in behavior that causes them, which is "useful" since this behavior tends to be anti-social.
These notions contain implications that don't reflect reality accurately since they all hinge on FW. But they are part of the story that we live our lives in and use to manage our actions.
You can think of it as a desktop. It's an interface, hiding what's actually going on underneath and packaging it in a digestible narrative that doesn't have to be accurate to be useful.
I reject the notion that my feelings of agency reflect reality but my belief in my agency has _real_ consequences. Just like you can delete real files by navigating the illusory computer interface.
Sometimes it is more useful to focus on the narrative part but sometimes it's not, f.e. in the justice system, where FW, the focus on the illusion, causes unnecessary suffering.
It's possible to acknowledge the illusory nature of the narratives behind our lives without diminishing the experience. Just like knowing about an optical illusion doesn't change your perception of movement where there is none. I know I have no FW but I still experience the illusion of agency just as strong. And whenever beneficial I can peek behind the curtain to f.e. alleviate pressure or mitigate destructive feelings of regret.
I'm not sure what to do with oughts. I think they simply emerge from defining goals and assigning values. But all I know for sure is that responsibility is sometimes useful and that agency is clearly an illusion.
If only Robert would issue the necessary caveat at the beginning... when he says "consciousness" he's actually talking about "self consciousness". For consciousness, alone, simply implies mindedness, or intelligence, which all animals have, and probably plants too, (as trees for example, do communicate with each other).
So, by your definition a computer is conscious. It has intelligence, it communicates. What about a virus? It also does both. Then if a virus, what about the sun? It seems you also need to add some caveats on what mindedness, intelligence and communication entails.
@@hckytwn3192 "So, by your definition a computer is conscious."
You just unconsciously put your finger on the problem. Robert won't define either "free will" or "consciousness" yet he does show after show about them.
Any reference to consciousness or awareness is instantly transformed, by our egos, into human terms but clearly there are forms of awareness that are not human in nature. Is an atom more aware than a quark? Is a protein more aware than a water molecule?
You cannot answer those questions without invoking human prejudice and presumption.
@@hckytwn3192 - Heinlein's book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress explored the concept of a conscious computer to good effect. It has some nice social commentary there. My favorite is where the main character explains jokes to the computer, separated into two columns, always funny, and funny once.
Yes, one would need to add a few more caveats to what is and is not conscious. I no more think of my computer as conscious, than I do my car. They're not alive. The same goes for the sun. Earth, on the other hand, has life on it, and its all interconnected, so Gaia may in fact be real.
Re. viruses, it piggybacks on living things, so it probably could be considered conscious, but only just barely.
I agree! So many people conflate self- or meta-consciousness with the broader consciousness your describe. Bernardo Kastrup and others do distinguish between these and highlight the confusion created if you don’t.
Can anyone tell me the name of the soundtrack Closer to Truth episodes begin with?
A free will would mean never having to say your sorry.
It could be that if the brain is something like an antenna that initial brain activity is the brain interpreting the impulse then the body makes the appropriate action. So in that space of interpretation there could be time to decide not to act, which seems consistent with free will.
I'm not sure I understand. if the impulse to act is received by the brain, then the brain isn\t making any decisions. But they you say there is time to decide not to act, so now the brain is making decisions? It's not clear to me what you are describing.
@@simonhibbs887 the manifestation of the action hadn't become reality , it could be suspended a moment while other possibilities become reality in the surrounding environment. And maybe that has some influence, it is interesting to think about. In that maybe we're bound to certain way of thinking and that reduces the possibilities of thoughts that are actually manifested in experienced reality.
From where the signal to antenna comes from?
@@jareknowak8712 It is a manifestation of the universal mind.
@@tleevz1 You mean universal mind - out of body mind?
Thoughts and feelings forms the character.
Environment forms thoughts and feelings.
The Libet experiment and the conclusion that it demonstrates humans lack free will is extremely problematic. I am told that even Daniel Dennett has criticized it. So to hear this guy talk about it in this way, that the Libet experiment "clearly" shows humans lack free will, as if it were a foregone conclusion, is in my opinion, really stupid. Surely he must be aware of these criticisms as well as the modified Libet experiments which seem to require a different interpretation of what is occurring. Like, c'mon man...really??
Life is Eternal, Will is Eternal,
and Mr. Kuhn is obsessed with brains.
@Jerry Polverino Life is eternal. It continues. You can't comprehend life forever, because all you're introduced to from birth is the fading away of things and death all around, and your own aging.. this doesn't mean life isn't eternal, even if you're not here or I'm not here it's still happening. It's always happening.
This is what always trips me out about Atheists... and I'm not coming from a particularly religious stance here... but just because someone can't comprehend something in their finite mind, doesn't mean it isn't so.
In fact, the fact that it can be comprehended at all, I believe says more.
ARE WE JOLING.
WITH JUST TWO PEOPLE YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL.
Who, or WHAT, exactly, is asking the question? That's the real question.
Yes this is an important point often overlooked.
Instead of robotic reflex actions, I wonder if a person was asked what was his favorite ice cream, or what’s his favorite book ? Would there be any delay between action and response ?
This is woo woo science. Of course there is a delay, consciousness needs time to be loaded.
@@user-hh2is9kg9j also they are testing reflexes, so your more likely to get a mechanistic response - only within the confines of the experiment. Its already been established or hundreds of years that the brain can cause involuntary body movements such as in epilepsy. But there is a detached level of awareness of the body that inhibits physical drives . Raising ones arms is not the same thing as making complex art and innovations
@@user-hh2is9kg9j Consciousness needs to be "loaded"? What? That sounds plenty "woo woo" to me.
