Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out Mind Over Masters: The Question of Free Will to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=uIXGxRZk3G4 To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
@@josepercivalborjarobertson2469 Dear, Jose... Okay, then. How are you-? Is the 1st quest-ion. 2nd. Where do you reside-? And, 3rdly. What prompted you to posit such a statement as, "ask me a question"-? My grandmother was full of ismic sayings, lots of isims, like, for instance, whenever I would ask her, why, about whatever, she'd vitriolicly pounce on me with, "why's a crooked letter that can't be straightened" or, if I ever said, "I thought...", in reference to a not so very obvious answer to a query, she'd tell me, "thought shit himself, and you licked his legs"... Such a lovely lady, was my grandmother... &, so, Now, I'm approachingng 70yrs of age, and lifes' deepest mysterys' have come home to roost and reside within me, but in a more meaningfully profound and reverential way, and I'm learning to just, God Bless Everyone, Bless Everything, Always, Amen... Seeing that, our LOVE is only ever equal to our humility and our gratitude for the confidence and the prowess that stabilises our LOVE... Regards to you, from OZ, down under, in Australia...
Regarding penalty: The goals of a just penalty would be to (a) repair the harm done to the victim, (b) correct the future behavior of the offender, (c) protect society from further harm by constraining the offender until he is corrected, and (d) do no harm to the offender or his rights beyond what is reasonably necessary to accomplish (a), (b), and (c). This is justice. Those seeking revenge are not going to find justice.
Yes of course but those scientists do not conclude that we have no control of ourselves. Another thing wrong with what you said is that our choices will be made partly based on laws. What the laws are influences our choices. If the law said you can pay for food you get at a store or you can take some of it for free then that would influence your choices.
@@Jessica-to8um I don't see how unless you think free will is black or white. We have free will to an extent but it is not 100% under our control. The studies do not conclude that we have zero control of ourselves.
@@owensspace Nope, scientific research shows that we do not choose to choose, (or as you said "you do will what you will"). At least not consciously. To make sure you don't misunderstand me an example is from me debating with devout (religious) people. Some of those people say "Open your mind and let God into your heart then with time you will have faith.". My answer to that is I cannot choose to have faith. That's what I mean.
Dan Kelly what I’m saying is that you choose to not have faith. Because, something could always change your mind. Maybe your friend dies and god comes to you in a dream and somehow you start to have faith. Now, is that an external force causing you to have a dream and to start having faith, maybe. But if you don’t believe you want the new iPhone, but then you see a commercial and it looks good and you decide to buy it, did external forces make you buy it, or did you choose to buy it?
Interesting discussion, but I do feel a paraphrased Christopher Hitchens quote is appropriate here, "Do we have free will? Of course, we have no choice but to." ;)
+twstdelf I think I'll leave this one here as well from Christopher Hitchens, when he was asked if he believed in free will, he responded with "I have no other choice."
Which is to say that there is no such thing as absolute free will, but within the constraints of our human natures there is free will, in other words the innate potential to choose or perhaps modify our own behaviour in accord with higher mental concerns, rather than allow them to be determined by biological imperatives as with other animals.
Hitchens was right. Better take him serious. Read! Free will is an urge, a desire, Not simply an ability. What an individual is perceiving as his own free will, is a self conditioned illusion which was and is constantly refined by oneself. This illusion is completely internalized, or assimilated inside of every individual mind, because this illusion is inseperable connected with individual intelligence (the implantation of indiviudal intelligence and the evolution of itself over generations). On that basis an understanding or better the understanding of everything is impossible. We humans call that illusion life. But death is only biological. Who said your unconscious mind is really your own unconscious mind all the time and that the unconscious mind is not available to introspection, or that it dies? No it was not Freud , it is you, dear reader. Benjamin Libet’s experiment regarding the so called readiness potential, which results were confirmed by Haggard and Eimer and lately (2009) by Kühn and Brass proofs that every single voluntary action is preceded by a measure of activity in the motor cortex and supplementary motor area of the brain. The illusion of free will is only maintained in the individual mind through believe. This believe is shattered by simultaenously aknowledgeing the available data humans acquired and understanding that the unconscious mind is not only your own unconscious mind. In true reality every individual being is a conscious part, who needs to sleep, of an enormous collective unconscious. SRS, NREM or deep sleep is our state of sleep cycle in which we power up through a connection to the enormous collective unconscious, which we can make visible on an EEG of a sleeping and living brain. It is called the Delta wave. Now from the real perspective, as an individual conscious part of a bigger collective unconscious, the illusionary ability free will becomes something far more important than just simply an ability. It becomes an urge, an instinct, a desire and every single individual human is suppressing this through a selfconditioned illusion based on the arrogance and ignorance of individual intelligence from her/his conception until death. It is therefore a basic requirement for every single individual being like air to breath and to consider what you know as free will as just simply an ability is suppressing the theoretical and practical gifts of every single human being. The evolution of diseases are an inevitable consequence of this fact and must therefore retroactively be determined for our whole species. You gonna learn the only possible way now. The fucking hard way. I'm done now with your work and ready and I don't feel like waiting anymore. You wanna be healed? Then feel the sickness first!
