Very correct your vision on free will mister Crick. We are now decades later and all what you said years ago was very very correct! Its thanks to you that I got interested in molecular biology. Rest in peace, your influence is for ever!!
Thinking allowed is an absolute gem in today's world of mass communication and is using electronic media to give us an experience that is so needed man I am thankful for this show!!
I learn more by listening to the interviewer further describing the message. In other words what you're saying....and then he rearticulates the message. It's thanks to Jeffrey Mishlove that I came to an understanding. Thank you again.
from Wikipedia: Qualia, from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience.
@pervertedpenguin69 The same goes for Kary Mullis, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reacion. He won the Nobel Prize for this, and the idea came to him while experimenting with LSD
There is certainly not much he has to say. How could you without a real solution or hypothesis. He is very honest about neuroscience being in a early stage and that neurons are a starting point simply because it is material, and that is what you study as a scientist under the current "rules" I guess. The thing about free will is a good point however. There is a lot of unconscious programming that needs to be removed before you can study free will scientifically.
Natural selection needed a way to motivate us on a different scale to procreate. In search of the holy truth we are forced to settle with a child and magic of having it. Intuitively i fear there is absolutely no other truth. The depth of infinity is still foreign to us. If the universe is in a cycle or in any other way infinite there is no real need for one creator or deeper meaning to it all. Of course it is human to search for it and even dou i feel this way i will probably never stop searching for it but it is a possibility that the question exists only to bug us and not to be answered.
+Jovan Djordjevic Nice, but in my humble opinion what you are missing is the consciousness. You said: "If the universe is in a cycle or in any way infinite there is no real need for one creator or deeper meaning to it all." Well we should not really take for granted any concept or idea. What do we define infinity? Infinity simply means having no beginning nor end. In a way it stands beyond being itself, and in another way it is nothing-ness because nothing is infinite in our observable universe except perhaps the universe itself which can not be called universe and point to it just like we point to a tree (that tree!). We can not point to the universe and say The Universe. Infinity has meaning only where there is consciousness present. Infinity and eternal time are interrelated and both have meaning only where a consciousness is present to experience and observe the manifested universe. The absolute reality though stands even beyond infinity and eternity as it belongs to the realm of Un-manifest where infinity and eternity do not have any meaning. Creator is an anthropomorphic concept and has meaning only for us humans because to us everything that seems ordered should have a human-like creator, hence a creator should have created the external world (cosmos) as well. What I want to say is that its mostly a problem of language, and in fact I think we are somehow created and invented by language and not the opposite way. Language taught us how to think and be rational, it invented us and made us to be human somehow. Beyond language though just like a pre-linguistic stage of an infant rests the mystery, because the absolute always remains ineffable. Empirical sciences are themselves among the phenomenons as we ourselves are, so a phenomenon can not realize the origin of all phenomenon. One can not realize the origin of a system from within that very system. In other words, the right term to use for the universe is not 'Creation' but 'Appearance'. The universe appears and disappears, just like clouds appear and disappear in the sky but the sky remains unchanged. Clouds may be able to realize the HOWS and WHATS of the clouds behaviours, but they can not ever realize the origin and reality of the clouds or the sky itself because the origin of clouds and sky stands beyond the relative and ever-changing substance of the cloudness if it makes any sense.
Thanks for sharing man. I didn't look at it from that perspective even though it is closer to the subject of the video. I was more stationed on the idea of an answer and why is it burning so hot. Also infinity can have an end on one side, if looked lineary . As far as the mathematics and point of view are concerned. But I get what you are saying, and our best bet is to search within our conscious and unconscious selves. I look foreword to exploring the herbs used in old cultures around the world. It seams to me before this expansion of everything started we had better chances in this matter seeing how we were more dedicated to this and survival.
Jovan Djordjevic I don't consider the will to procreate or merely to survive to be any more than the lowest degree of the all-encompassing, Nietzschean will to power. Life for life's sake just seems like a lazy tautology. The mere will to survive, I think, was just the consequence of the shortsightedness of Schopenhauer or Darwin on the will.