@@danzigvssartre Don't you think it requires time to process computation?
@@MrSanford65 I agree.
It seems as though Libit was testing a free will urge for compulsive behavior, rather than other generally accepted types of free will. Perhaps the word free will needs a better definition.
If someone decided to lose weight over the next six months by sheer devotion and tenacity, how does the Libet model detract from say a Cartesian version of free will in this example? The Libet model might be accurate for short-term or immediate actions but it does not account for long-term goals or will to act with willful intention.
There is a good argument to be made about where random thoughts come from and how those influence our "free will" decisions.
I do not believe that Patrick Haggard actually believes the argument he is making. If you removed responsibility for people's actions, many people would behave very differently in society. That would be an intentional choice based upon the long-term incentives.
"I do not believe that Patrick Haggard actually believes the argument he is making" So you think you know better about what Haggard believes? That's rather presumptuous of you, isn't it?
@@mariof5101 it's an academic exercise of pushing ideas around so as to better flesh out the origins and basic foundations.
I have promoted an idea as a way to get the other person to be more rigorous about what they think or believe. My professors did it every single day of class.
Even if the mind was completely independent of the brain and body, you still have to make decisions based on nothing that came before to consider free will a thing. But that is just completely impratical and pointless. And also, can we just call it "will" instead of "free will". Will already implies "free" in and of itself. We can't keep asking egoic questions and expect non-egoic answers. Instead, maybe ask what is "will"?
Thoughts and experiences are consequences of prior choices, so will begins free and becomes increasingly bound by misuse of free will.
So if an animal or human feel pain does it make a different than a robot that mimics the brain completely but couldn't feel anything and is not conscious?!
Could Consciousness affect how the brain decides and reacts to the environment? In the other word consciousness reverse back to the brain system?!
Yeah,allright but time does not exist.
So if everything happens now,then every action we take is indeed a decision of our free will.
Free will is an illusion and the Self is also an illusion.
We are responsible for our actions, because bodies act, and an individual body can be identified as the one having taken part in action. If I punch you in the face, then it wasn't another person who did it. To question if I had any control to punch you in the face is another question.
If I need to replace a part in my car, but I haven't been able to save enough money each month to purchase that part, and I smoke cigarettes, and spend X dollars a month on them that is greater to or equal to the price of the part. If I sit down and write out my expenses and decide that if I quite smoking that I can then I can purchase that part; Have I exercised my free will? No doubt that my will is a product of my brain, but my consciousness consists of parts of my brain that are involved with memory, contemplating the future, and logic, so I can make adjustments to my actions in the present to adjust my future.
That is a clear explaination.
That experiment sounds funny, first of all you are telling me that a rotating clock can record events happening in milliseconds, I am wondering where did you get that fascinating clock? Second, the whole experiment relays on the participants to report their conscious thoughts subjectively, but that's the things you are studying, Kidding
Block universe negates free will anyway. No need of this experiment really.
@Simon Simon yeah, it's very hard to decide to do something, AND at the same time monitor the time when you decided to do it. Also, people were going to lift their hands anyway, so it makes sense that the brain prepares to do it, and then you do it. Don't know, the conclusions from the experiment seem a bit too much from the data shown.
No. The cone of quantum possibility is directly reliant on free will. There's a difference between offering water, and pumping water involuntarily. The beauty and responsibility of free will allows for alteration of outdated traditions
#rotaercmai
I recently read in Quantum Approaches to Consciousness by Harold Atmanspacher (refer online, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) “Stapp (1999) argues that the mental effort, i.e. attention devoted to… intentional acts, can protract the lifetime of the neuronal assemblies that represent the templates for action.” Maybe it’s no surprise that believing in the illusion of free will diminishes intentionality and facilitates a default “deterministic” mode of action.
Is there a difference between freewill and will? The fact I can't choose to like the taste of vinegar, it tastes nasty and smells like smelly feet, that makes me think my will is not free.
A bad individual for a scientist gives that noble institution of science a bad name.
however, the conscious experience that the person reports is a psychological claim, it is not awareness-consciosuness. Maybe the brain's signal is an image within consciousness. Consciousness, the brain, and then the person's conscious experience.
This guy's closer to the truth definitely is an illusion.
The title of this video is incorrect:
It should be titled “Involuntary vs. Voluntary action.” Or something like that. Meaning are our action made voluntary or involuntary at the time they are made.
Whenever I here “Free Will” in a scientific term I think of: Are a person’s acts or decisions predestined, forced, manipulated, or the such; or does that person have the ability to act or make a decision free from outside forces?
Free Will is one’s ability to act or make a decision without the interference of someone or something else.
This experiment can be reversed to see if the gap of 800msec caused by delay in reporting of the feeling of 'raising ones arm' being felt and reported.
The illusion of free will is an illusion itself. Is it really YOU who is the thinker of your thoughts or the one who decides what you ultimately want to do the moment you do it? Can you predict what you will think next? Did you yourself create the feelings and thoughts you have right now after reading this, whether you agree with me or not?
Is the illusion of the illusion also an illusion? 🙃 Sorry, just having fun with your first sentence. The rest of what you wrote is spot on. Of course you/we can't control our thoughts; they're just biological processes following some set of physical laws.
@Danny HollandMaybe I should phrase it differently: We don't even have an illusion of free will because the concept of free will isn't compatible with our experience. My thoughts, feelings, wants and intentions just appear in consciousness, how could I create them? And with "I", I'm talking about my conscious experience.