... JUST, to set a president, here... it's not so obvious, until IT BECOMES obvious, that something, anything, everything, is, in all-ways, a product of something else. And, we are, by nature, naturally compelled, to be, to learn... It's is instinctively-intuitively, innately, hormonelly, chemically, adictively, and dictatorially a control function of ISNESS. &, the BUSINESS of ISNESS is to make purposeful meaning, and meaningful purpose from, and within, existence. So... go for IT, and God Bless Everyone, Bless Everything, Always, Amen... for... Our Love IS ONLY Ever Equal To Our Humility And Our Gratitude For The Confidence And The Prowess That Stabilises Our LOVE...
Glaucon-5 First of all, ‘intentionality’ is a poor choice of words because in the philosophical and scientific context it is used to refer to something very different then what you have in mind. And in this context, molecules definitely *don’t* have intentionality. But even in taking the most relaxed and broad meaning of the word, molecules still don’t appear to have intentionality. You’re free to indulge in your own kind of animistic beliefs, because i don’t think that there’s an absolute proof that molecules aren’t manifesting intentionality. It might be, but in my opinion the chances are very slim and even if it were true *it wouldn’t change anything.* Acids and alkanes and alkenes will still behave as we’ve learned in our basic chemistry class.. like simple "chemicals". It doesn’t matter what we believe them to be, it matters what the do. If someone throws acid on me *i only care about what acid does* , it doesn’t really matter what the underlying metaphysics are.
@@raresmircea First of all, I was making a joke regarding the OP's comment. Second, I was laughing at the idea of molecules making anyone do something. The implicit idea in using the word "intentionally" was the idea of molecules being the reason your mental states are about something. The molecules are behind it all! I majored in philosophy, and I graduated at the top of my class, by the way. My senior thesis explored how one would explain our mental representations of time's purported passage if you accept a B-theory account of time. I hoped the emoticon would have conveyed that my reply was not serious.
The funny thing is (about the alcholics anonymous question) my understanding is a big part of the program is actually built around the concept of surrender and admitting you're powerless. It sounds to me that letting go of the concept of free will is actually necessary for recovery. And I know from my own life that relying on "will power" in the areas that you are weak is a formula for disaster. What seems to work is support (mental and emotional) and changing your environment.
You have the free will to call your sponsor when you're supposed to. You have the free will to attend meetings and participate. You have the free will to choose God's will and make better decisions. Or not. It's entirely your doing. Aa and na disarm ego. This gets you into the habit of thinking before reacting to stimuli, either internal or external.
Exactly. Otherwise why would you even need a program? Just decide not to drink. Any such program works on the principle that your brain is like a machine which responds in predictable ways to stimuli and adjusts its habitual behavior. It's a matter of using thst knowledge to change that habitual behavior or mindset rather than relying on "force of will"
Yea I feel like that’s a good thing. It causes one to know that he or she have to take necessary steps. They can’t just procrastinate, brush it off, wait until they “feel” like it or next time. Like knowing that it’s been deterministic causes them to forgive themselves from the past literally and fix it by taking the steps towards sobriety
One of the biggest problems with trying to understand free will and figure out whether or not it exists is the semantics of it. We need a memetically stable definition of free will if we, as a society, are to figure this out.