Immanuel Kant Thats an interesting direction man but is exactly why there had to be a larger motivator. Emotion is caused by chemicals ... Thats the thing with infinity , there is bound to be each and every possibility. The only thing that doesnt fit in this grand picture is definitions and name calling.Even if this very statement is looking out to define something , dont forget its spoken out by a human whos whole line of evolution survived on question / answer type of existence which can not and never will see and define the overall picture. So just like every other sensation the higher perspective feeling is just that , a feeling. Produced by chemical's because of your past experiences and thoughts. One could argue that looking at the existence at every single frequency there would probably be no ultimate truth regarding any matter. But back to here and now ... why life? Why not is a better question since it is just yet another form of matter and energy. The hunger for reason , whether its a reason for action or for existence , derives from the unpleasantness of chaos where our egos were met with a "truth" (at least on this plane) that their existence is irrelevant. With the rise of ego we stepped out of the mud on to the reasonable concrete, for the better or worse, yet somehow chaos prevails. It is no wonder the whole world is fine with it as long as its not in your face while the greatest forging of chaos(again , on this plane) is done by the most developed egos on the planet. Sorry for the long post.
Jovan Djordjevic Well it's a bit trickier to answer longer posts but here's my position, at least as regards the point you make about emotions being caused by chemicals... well, isn't this (perhaps) a reification? Why should chemical and neuronal activity and the similar be assimilated in such a way as to apparently describe teleology? (And I think teleonomy is as much a misnomer here for teleology as is the "will to survive" was a shortsighted simulacrum for the ' _Wille_ _zur_ _Macht_ ', or the _élan_ _vital_ , or whatever you may like to call it. Self-organizing systems do tend to gather more and more complexity, right? So maybe and ultimately, it just comes down to a value perspective; is it accidental, or is it autocatalytic? I think the latter seems obviously to be true, at least as far as I can tell from what complexity theorists like Stuart Kauffman are saying. I don't think it's such a leap to believe in real intrinsic causes and drives in living systems, apart from one static "goal" of just being for being's sake. But I don't know, and I hope I've not missed the point of your comment. I'm a bit buzzed and tired and kept forgetting what I'd already read. In any case, there's no reason we shouldn't act _as_ _if_ there is more to our reasons and emotions than may be.
That's not actually explaining anything. Even if one were to say that what we conventionally refer to as the "mind" is nothing but an illusion - an illusion is itself an experience that presupposes a consciousness that would have to exist in order to experience it. Respectfully, we need to get away from this tendency of trying to redefine things as opposed to actually explaining them. If that's all one *can* do in this instance, I would submit it's better not to say anything at all.
Dude is stuck on shit that doesn't matter:) We know what red is, move along. The Pineal Gland seems to be the seat of consciousness. The degree is irrelevant. Consciousness streams from God. That streaming is what we perceive as the passing of time... which seems to drag on with this infantile discussion:)
Very correct your vision on free will mister Crick. We are now decades later and all what you said years ago was very very correct! Its thanks to you that I got interested in molecular biology. Rest in peace, your influence is for ever!!
Jeffrey Mishlove is a G man his manner of questioning is so on point and his curiosity is so true and intellectual I love it.
The interview was recorded in 1994 shortly after the publication of Francis Crick's book, The Astonishing Hypothesis.
Thank you
Thinking allowed is an absolute gem in today's world of mass communication and is using electronic media to give us an experience that is so needed man I am thankful for this show!!
@@CoopSouth713 Yer man thinking Allowed
I learn more by listening to the interviewer further describing the message. In other words what you're saying....and then he rearticulates the message. It's thanks to Jeffrey Mishlove that I came to an understanding. Thank you again.
This is great. Most discussions of free will are totally unscientific and not based on anything but rhetoric.
What a rock star. Francis Crick.
from Wikipedia: Qualia, from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience.
Did you ever interview Pirsig?
Francis Crick was an excelent neurologist.
This dude dropping bombs about brain computer interfaces and quantum biology before I was even born xD. What a badass
Great, as early as better
I love his idea of bashing "free will"
Thanks! This is great.