@Danny Holland Yes, the illusion requires the illuded (I don't think that's a word but it'll suffice). Even though I objectively know that free will is an illusion, I conduct my life as if it isn't; kind of like people's reactions while using VR headsets.
@Danny Holland No. Based on all observations to date, an object dropped on earth will accelerate towards earth. That seems to be a physical law of our known universe.
A person could go through life believing in Santa Claus with no consequences. A lot of people believe in all kinds of concepts based on feelings rather than rigorous evaluation of facts and they seem to be doing just fine. So I don't see any parallel to the known force of gravity.
@Danny Holland I see we have completely different intuitions about this because I cant even imagine what my experience would be like if I actually had free will in the way I would define free will.
Everyone may not be unique but has own identity
If we don't know the future, if we can't change it, what does it matter?
It is possible to calculate and predict the future. We just need more information. I predict if I throw a rock, I could calculate where it would land.
Decisions are based on intuition and foresight of possible future events, thousands of times a day.
People are deluded about could have done otherwise.
It's sad the debate goes on and on rather than philosphers just pointing that out and moving on to how things should change as a consequence.
If free will is an illusion... then this is not a topic one can talk about... freely. Zoinks! Bonk!!
Free will for we humans is folly. We live in a society, and rely on it to survive. Free will to do what you like, without law and order or common decency will see you ending up as a hunter gather, on the edge of the wilderness. We do not have free will, even if we were of tribes in the wilderness.
I agree with the conclusion of the experiment, but don't think it is warranted based on how it was performed. Mobilizing resources to be ready for an upcoming action does not prove anything about cause.
@Crow Magnum This man completely ignored the most important part of the Libet experiments. The Libet experiments prove free will via "free will not". There is the ability to cancel any action the brain could carry out and there is no brain function that produces this action, as it's only in a "readiness potential state", the brain hasn't activated yet. So, how are you cancelling said action before it happens when your brain has yet to activate?... free will.
On the statement of retrospective explanation.
Who is making such an explanation. If I am not making choices, but facts prior to my seeming intention are instead, then who is making the judgments of explanation for the effect? It can't be me because again it isn't I who am making judgements at all.
This, like all other materialist interpretations, seems to make the self non-existent or superfluous.
Nice video.. But 1 important thing that i want to understand is how would these things work under physics theory of time like no present but only past & future and another theory of past & present but no future..
Then how does these concepts of time can exist within the functioning of our brain and also if time doesn't exist and is an illusion then how come we decide on future action based on past & present?
Absence of free will isn't a problem in legal system as whatever decisions we take after a crime also will be out of our no free will based on decision on the protection of our lives at large and the best thing for our species..Crime has happened since long and will continue to.. basically coz it serves self interest and disregard for other's interest and in reaction to that we as society tries to put the criminals away or even put them to death in case we feel there's a threat to our lives from them
Another thing i would wonder is the presence of WBC and other protective mechanisms within our bodies which kind of makes clear that the bodies are meant to live and fight for a long time and in general after long period of functioning the cell generation & genetic copying & organs all starts to get affected and their performance starts deteriorating..and then we die.. (in a normal way of life..) ... So it kind of shows how important the self protection and self advantage means to the overall body which includes the brain and most of the decision-making may involve that aspect as the core which appears to us as a conscious or well-thought or free-will decision
no... free will is consciousness inherently
Yes
One intention is the product of one living conscious mind and never of one biological brain.
Eg. B doesn't know if A is hypocritical or sincere in helping him in doing something.
Intention in one conscious mind is the starting point(t = 0) of any action (t > 0) or will( unless one excludes will from action or excluded the origin t = 0) and is not registered or has any connection with brain.
Secular neuroscientists got it wrong in this case because they ontologically neglected the existence of living consciousness.
How does a person who truly believes free will does not exist actually live their life?
Moment by moment
Belif, consciousness has got to be result of conscious activity along with many others beliefs and theories is just descibing the child not knowing who the other parent is. You can know something, but not all of it
Both Free Will and Awareness exist as ONE ENTITY . One can not exist without the other. If you have no Awareness, then your WILL to choose can not exist because you are not even aware what choices to pick... and if your WILL does not exist, then the will to focus and be aware can not also exist. This is OBSERVABLE REALITY through your own personal experience.
Many misguided science people think that "Awareness with Free Will" is an illusion simply because it can not be identified by any means - a common error that science makes being bound by Infalsifiability Principle that they imposed on themselves. Just because "Awareness with Free Will" is invisible as a non-physical Supernatural Entity, not part of this natural world, does not mean it does not exist.
...and the proof that Awareness is not natural but supernatural, not part of the physical world, is because it is free to make choices on its own, even free to believe in the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with Physics.
As science understands, in the Physical World governed by natural laws, FREEDOMS can not exist which means physical matter are not free to make choices on its own because it is the physical laws that controls.... but our Awareness is free and can make choices on its own, proving that it is not part of this physical world. I believe that our Awareness is our immortal soul that did not come from this Universe but originated from the Supernatural Aware SOURCE or God.
I will repeat to be clear, both Awareness and the WILL exist together as ONE ENTITY that I believe is our free immortal aware soul. It is free because it is not part of physical matter that, unfortunately, many godless ones define their whole being to be because they were corrupted by wannabe geniuses with this Infalsifiability Principle that limits science to material inquiry... When knowledge is being limited, ugly things can happen that may cause one to fall over the cliff. So, be very careful of what you swallow coming from these wannabe science geniuses.