I agree. But in order to do this we must first define our terms. I think our misunderstanding of the question "Do I have Free Will?" stems from our misunderstanding of the term "I". What is "I"? What is the self? When one interrogates oneself on this topic, one realises that the 'self' that we think of as existing is actually an illusion, there is no thinker in addition to the sensory data (thoughts etc) - there is just the data. The disintegration of the illusion of self runs parallel to the disintegration of the illusion of Free Will. They're two sides of the same coin imo.
@@Prime-o8f I'm going to politely disagree with you. The "I" I believe most people believe in is similar to a "soul" the more religious the person, and similar to "free thinking consciousness" the more scientific the person. But however ones attempts to define what is meant by "I", I still say it's not an illusion. The "Me" that's conscious *IS* different than *ANY* other "part" or "Version" of "myself". I don't think it's completely separate like a soul, and it may only be something akin to a "Simulated intelligence" (Some form of psychological phenomena) that's "running" on my "computer's hardware" (Bodily Organs). Now, you might argue that this "version" of "i" is an illusion as it's still completely run by my organs, However, it clearly has it's own input and output separate from the "unconscious mind", as a person can have multiple thoughts at the same time, and then *also* have that gut feeling that either agrees or disagrees with some of those thoughts. The Conscious "me" is distinct, and *does* exist, and therefore is *not* an illusion. It is quite often conflated and confused with a "separate" or "non-physical" self, and I agree that would be an illusion. The other reason I say that "I" isn't a complete illusion, is because there are times where a person can do something, against their own interests (as far as they know) and not at all understand "why" they did it. In those cases, I'd say that the "self" I'm referring to isn't privy the reasons (data) that such an action was taken. So even if "I" isn't separate from the mind/brain, I still don't think it's an "illusion".
Would you agree with this statment? For there to be an illusion there must exist something real and tangible that is experiencing or creating the illusion? Another thought is this, if we to think of our existence as an illusion, and the illusion is so realistic in every way, so real that we cannot even prove it, I then would tend to believe that we do live in a real physical state with the mental ability to conceive otherwise.
I think the my Neuroscientist friend missed few basic glitches in the Modern Physical Laws designed by humans : i) you can not determine the exact motion and mass of any particle at the same time, ii) there is a lot of dark matter and dark energy which is yet to be understood fully and that may play a role in non-material things like consciousness. Further the Whole is often behave in different ways than the Sum total of its constituent particles as a result you can't predict human behaviour simply by predicting the state of individual particles in the body.
"How do you tell an alcoholic they need to stop drinking if there is no free will?" This is a dumb question and the type of question that many free will proponents flaunt in the face of anti free willist's without thinking things through critically. You don't even have to fake free will as the psychologist responded. All you have to understand is that we are beings who can respond to feedback and we can adjust future actions based off the feedback just like all self monitoring, self reflective machines in the universe do in order to survive and progress. Free will is not a prerequisite for self improvement.
I join you on this. I was a bit disappointed by so much dodging, inaccuracies, logically loose statements, and inaccuracies. In the end, it just shows how uncomfortable we still are with having a clear view on the topic, and how it raises more questions than answers.
I was thinking when she introduced the 1st guest how mind boggling it was that a professor could write 100 books. When he corrected her and it was said that he wrote 10 I thought “that makes a lot more sense”.
What a terrifying place this would be if we HAD to do what we wanted all the time...Anyway, I don't believe in free will for the same reason I think the entire universe was inevitable. It can't not exist and it couldn't have existed in any other way. Me and my brain/consciousness are constructed and influenced from a causal chain billions of years in the making. I have no more control over what the rest of the universe does/has done, than I do over those events which wired my brain nor how the neurons fire in response to inputs. I believe in behavioral adaptation and that humans can be trained. So thus we should punish destructive behavior and reward good. but not that we should harbor hate or superiority over them. I have bipolar so I know what it's like to live with strong, sometimes overwhelming impulses.
Decisions are based upon and emotional response to one's beliefs. I wish these guys knew more than what they do. It's so disappointing to me to hear where they are at in the question of freewill.