The soul lives in the electricity that enlivens our bodies. Now, "We are the light" makes sense.
Thanks
This is the professor who stated the origin is almost a miracle. But what about Dr Leslie E Orgell in his book the Origin of Life on Earth
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule? Holly SHIT!
@pervertedpenguin69 The same goes for Kary Mullis, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reacion. He won the Nobel Prize for this, and the idea came to him while experimenting with LSD
There is certainly not much he has to say. How could you without a real solution or hypothesis. He is very honest about neuroscience being in a early stage and that neurons are a starting point simply because it is material, and that is what you study as a scientist under the current "rules" I guess. The thing about free will is a good point however. There is a lot of unconscious programming that needs to be removed before you can study free will scientifically.
He has wrinkles like a Tibetan monk from raising his eyebrows with joyful curiosity over the years.
That right hand panel is like a drug dealer exploiting my sick addiction to videos like this. Just leave me alone UA-cam - I've got stuff to do.
@Daniel Dennett, I see you're not very learned or very well read mate. So I recommend, to begin with, getting yourself a copy of *Irreducible Mind*.
@sublimeisdope
Yes sir.
mhm mhm mhm mhm
❤️
whooeee!
Neural Networks!
I disagree. Identifying NCC won't help us with the question of free will nor even shed any light on the hard problem of consciousness.
@dmit1703 and Rosalind Franklin
MDMA my science friends, take that in tandem with others and then you'll share their experiences??
+Tim Lazenby You've obviously never experienced hallucinogens or dissociative drugs.
Natural selection needed a way to motivate us on a different scale to procreate. In search of the holy truth we are forced to settle with a child and magic of having it. Intuitively i fear there is absolutely no other truth. The depth of infinity is still foreign to us. If the universe is in a cycle or in any other way infinite there is no real need for one creator or deeper meaning to it all. Of course it is human to search for it and even dou i feel this way i will probably never stop searching for it but it is a possibility that the question exists only to bug us and not to be answered.
+Jovan Djordjevic Nice, but in my humble opinion what you are missing is the consciousness. You said: "If the universe is in a cycle or in any way infinite there is no real need for one creator or deeper meaning to it all." Well we should not really take for granted any concept or idea. What do we define infinity? Infinity simply means having no beginning nor end. In a way it stands beyond being itself, and in another way it is nothing-ness because nothing is infinite in our observable universe except perhaps the universe itself which can not be called universe and point to it just like we point to a tree (that tree!). We can not point to the universe and say The Universe.
Infinity has meaning only where there is consciousness present. Infinity and eternal time are interrelated and both have meaning only where a consciousness is present to experience and observe the manifested universe. The absolute reality though stands even beyond infinity and eternity as it belongs to the realm of Un-manifest where infinity and eternity do not have any meaning. Creator is an anthropomorphic concept and has meaning only for us humans because to us everything that seems ordered should have a human-like creator, hence a creator should have created the external world (cosmos) as well. What I want to say is that its mostly a problem of language, and in fact I think we are somehow created and invented by language and not the opposite way. Language taught us how to think and be rational, it invented us and made us to be human somehow. Beyond language though just like a pre-linguistic stage of an infant rests the mystery, because the absolute always remains ineffable. Empirical sciences are themselves among the phenomenons as we ourselves are, so a phenomenon can not realize the origin of all phenomenon. One can not realize the origin of a system from within that very system. In other words, the right term to use for the universe is not 'Creation' but 'Appearance'. The universe appears and disappears, just like clouds appear and disappear in the sky but the sky remains unchanged. Clouds may be able to realize the HOWS and WHATS of the clouds behaviours, but they can not ever realize the origin and reality of the clouds or the sky itself because the origin of clouds and sky stands beyond the relative and ever-changing substance of the cloudness if it makes any sense.