The unfalsifiability fallacy comes from philosophy, not science. Good scientists just have the sense to instinctively avoid logical fallacies in their quest for understanding.
If somebody claims he can fly, but only when nobody is looking, should we take him at his word? I can't _prove_ he can't fly under those conditions but I don't think he can. Are you asserting that I've been "corrupted by wannabe geniuses" for doubting his aeronautical abilities?
@@mikel5582 Philosophy is science, fyi..... Any pursuit of knowledge was considered science, originally...
... however, the Infalsifiability garbage had been imposed on science as one of its fundamental principles that reduced science into material idiocy, corrupting the true meaning of science... this was why the dummies can not anymore call Philosophy as science because Philosophy has a broader scope.
Fallacies are NOT logical for your information. The term "logical fallacies" is actually an oxymoron. Being logical follows strictly sound reasoning or good valid arguments, NOT FALSEHOODS.
Whether you doubt that he can fly a plane, or fly a kite, or not is NOT relevant to the meaning of your life. That point that you brought up here has no value.
If you are either staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama turning your brains into funny BANANA, or thinking that your consciousness originated from an unconscious rocks/void that turned conscious after being blown away by Big Bang to eternity, then you are definitely corrupted by wannabe science geniuses.
@@evaadam3635 Eva, I think you have several misunderstandings; even in basic terminology.
Firstly, the word philosophy predates the word science by a long shot. You have it backwards; it's not that all philosophy is science, it's that all science is philosophy.
Second, the term logical fallacy is used to point out arguments that are logically inconsistent. The fact that it's oxymororonic is intentional. My goodness, this is freshman level philosophy.
Free Will is a Christian cop out for God. "Well, you did it, after I gave you Ten Commandments. You hang." Childish. There's no Free Will because there's "decision". Previous experience acting on the current situation produces a response.
*Crypto is like water, it flows up the currents,or the down currents, it settles in tranquile lakes , or fiercely rains down cliffs forming a spectacular waterfalls,at the end of a rainbow. So, think crypto as water, my friend, and hydrate*
*Mondern man is not the man who goes off to discover himself, his secrets, and his hidden truth; he is a man who tries to invest himself in something beneficial for the future.*
@Jamie Guzman I will advice you learn the candle sticks and select your crypto properly and decide which one to buy and hold .Maybe 4yrs.
Great stuffs !!!
I need to figure out how to get XDC.. but man.. i will advice you go on with investment with a good professional...💯👍
Please how can I get my XDC, and get more $BTC... I've heard so much about that...
800 miliseconds before coitus the Devil's laughter is heard.
His little experiment doesn't show much imo, it shows that the brain is preparing itself for something we consciously know we are going to do. Neither did he say if there were "false triggers".
Actually it shows a lot, but it's the opposite of what he's claiming, for reasons he doesn't even mention. Let me explain.
The Libet experiments prove free will via "free will not". There is the ability to cancel any action the brain could carry out and there is no brain function that produces this action, as it's only in a "readiness potential state", the brain hasn't activated yet. So, how are you cancelling said action before it happens when your brain has yet to activate?... free will.
No human being has ever felt as though they actually have free will so there is no need to propose an illusion. We've heard the words, we know what it means, some people may casually insist they made a free choice... but that all falls apart immediately upon even a cursory inspection. Free will isn't an illusion, more like a fairytale. We've never been inside the illusion, just fantasize about it from outside. The whole idea, that you could choose to do something other than that which you did choose, isn't just untrue - it's impossible. Neither you nor any God you can conceive of can ever make a choice unconstrained by things like knowledge. Are you free to choose Cyan as your favorite color if you've never seen or heard of it? You are always limited to your knowledge, so no free will on that side of the coin. When taken to the natural extreme, having ALL knowledge, free will still vanishes since now you know all decisions that ever will be made. There has never been a coherent framework for freewill. It's a silly human pondering like "what happened before time began?" They look like real questions that should have an answer but close inspection reveals it's just a failure of logic.
Artist create in free will daily, so does story tellers. Look around you, “new things” are created in free will, including mixing cyan with other colors to make new colors.
So, who decided to move the arm?
In my experience it was his wife's decision.
Very good and clear discussion. I wonder whats the point of being conscious, couldn't we just go round like robots doing what we do if consciousness doesn't do anything?
Technically yes
No, it isn't.
Would our behavior be different if we had no consciousness? Yes, of course.
Take any of your conscious "outbursts", and apply counterfactual reasoning to it:
"If some thing is there, but it has zero casual contribution, then its absence or presence solves nothing"
But as we can see, we may not be aware of what is going on sometimes, or on the contrary, we may be focused on something and realize the meaning of certain things.
For the sake of simplicity, let's harmonize the terms:
Introspection is the function of thinking to reflect internal processes.
Consciousness is the ability of thinking to concentrate on something, and to distinguish external things for meaning.
It follows that "consciousness is a mental function of the brain."
If I am not conscious of my beliefs/behaviors/habits, etc. it means that I have no awareness of myself, and therefore I cannot think whether I am doing the right thing at any given moment in my life. If we had no conscious reasons, we would be like lower animals that have no self-awareness.
Now let's look at the mental reason:
Let's say I was taught from childhood to hang up my chair after I stand up, this created in me the mental belief that the chair should be pushed in, and here I am doing it to this day, even unconsciously, but if I am asked why I am doing it, I will know my reason for my actions as I have realized it before.