Experience shows that most people believe in the could have done otherwise free will. That's the free will of catholicism that I'm concerned about. Such a free will is impossible since what we do would be determined by prior causes whether we live in a deterministic or indeterministic universe. No one can be deserving of reward or punishment in an afterlife.
John Calvin became convinced that any action on our part toward God would be contrary to the belief of grace being the only means of salvation. This resulted in his adjusting the concept of Predestination into double Predestination. This meant in simple terms that God predestined not only those who would receive the grace of salvation, but that God had predestined those who would not receive this grace. All was God's divine will. Calvin anecdotally called it "that horrible doctrine". If nothing else it's an interesting study in one of many attempts to resolve the question of free will or determinism. I'm not aware of any other Christian theologian prior to him that proposed the radical idea that humans do not have free will. As the speaker mentioned the concept of sin is predicated upon the idea of personal choice. Calvin reversed this idea declaring we are not free to sin or not sin.
IT all comes down to perspective! If we live in a random universe (which evidence strongly suggests), then you can look at the whole universe as being like Pascal's triangle where we can see from a perspective outside the universe that all possible combinations of matter and energy get "tried out" eventually, at least once, in a very specific sequence over time. So, everything is determined, from that perspective. And if you are a limited being (as we humans are) looking at the universe from inside the universe, we're located at some point within Pascal's triangle, and because we're limited, we can't possibly know exactly where we are in the grand map of things, so reality is at least somewhat unpredictable. This is the experience of free will, where effects aren't totally obvious from the (known) causes. As for whether we are "responsible" for our actions, yes and no: no more or less responsible than the sun, a bicycle, and a pickle are responsible for their actions. For an effect to come about, regardless of what individual we're talking about, the factors/causes that create that effect, have to be in place first. If you want me to do X, then you have to make sure that all the things that make me do X are input into the system that is me. Neglect to give me any one of those X-precurssors and it will be physically impossible for me to do X. We intuitively understand this for computers, airplanes, and usually even simple living things like trees and bacteria, but somehow we haven't yet fully comprehended that this is just as true for us complex beings, too. :-) But that, likely, is something that will come with time, as the universe moves on from trying out "humans are confused about cause and effect" to "humans understand cause and effect". :-)
i can tell you the two groups of people one group is people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. so they invent this story that they dont have free will, and thusly can not control themselves. with this rationalization, they free themselves of the guilt that they would otherwise feel, when they did something wrong. the other group, of course, are the people who understand that they need to take responsibility for their actions. and instead of making excuses, they take responsibility for their actions. another very simple question to answer !!
Neither. Fate or destiny implies there is someone who's written a script for us/the universe. There is no such thing. We don't understand time yet but as far as we know, the future is unwritten. And we don't have free will because if we did rewind the world few seconds back, we would always make the same decision all things being the same. But we do make decisions all the time. And those depend on an incredibly complex set of priors that can come out in any number of ways that nobody can predict (essentially because of quantum randomness - which has done away with Laplace's demon).
There is also a concept of Quantum Leaps. When you decide to shift your reality total opposite of what you would normally do and change the story. Kind of like the movie Groundhog Day, the character gradually changed his personality as he was stuck and lived the same day over and over, but you can also shift from day 1 to the end results of his journey of 100th day within a split second. If everything is based on making a choice, isn't making a choice considered free will?@@katarinajanoskova
I don't see any evidence for free will. I do see a lot of evidence for a causally driven reality, and if the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is true, then we absolutely do not have free will.Nevertheless, it does seem useful and more engaging to act as if I do have free will, so that's something.
Isn't the delay just the processing time from when from when your brain accesses the wave field and projected into the particle field? How would this prove there is no free will?
Agreed, the argument that free will does not exist, from these experiments, does not logically follow. It is by definition invalid and thus incoherent.
The experiments essentially show that your thoughts/decisions come after the brain's input. The subject is asked to do a random/free movement to perform, but the experimenter can see the decision made in the brain before the subject is aware of making any decision - hence no free will. Our brains basically comment on what is happening. Of course we learn and can rationalise about future decisions etc etc, otherwise we wouldn't have youtube videos to comment on, but there is no free agent in the brain making decisions this or that way.