Thanks for sharing man. I didn't look at it from that perspective even though it is closer to the subject of the video. I was more stationed on the idea of an answer and why is it burning so hot. Also infinity can have an end on one side, if looked lineary . As far as the mathematics and point of view are concerned. But I get what you are saying, and our best bet is to search within our conscious and unconscious selves. I look foreword to exploring the herbs used in old cultures around the world. It seams to me before this expansion of everything started we had better chances in this matter seeing how we were more dedicated to this and survival.
Jovan Djordjevic I don't consider the will to procreate or merely to survive to be any more than the lowest degree of the all-encompassing, Nietzschean will to power. Life for life's sake just seems like a lazy tautology.
The mere will to survive, I think, was just the consequence of the shortsightedness of Schopenhauer or Darwin on the will.
Immanuel Kant
Thats an interesting direction man but is exactly why there had to be a larger motivator. Emotion is caused by chemicals ... Thats the thing with infinity , there is bound to be each and every possibility. The only thing that doesnt fit in this grand picture is definitions and name calling.Even if this very statement is looking out to define something , dont forget its spoken out by a human whos whole line of evolution survived on question / answer type of existence which can not and never will see and define the overall picture. So just like every other sensation the higher perspective feeling is just that , a feeling. Produced by chemical's because of your past experiences and thoughts. One could argue that looking at the existence at every single frequency there would probably be no ultimate truth regarding any matter. But back to here and now ... why life? Why not is a better question since it is just yet another form of matter and energy. The hunger for reason , whether its a reason for action or for existence , derives from the unpleasantness of chaos where our egos were met with a "truth" (at least on this plane) that their existence is irrelevant. With the rise of ego we stepped out of the mud on to the reasonable concrete, for the better or worse, yet somehow chaos prevails. It is no wonder the whole world is fine with it as long as its not in your face while the greatest forging of chaos(again , on this plane) is done by the most developed egos on the planet.
Sorry for the long post.
Jovan Djordjevic Well it's a bit trickier to answer longer posts but here's my position, at least as regards the point you make about emotions being caused by chemicals... well, isn't this (perhaps) a reification? Why should chemical and neuronal activity and the similar be assimilated in such a way as to apparently describe teleology? (And I think teleonomy is as much a misnomer here for teleology as is the "will to survive" was a shortsighted simulacrum for the ' _Wille_ _zur_ _Macht_ ', or the _élan_ _vital_ , or whatever you may like to call it.
Self-organizing systems do tend to gather more and more complexity, right? So maybe and ultimately, it just comes down to a value perspective; is it accidental, or is it autocatalytic? I think the latter seems obviously to be true, at least as far as I can tell from what complexity theorists like Stuart Kauffman are saying.
I don't think it's such a leap to believe in real intrinsic causes and drives in living systems, apart from one static "goal" of just being for being's sake.
But I don't know, and I hope I've not missed the point of your comment. I'm a bit buzzed and tired and kept forgetting what I'd already read.
In any case, there's no reason we shouldn't act _as_ _if_ there is more to our reasons and emotions than may be.
The soul has no principal, its God made
There is no soul, the mind is what the brain does.
👍🏼👍🏼
That's not actually explaining anything. Even if one were to say that what we conventionally refer to as the "mind" is nothing but an illusion - an illusion is itself an experience that presupposes a consciousness that would have to exist in order to experience it.
Respectfully, we need to get away from this tendency of trying to redefine things as opposed to actually explaining them. If that's all one *can* do in this instance, I would submit it's better not to say anything at all.
Dude is stuck on shit that doesn't matter:) We know what red is, move along. The Pineal Gland seems to be the seat of consciousness. The degree is irrelevant. Consciousness streams from God. That streaming is what we perceive as the passing of time... which seems to drag on with this infantile discussion:)
Explain what red is to me then
Imagine being this guy. Sheesh. Dont do religion people. Its bad for you.
@@nijamagi1031 You see the "Subscribe" button... that's Red:)
@@batmandeltaforce In Japan, they call green lights blue lights.
Do they see the same color as you or me? Probably, but they call it blue.
Go figure.
@@ryanlynch290 LOL, it doesn't matter what you call it:) It is a frequency band of light.