Again, back to counterfactual reasoning:
If I didn't have my mental state (the conviction to rock the chair), would I hang it out the same way? Of course not, because I don't have that knowledge and idea in my head.
Yes it is. However the free will illusion is real & necessary.
Sometimes illusion is free will.
This proves that idiots come in all shapes, sizes and disciplines
I have free will. Quantum physics is merely probabilistic. I can draw infinite scribble lines that have no predetermined path.
a question.
a criminal commits a crime and is caught, taken to court but denies guilt even after shown the evidence.
everyone knows the criminal is guilty (including the criminal themselves) but the accused chooses to lie and mislead.
is the "lie" an act of free will ?
No. Is a act pre-written to create life in wrong ways. For in future that man knows the irrefutable right way to live. true meaning of life. Truth.
@@nelsonpinheiro1148 ok then...if the "criminal" admits that he is guilty then is that not an act of free will ?
@@petersayers4843 the same. Act pre-written for that criminal goes to jail. Pay what he done... Summarize we are merely characters in line words for the great final.
Unless of course, time is happening in reverse.
Time actually is not "happening" at all. The flow of time is an illusion.
The possibility that time isn't real or isn't a one way street would create a lack of consistency. Yet, we don't see that anywhere.
Things have to be pretty consistent for anything too work.
There are two consciousnesses in me. One knows what is before me (future) and what is behind me (past). This One is the Doer, the Knower, the Cause. It also resides in all humans and in all things and is the only Undivided Reality. The other consciousness thinks it is the knower, the doer, the haver. But it only follows and claims a story line, which it borrows from the other Consciousness - like the so-called moon-light which is really "borrowed Light " from the Sun. There is no such thing as moon-light. This consciousness is also like a dreamt character - an illusion. It is unreal (as a claimer of independent self-existence) yet what is seen and heard is real - except that the seer and hearer is misidentified. What the moonlight lights up is real, but the Light comes from the Sun and not the moon. The unreal consciousness seemingly searches for the truth (as to how come it is real?) but it is blinded by insisting on its own independent self-existence. To find the truth, it must seemingly agree to cease its own claims of self-existence, whereby it awakens as the Real Consciousness - all light comes from the sun. One cannot look at the sun. One cannot know the Real Consciousness. It is simple there!
Brain activity before action. If we ad that we are a conscious energy, bigger then matter, would that be, energy, brain, action. Our brain we know it can be manipulated. How about our energy. I know It can be also but we have the freewill to fight against it, that is a personal journey.
Might be wrong about it.
What if the subconscious has decided to do something but the conscious then decides against it?
That happens all the time. Try his experiment yourself but instead of moving your hand decide not to.
The society might be concerned with morals and morality instead of consciousness/free will and hence the dichotomy !
At our core we are governed by quantum mechanics so we are in a super position that is actulized similarly to Schrodinger's cat.
I think free will is a choice from infinite possibilities but high probabilities. We never experience our other choices in this branch of the multiverse. Basically we do everything possible at all times.
Just my free will compelling me to try to put my thoughts on the subject in a way that can be understood.
What makes you think possibilities are infinite and not finite? Also, are you postulating more than one metaphysical possible world? How do you justify that without assuming it first? It sounds like you are saying there are many versions of us but how can that be the case? Those possible arrangements would not be us, they would be someone else.
@@CMVMic if you do any research on the concept of a multiverse it postulates it may branch off into infinity. Meaning all possible outcomes and choices are executed.
If your objection is the use of the word infinity fine. Truth is no one knows if our universe or if time is infinite. Certainly if time is infinite you and I will be having this very exchange an infinite amount of times and an infinite amount of veriations.
Infinity is a pretty hard and abstract concept that is not something intuitive to us. It takes a bunch of research and thinking and still it's not quite fully understandable. An example being an infinite subset of a "larger" infinity. It's like wha!?
@@sethmossberg1946 Yeah, I used to hold to that view. My problem lies with time as an actual infinite, but not eternity per se. The first has to do with temporality, unlike the latter which has to do with causality i.e. eternal = unchanging.
I don't think an actual infinite is possible, I do, however, think it can exist as a potential. It seems to be an abstract idea. Time and its nature is difficult to define. It may be an emergent property due to motion between fundamental parts of a monistic substance. It seems very unlikely that an actual infinite doesn't run to an infinite regress problem. If time began and never ends, then it can be argued an infinite temporal count can go on forever i.e. from 1 and never stop, just as the the same can be said if time never began but ends, as we can count from -1 backwards. However, it is hard to see how one can reach any moment in time, if time, and thus the past can be infinite.
While, I can sympathize with the postulation of a multiverse (all metaphysical possible universes existing simultaneously), it seems to simply be an argument from ignorance. It sounds like we are saying there are mutliple universes that make up a Global universe. I personally lean towards a static causal loop (an eternal recurrence) where there is only one possible metaphysical Universe which necessarily exists. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying your postulation is wrong though, it may be possible for all we know.
My main point, however, is that if other versions of us make different choices, then those versions are not really us. They are different persons. What exactly would make them us? Maybe your argument isnt that they are indistguishable from us, but have made different choices or had different experiences or biological makeups. It does help to establish a good counterfactual conditional statement, but propositional truths, do not necessarilty establish metaphysical truths.
There is also something problematic with the notion of infinity, that I cant seem to put my finger on. It seems to be a mathematical fiction, a propositional possibility that may never truly be applied to metaphysical reality. If change was infinite in the past, how can we reach this current moment/state of affairs.