I don't know about you but I can feel myself making a conscious decision to do something before I actually do it. Almost like you make the decision.. it just then takes time to propagate from that decision to using it to remember how to send exactly the right signal you are going for before it turns into actual physical movement. Am I missing how they are accounting for that?
Free will begins to exist once the consequences of your action to yourself and/or others is understood. Before that is self centred indulgence and before that survival instinct....
Everyone are playing their parts in the game of life. You have no choice. The drug addicts have not choice. The homeless guy have no choice. The grocery clerk have no choice. The caveman have no choice. We are all put here for one person to find herself in this twilight zone call earth. She thinks its a waste of time.
The reason this issue is so difficult to discuss and wrap our heads around is due, I believe, to a fundamental misconception of the notion of free will in the first place. First we must define the will. The will is nothing more than that faculty/function of the mind which chooses. But I contend that the will is constrained to choose that which is most strongly desired at the moment of decision. It must select the strongest inclination as its end. Clearly, in this sense the will is not free at all; or at least only as free as the desire/inclination which it seeks to effect. This brings us to the crux of matter: are we in fact free to consciously determine and control our strongest desires/inclinations? Or, do we merely become aware of what they are? I would challenge someone who believes in free will to choose other than his/her strongest desire. Now some will say that they choose other than their strongest desire all the time, but I would disagree. You may greatly want to punch someone in the face sometimes and refrain from doing so, but that is due only to the fact the you want something else even more than to punch the person - be it to avoid punishment, out of fear for your own safety, to plan your revenge in a more subtle way, because it conflicts with a higher belief that you have which you want to be true to, or whatever the case may be. You may choose not to eat the piece of pie you really want, but only because you want something else more (perhaps to demonstrate that you can not choose the pie). If so, that is what you will be compelled to choose. There is and can be no evidence to support 'traditional' free will b/c no one has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to not choose what they wanted most at the moment of decision, or to demonstrate that they could have chosen otherwise under the exact same set of circumstances in which they made their original choice. The implications that accompany the rejection of the comforting fiction of free will are, of course, enormous. But if we want to live reasonable lives we must embrace them. We have no choice.
I agree, and I just explain it by the fact that it's all included, and we are living in this skin or this mind, we are effected by everything in our universe and acting within the unbroken chain of causality. I believe it doesn't hurt to think we have a practical level of freewill, because we live and feel the choices, but a God given level of freewill is totally incompatible with the all powerful will of the hypothetical God character. Another thing is that when someone commits a crime, they are behaving like a broken machine, and when we see something is broken, we permanently or temporarily take it out of service, and if the malfunction is fixable, it can go back out on the floor, but if it's serious, it is permanently taken out of service.
I have known people addicted to heroine and crack and the likes, (sugar is the worst addiction) and when the poison runs out, they sometimes cannot get out of bed and not from a lack of desire, they are literally shaking and shivering and convulsing to the point that they CANNOT physically get out of bed. As soon as the medicine rolls around, they take it and BOOM they're out of bed and back to wheeling and dealing to get the next hit. I've seen some people break out of that cycle. I've seen the cage take some people (Edit: Overdosed and died to clarify). I've seen some people leave their family and friends behind, living on the street and doing whatever dirty deed or job they can get offered just to get that next hit. Q: My question to you would be, with the idea that some people simply cannot fight the desire of the opiate receptors, why are some people capable of escaping this downward spiral of destruction? A: After which, I'll play devil's advocate and propose that it's the differing intricacies of each individual's mind coupled with the entire makeup of their personal past experiences which play a primary role on which is the stronger desire between A) The opiate receptors shouting at the top of their little microscopic lungs or B) The want to be a productive and healthy part of something bigger than themselves. I'd like to hear if you still feel the same about this topic, and of course your take on my question towards you. Whether you respond or not... Have a beautiful day, week, month, year, decade, century, millennia and rest of eternity! Love and be loved.