I tend to favor a revised version of Spinoza's Substance Monism. There is only one necessary substance (Universe), with only a finite number of logical possibilities, where necessity should be understood de re, not de dicto.
Tbh, I am still agnostic on infinite time/causality. However, my question to you. If time or better yet, causality was a loop, influenced by motion, would you think an infinite regress/bootstrap argument could be levied against it?
even the way society interprets the free will is also destined.. the people who think they have the free will are destined not to be awaken to the realisation that free will is an illusion. So humans are destined to be punished on the basis of their illusory free will.. and this goes on and on.. as I was destined to write this while I am aware that I am doing it which is destined too.. thank you..( I finishing my statement here is also destined.. sfasf jkj jf oiuoiue kjasd weoriu kj slsl 38239 09kjdsf
just wanted to add.. that after I commented and left.. I forgot that free will is an illusion.. so I was destined to forget.. now when I was destined to remember .. I came and wrote this comment.. so in conclusion you are destined to realise or forget if free will is an illusion, you will be part of this paradoxical reality till your body exists.. beyond which all questions will have no meaning..
The illusion is intelligence. Not consciousness, intelligence. If intelligence is will with purpose, and consciousness is will without purpose, or will without intelligence; then which is more "true"?
It may be that both are lanes on a wider highway 🛣. Perhaps religion, philosophy, science, music, art, etc. are the artifacts of moving between these lanes. The ability to move between lanes is will. Free will? Free will is the illusion that intelligence generates when it "discovers" the will.
If electron kinetic energy is required to power brain activity, then the hand of god may be necessary for a brain space-time one to space-time two - with time defined as a monotonically changing sequence, where no term is either less than for non-negative numbers, or greater than, the previous one - , 'phase transition' between insufficient kinetic and comparatively stationary implying potential energy - who's arbitrarily selected probabilities can be calculated from a complex number valued function satisfying the conservation of energy assuming Hamiltonian composite Schrodinger equation - , where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle governs their measurement relationship - less position measurement error is accompanied by more momentum measurement error - , if the brain is subject to the conservation of energy law : total energy is constant, implying that a potential energy decrease, corresponds to a kinetic energy increase and also, that the universe is not the outcome of a physical process.
Descartes thought of the soul more like Platou, while Aristotle thought of it more like the biological nature. I the Bible we have both these views. Jesus asked the people if they won the whole world, what use did they have of it, if they lost their souls. He wanted to save their souls for eternity and give them eternal life. This is more like the platonic view of the soul.
The messianic Jew David H. Stern translated the whole Bible into “Complete Jewish Bible”. In the forward he said that the philosophical underpinning of the Western World was centered on Athens and Jerusalem. The Greeks developed philosophy in a rational manner, but largely at the expense of separating heart and head. Many psychological and spiritual ills stem from this separation (one can also speak of this separation as between body and soul). Jews kept head and heart, body and soul, together, and the Bible reflects this unitary view of human nature.
When I read the Bible I realise that the Jews also had such a problem, because their sin separated them from God and it made them sick. But with one offer for sin, Jesus took away the sin once and for all. On this foundation we become reconciled with God. In this way we get harmony between heart and head, body and soul.
The subconscious mind is deciding before conscious mind... Doesn't have to be the brain
00:40: "In part free will has to be an illusion, because modern brain science has great difficulty in dealing with free will like we think about it in our every day life."
But how we think about free will in our every day life is in accordance with how we experience it. If the neuro-scientists have difficulty in dealing with it, then the problem is on their side. Their problem is like that of religious and moral teachers that want the humans and the world to obey them and their theories. If not, what is wrong then? By free will Galileo chose to use a binocular to show that they were wrong. Then they wanted to restrict his free will. We don’t even need binoculars to show that we have free will in our every day life, it is much easier. In our every day life we experience that we have free will, when they don’t accept that, they are not scientists, but maybe a kind of moral teachers that want to get power over us in a way. It is the idea that we don’t have free will, so that they can get power over us, that is an illusion.
Illusion is a sensory deception or a misconception that occurs spontaneously and is difficult to correct. In a figurative sense, it can mean unrealistic hope.
I'm deleting my original comment from here. There is another, much fuller, version of this interview, in which Patrick Haggard describes his work in greater detail. This version is here:
"Patrick Haggard - Free Will: Where's the Problem?"
ua-cam.com/video/JEx63WzpXO0/v-deo.html
I will write an amended comment there.
Imagine that you sit in a classroom, the teacher asks a question, you get an idea, lift your hand, you get the chance to answer and so you do. Maybe the teacher and most of the others agree that it was the correct answer or a good idea or it starts a debate. Maybee not. But you chose the answer and to lift your hand and tell it by your own free will and in this way you demonstrated that your free will is not just an illusion. This we do in our every day activity.
If instead you lie in bed at a hospital or in an institution, so sick and disabled that you can’t even lift your hand, then this is just an illusion to you. But you still have a free will and can be willing to do so, even tough you are not able to. But when they claim that we don’t have free will, they tray to make us act as if we are that disabled.
They argue as if somebody else but you yourself own your body, possess it and control it. Who should that be?
In the Bible the gods made of sticks and stone is called the Lie. Contrary to that Jesus is the truth that sets us free from the idolatry and sin. Everyone who received him he gave the right to become children of God, born by the Holy Spirit and what is born by the Spirit is spirit. God loved the world so much that he sent his only son, so that every one that believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. He gives us spirit and life from heaven, this we receive by faith in him, we get it for free, of mere grace, without having to do anything for it. So we can receive it by our own free will and by doing so, we are no longer slaves, but children of God.
good discussion guys. You should also check out this teacher who breaks down the concept of FREE WILL like no other. I think he is from the USA, but am not sure. his channel is DIVINE WISDOM RISING. next level stuff.
Just because the brain exhibits activity before a person claims they think of doing something is not actual proof that free will is an Illusion. Rather it simply implies that the nation of consciousness as it relates to activity within the brain is not fully understood.
I’m always amazed at people who are so quick to believe that free will is an allusion.
So what he's saying is that consciousness lives in the past of your actions. Just there to keep you from being afraid of your own actions. Wudnt u have to be conscious in the first place to fear your own actions or even explain it. It seems so unnecessary you could just do things unconsciously and never have the need to explain your actions to urself ! DA faq yoo!!!
If you can not measure or describe consciousness, why assume that is a product of the brain and analyse all data from that perspective? (Almost sounds like a religious doctrine)
Our brain is an over run part/tool of our consciousness. Consciousness is more likely to be part of a mind, body & spirit complex than a singular product of the brain.
Neuroscientists measure consciousness all the time
@@dr_shrinkerHow so?
"Free will" is overestimated. It should be acknowledged that "will" (either free, or something else,) is autonomous that's a distinct activity of the psychic force; and should not be confused with somatic integration (sameness) decisions.
Could you put it in layman's terms?
@@unknowninfinium4353 First, for the humans, the "psychic active force" is facilitated as a "mental active force" differentiation: Secondly, the mental force is distinctively reacted with autonomous activities (such as, with aware, sagacious, creational, existential and volitional activities in which, "will" is part of that mental volition.) These autonomous mental activities start out as a clean slate, and depending upon somatic and environmental impacts during a child's upbringing, those mental activities are shaped and sort of chiseled for use in accordance to their impacting mental developments. So that the mental activity of "will" is not necessarily free, but more so accordingly autonomous in order to deal with the absolute automatons its been impacted by and from.
@@SabiazothPsyche wow wow wow and whoa.
Damn dude mind blown. Never saw it or thought about it in that way.
Damn man, wonder what it was like when you first realised it learnt it.
@@unknowninfinium4353 It was like a full psychic corollary resurrection, seething with effervescing satisfaction. Thank you kindly. 🙏🙏🙏
@@SabiazothPsyche You take care man, stay healthy and pray you get paid for your knowledge my guy.
cop out hand waving.
( it IS important to steelman materialism though)
NTS avg/55/rft
Haggard seems to explain nothing, not even his own research - unless this video is simply poorly edited. Also his implicit bias was obvious given his assumption that the Libet experiments demonstrate a lack of free will. Why couldn’t the time difference between the readiness potential and reporting the will to act simply demonstrate the lag from conscious decision to reporting. Isn’t this why there is now “no-report” experiments? Alternatively, might the Libet results actually point to the where choice, free will or free won’t actually occurs?
I think he explains it pretty well. The Libet experiments have withstood intense criticism for decades now, and the gap between impulse and the reported 'decision' is exceptionally large in neurological terms.
As for 'free won't' or the power of veto, what possible reason is there to infer that that is any more freely chosen than the initial illusory 'decision' to do something? Both are decisions, and both are produced by the brain.
What kind of sense does the concept of free-will even make in a scientific, materialistic universe? It boils down to a kind of magical thinking, or folk philosophy. Physics gives us an extremely constrained universe: all there is is the laws of physics. So in light of that, what is this 'free will' that somehow exists alongside, even outside of, the laws of physics and can somehow disregard those very laws when it feels like it? It's just as supernatural a proposition as god or ghosts.
@@thesprawl2361 thanks for your comments. Have you read Bahar Gholipour’s 2019 article in The Atlantic? The RP (Bereitschaftspotential) has been debunked as conclusive proof of anything more than the brain builds up to an intentional act. I believe the same neural pattern is seen whether you do it or not - the choice is free to initiate or inhibit motor activity. It makes sense that if you’re being asked to tell researchers when you consciously decide to press a button, that your brain has to prepare the body. This doesn’t mean that the conscious decision was an illusion. Peter Tse, prof of cognitive neuroscience, is worth listening to on this topic and the notion of “free won’t”. I accept that most of the “choices” are preset by our conditioning but the Libet results don’t prove determinism and Haggerd knows that! I just feel his standing as an authority on this still open and controversial subject would have been better served by at least acknowledging the historical assumptions around the Libet results. Even if in the end he disclosed his opinion. At least the listener would feel better informed and less inclined to simply accept the brain-generates-consciousness hypothesis as fact.
@@paulkeogh7077 I've heard various people come and go claiming to have debunked the Libet experiments over the years so I'm generally sceptical. I'll have a look for that article sometime.
I would also say that there was another video where the interviewees claimed to have explained away Libet's results and it was posted on this channel fairly recently. It was pretty skewed in its claims in the opposite direction.
I don't think this channel's particularly scrupulous with the information it puts out there and I don't find Kuhn a particularly interesting interviewer, I just clicked on a video once and thus assured that I'll get CTT videos from now until my descendants/their robotic avatars unplug themselves from the matrix.
@@thesprawl2361 I like your sense of humour and agree with your comments on Kohn’s cuts. They don’t always present a coherent stream. Not that I’m looking for conclusions. To the contrary, I see the honest disclosure of loose ends as a plus when assessing credibility. This is what promoted me to check out whether Libet is a done deal, which it is definitely not in respect to “free will”. To be clear, I think discussions about free will are better placed in the context of subjective experience rather than a sensationalised debate about determinism vs indeterminism.