@@GrimSleepy i would say that the addiction can be overwhelming for some and for others there is a breaking point where they confront the problem and are successful but as I like to say, everything is included and all reasons that someone is successful or not, it really is a continuous uninterrupted chain of causality where they happen to meet the right people or fall into the correct situations. I'm not saying that they can't feel proud that they conquered an addiction, but this is where the idea of GOD'S will or predetermined outcome comes into play, or it was never out of play. People enjoy a practical level of Freewill, but after it happens, it is the only thing that could happen at the last moment.
@@richtomlinson7090 Ya, we are a result of all of our experiences culminating up to the 'now'. That is the most significant thing that makes each of us unique individuals; The specific order or sequence of events that have influence on our perception of existence.
actions have consequences we can choose to do a thing or not..if we do or do not that will effect something anyway.But sometimes no matter how we try the outcome is not what we wanted..that is not because we do not have free will ..it is because the Universe is in Chaos and not perfect and out of this comes form and creation, some of this looks like we understand it but in true fact we do not .And still we have the free will to do a thing or not regardless of the outcome.We do not have to understand what is going on to have free will because we are part of the Chaos and its outcome.
It really doesn't have to be one or the other... I hold that we have "shackled will," which is definable as a weak free will. We possess the capacity to choose among available options...but the choice is inevitably colored by our biology and experiences. Sometimes we can overcome the circumstances, but the vast majority of the time we are shackled to our neurochemistry and prior experiences and act accordingly. And since the very act of choosing has a physical effect on the brain, any choices we make must further constrain future options. Hence i put great importance on personal responsibility, trying to make good choices in an effort to avoid painting myself into a behavioral corner... Meanwhile i support rehabilitation and improvements in compassionate treatment of prisoners, as i believe society can help some return to a productive life with a bit of work. For those who can't be helped...we can still offer compassion and a structured existence... As for the inevitable question of capital punishment...those who cannot be rehabilitated or reliably contained, and who pose a danger... For such cases, pragmatism must rule the day. Hopefully future advances will allow a better option.
One problem: Define "choosing". If a choice is something conscious, then all neurological evidence shows that the brain has to act before it can develop a conscious narrative in the higher order processes. Provided that is the case, then "choosing" as you implicitly define it would be an effect that precedes its cause, and that is impossible. If you are arguing that "choosing" is some abstract,nonphysical mental-state, then it cannot cause anything in the physical world, including neural events.
The woman seems to be the wisest one on the panel. She understands that becoming competent in anything is a process. It's not just 'do you have free will or not'. It's about taking steps and building layers of competencies. The men make it way too black and white.
while not getting into some gender war I tend to agree I am somewhat underwhelmed by some of the simplistic positions taken here. irrespective of where they orginate
Man, that 4 year old girl that said: "I have to eat the noodles because I like them" is evidence to me of no free will. Everything else we think is just built off that foundation.
Most of us can decide whether we will do what we like or won't, but we can decide what we like, some of us can decide what we like considering its benefits by logic, but we can't decide whether to decide or not decide :p I don't believe in free will but as more as knowledge you have over the world the more "free will" you have
They may be fictions in a pure universal or quantum sense, but to consciousness, and to all related systems, they are not fictitious and are every bit as real as consciousness itself. So one can disabuse themselves of free will no more than they can their own consciousness.
@@bobaldo2339 you dont belive in consiussness? That is all you can be sure of. Hell it is even possible that your consiussness generates this whole universe. But you know you are so: no fiction.
I wonder why they concluded premium freewill doesn't exist just because we can observe subconscious decisions in the brain before the feeling of agency? It's a useful assumption to make for practical purposes but to say that ends the conversation forever is just seems narrow minded
So far, I feel that our consciousness is still shedding the constraints of our ancient, necessarily limited selves. The first thing we need in order to evolve consciously is to survive, and the human brain is fairly bossy in the area of survival. As the decades and centuries go by, science will backtrack or retrack entirely on many of these ideas.
Free will is a fantasy. We are in control of our lives and behavior to a degree, however our destiny has more to do with accident than any decision on our personal part. Whether we become physicists, mechanics, physicians, cooks, or dog catchers, depends on our environment. I am talking about our economic environment, as well specifically our parents beliefs and values, and their sanity. The values of the people in our immediate circle, parents, brothers , sisters, friends, teachers, and people who we encounter in our daily lives, living or fictional can all affect the decisions we make in our life. The society we live in has a profound influence on who we are and who we become. It is a complex, phenomena becoming who you are. Free will if it exists at all plays an infinitesimal part in our destiny.
I loved the panel and the direction each one took with the discussion. I believe we have free will to certain extents. I also believe that we are all predisposed and pre-conditioned to follow certain lines of action. Somethings come natural and easy to some of us while other things take a great deal of will power to do/not do. So, we have free will but it is sort of compromised. If we live giving no thought to our actions, our dictatorial pre-conditionings take over, but if we can live consciously and minding our moves, then we do not have to be will-less slaves of our minds.
I don't buy the moral argument of not being accountable. I dont care if you were being controlled by this subconscious agency or not. You, as a vessel DID it, crime or whatever. Sorry,..but you answer for it. I don't care if you are destined to punch old people in the street against your will. You ARE punching old people in the street and your " out of control self" needs to get locked up. Lol.
I enjoyed this very much! Thank you! I have a simple view based on the knowledge I gained about free will: humans don't have 'free' will, they have 'will', and one's 'will' is shaped by physical processes *and* by *information*. Human brains are information processors. In a sense, 'information' is a *real* substance, and according to others like Dennett, even *agents!*
Once people begin to think about free will I don't know how anyone could concluded we have it. As a society we differentiate between intention and reaction. But look close enough and there isn't a difference. We can't not be reacting to everything. It's impossible.
So because there is readiness potential it removes agency? How do they know that the self didn't cause that onset of behavior, then carried it out these milliseconds later?
Disclaimer: This comment contains opinions. I am in the "no free will" group. But at the same time I am not being a bad person and excuse my actions by the fact that I do not believe in free will. Also, I like spicy food and know that most people have a much lower threshold for spicy, so I would not intentionally make their soup "hot". And one more thing: I cannot feel anger to somebody. I completely lack this emotion. My opinion on free will is that it does not exist. But I am not a determinist, we are chaotic and unpredictable. Even these experiments with rising hands can predict up to 1,5 seconds at best. It is like predicting the weather about three days in advance (more or less), anything beyond that is pure speculation. The difference is that the weather is a system of more or less regular cycles. Our actions are much more chaotic and driven by so many factors (even by the weather itself - so a chaotic system driven partially and chaotically by another chaotic system - think about it). Basically I can see why people like the idea of a free will. But what we have I call "freed will" - it as the possibility to think about itself as being free. And with constant confirmation bias which shape our very own personalities, we tend to cement certain "truths" to make some meaning of the chaos around us. So, even this post written here is just written just to reassure myself here. And also this very idea - meme - is being spread from my brain to yours, if you decide to read, think, understand and accept it. Question about change. Will we change and stop being bad to each other? Depends on chaos and how we make sense of it. I do not know the answer. Actions are choices - if you choose to either excuse or confirm your actions by free will or the absence of it does not make a difference in the end. It is just your own, personal reasoning, based on whatever you believe or disbelieve. Exercising choice or self control? Belief in better self-control vs thinking of developing a mindset that allows self control if I understood correctly? I do not see it especially important - whatever was evolutionary a benefit ultimately became standard, so whatever way it is around, it just is. I completely agree about the cognitive dissonance explanation! Confirmation bias of your own world views supports your very own (and not freely made) conclusions. We need to make these "boxes" to put things into in order to make sense of this great mess around us. And some people end here, others there, in different sets and put others into another sets again. The fly experiments confirms the chaos behind it. You cannot control everything. You can make yourself believe that you have the conditions under control. But in the end, you do not. And the cultural view is correct. I mean, how much free will can you as a little girl experience when you grow up in a strongly patriarchal society where females are oppressed? This has nothing to do with religion, although it "helps". Also, thank you Google and random chaos for making this comment invisible to others. Really well done! No irony in this.
+Erik Žiak (tramstefanikova) "But I am not a determinist, we are chaotic and unpredictable." I agree that we are chaotic and unpredictable sometimes but I'm still a determinist because I believe everything has a cause. Do you believe in true randomness in the acausal sense?