..the clock experiment is faulty the subject will always be behind the initiation by time its communicated...I continue say that any being that can contemplate on an action has free will, but just because you have free will doesn't mean you use it most of the time...experiments need to differentiate when free will is used and when its not... and some initiatives, if not all, can't be measured in timed because it is not in time, (it is not a motion) until initiated... hahaha
It's beyond boring that every time one have to question free will talk always of the same experiment that was debunked in other studies or at least put into question (that was said at least 2 times in recent interviews published on this very channel ). Also a person cannot say " consciousness is the product of the brain" with certitude and not having even an half idea about how the consciousness process is produced. This is not being rational and logic.
Francesco / And you think that someone who knows how consciousness works is gonna come on this site and just tell you?
Why? Because you request it?
Who do you think you are?
@@mikel4879 Is a joke right ? There is not scientific paper, book , leaflet that explain how consciousness is made, how the thoughts are created. Except of course theories that faded with time
This guy is obsessed with the ideas of a 17th century philosopher. That's a hell of a thinker who can push scientists to try to prove him wrong after almost 4 centuries. I knew Decartes was wrong without doing any experiments, but that's just me.
People are still "obsessed" with Isaac Newton despite 20th century experiments proving his definition of gravity wrong. We build upon great thinkers of the past. Experiments are the gold standard of knowledge.
@@infinitemonkey917 I don't disagree with anything you said, but this Patrick Haggard is basing all of his conclusions on proving Decartes wrong. He should work with modern ideas and real science, not the musings of a pre-neuroscience philosopher. After he finishes "proving" Decartes wrong, he will have advanced human knowledge by exactly zero, and told us nothing about free will.
@@caricue He seems to be intent on demonstrating that there is no evidence that the mind / consciousness is separate from the body / brain. That in fact there is evidence they are 1 and the same and thus no true free will exists. Descartes was a dualist who believed there is a mental substance distinct from the physical. Many if not most people seem to also hold that Cartesian view. Nearly all theists do and even some scientists and philosophers. So I see no reason to not present experimental evidence to the contrary.
@@infinitemonkey917 In science, if a thing lacks evidence, the assumption is that it does not exist. There is no obligation to prove anything, but we live in a world of people, so you have to cater to their weaknesses and prejudices. I personally think the whole endeavor to be fluff, but if the grant committee wants to fund him, then you can't fault a brother for making a dime.
If I were a neuroscientist, in the modern world, I would want to start with the premise that we are unitary, evolved organisms that are able to act and respond in a changing environment while never straying from the laws of nature. Why waste your time proving or disproving old superstitious ideas that bring nothing to the table, but then again, I'm not on the grant committee.
@@caricue Precisely because it isn't just an old idea when the majority of the world believes that there is a mind / psyche / soul distinct from the brain and body. So by demonstrating via experiment that there is no dualism maybe more people will act rationally. Maybe fewer theocratic laws will exist.
Perhaps only God can know if we ultimately have free will.
I mean, Jesus definitely existed. You can debate exactly who or what he was but the man did live.
@@DeathsInverse and basically every historian agree on that
@@francesco5581 This debate wouldn’t be happening if every historian agreed on that.
@@anthonycraig274 there is no serious debate about that... But of course there are conspiracy theorists in every field
@@francesco5581 Personally, I think it’s plausible that a man of his description did exist. However, that’s just my opinion, and I am not aware of anything to refute that.
Is free will an illusion? Yes.
God has given us the power of choice.
Neither He has nor He is.
Well of course it is Go home Go to work go to mall go back home pay some bills go to the doctor go back home go to work go to the dentist go to the beach go back home go to work pay some bills take a dump go to sleep go back to work freedom will never exist as long as I am in a shell when I die is when I start to live without pain FREEDOM IS AN ILLUSION
Sure, so the "conscious experience of free will" is illusionary, BUT there's no reason to deny the unconscious as a part of "Free will". And self-awareness allows a slower version of "free will" where we make plans and act in ways that change ourselves in directed ways at a conscience level.
There is no such thing as free will. However, there is Free Choice. God's will is your will.
Even though free will is an illusion I don't see how society can function without accountability.
Why would we be not accountable if free will isn't real?
@@uninspired3583 Because we can't control our actions and impulses. To a degree this is accepted with insanity and mental illness in court cases but everybody reacts according to their Biology and preceding events. So if free will doesn't exist nobody is ultimately responsible for what they do or don't do.
@@infinitemonkey917 disagree. Neural networks function by pattern recognition and feedback loops. Accountability takes the roll of feedback, and provides opportunity for improvement.
Accountability doesn't have to be about some cosmic sense of justice. It could just be a matter of setting goals in regard to the type of world we collectively want to live in, and take action to guide society toward those goals. That sounds like accountability to me.
@@uninspired3583 We have no control over those neural networks, pattern recognition and feedback loops. Those are all just consequences of adaption by evolution. We didn't choose to have such mechanisms nor do we choose how we interpret and react. Haggard discusses this at the end of the vid.
It isn't about cosmic justice. It's simply about acknowledging we can't help doing what we do. I agree though that there must be accountability for society to function.
@@infinitemonkey917 western culture is soaked in 2 thousand years of original sin doctrine, and people think we can't cope without it. But if we focused less on fault, and more on next steps, we would be a lot more productive.