+Chandler Klebs I am not sure what exactly you mean by acasual sense and true randomness. By my understanding of these statements, I do believe in randomness, but I am not sure if it is *true* randomness. I tend to incline towards true randomness though.
Erik Žiak True Randomness or Acausality is things happening for no reason at all. What a lot of people refer to as randomness is just the stuff that humans can't predict because there are many causes they can't trace. Of course neither allows for free will. We sure can't control what we can't predict.
WE=mc2 can't experience Free Will until WE=mc2 all achieve Freed Will that will come when WE=mc2 reach Self-illumination & not selfish rumination. Let US BE=mc2!
+Adam Mangler He would not have said much other that has already been said here. His best example comes from that machine in the beggining of this presentation, cant remember the name. But he has got many interesting ways to present his findings to listeners, which might have started other interesting discussions between him and the other four.
Human can deny the truth and reality of the free will of choice, and come up with all types of scientific terminologies. However, God will judge everyone's deeds, actions, and motives, which proves the free will is real.
To deduce that we have no free will because the body movement is first preceded by an unconsciouss trigger is a mistake. We might or might not have free will, I don't know for sure, but the way the idea is discarted makes no sense to me. Unconsciousness is still part of oneself, just different than the ego consciousness.
mich6781 I believe so, yes. For example, if I didn't mean to get pregnant, but I did, am I responsible for it? If I hit you with my car by accident, am I responsible for it? Being responsible for something means you are the factor that caused the effect, it doesn't mean you are to be punished. If you think about it, our personality is mostly the result of unconsciouss processes, so the idea that whatever is not completely aknowledged as our on intention should be regarded as involuntary and therefore anaccountable, to me, is wrong...but this is only my opinion, I respect everyone elses.
with your logic it can be inferred that we are also responsible for production of immune cells , or any other process that is involuntarily directed by the brain. it is easy to see that the logic is thus flawed
Well I think we are responsible for the production of immunbe cells. Get depressed, or get happy and see how that impacts your inmmune system. I don't think not being completely aware of our actions means not to be responsible/accountable. But, it's a matter of opinions, if you don't agree that's fine.
These people need to be more mature themselves before they even think they can decide whether there’s free will or not. Free will could lead to the question whether there’s any will exist or not. And if the will exist, definitely there’s law cause and effect is affecting it. And then getting a constrained will or free will could be studied. The first question to ponder over is, Is there any will exist at all?
Laura Spring I agree with you, free will is very likely an illusion. Nonetheless, A) the world in which we find ourselves has distinguishable patterns (it’s predictable, not a random mess); B) we are conscious beings possessing valence (we can suffer and we can be happy, so our choices do matter); and C) we have the ability to gather data from the world (memory), to make models based on that data (intelligence), and the ability to maneuver our intelligence to best suit our valence (rationality). Given A, B, C i think that a great deal of my concerns about my free-will are already appeased. Ok, i’m not free in any metaphysical way.. But i’m not worried that i might set myself in fire, jump off some building, not feed myself, not buy gas for my car, not say hello to my neighbors, etc, etc. It’s not a perfect situation, because i’m still manipulated every day by cupcakes to go against my health, wellbeing and lifespan, but hey.. there are probably beings out there in the universe that, for some complex evolutionary interactions, are acting in such a way that they are causing huge suffering to themselves. That’s definitely a lack of personal free-will, and i’m so sorry if such beings exist.
being unconscious is not the same as lack of consciousness. when people say "i wasnt conscious of what i was doing" - it doesnt mean they did not have consciousness. it means they did something most likely fairly routinely, without putting in a lot of current thought to the matter. and then when done, it can appear to them that they were not conscious, or not aware of what they were doing. but clearly they were aware at some level. consciousness itself is about whether we have subjective experience or not.
Question: "Were Libet's subjects required to participate in the study for class credit? Or did they choose to do so of their own free will?" -- The answer is unimportant. The fact that the question is meaningful proves there is a simple definition of free will that everyone understands, that requires nothing supernatural, that requires no escape from causation, and that is sufficient for moral and legal responsibility.
Why can't the mysterious action-initiating subconscious be preconditioned by the conscious. The conscious mind has value systems that evaluate the world and set the "state of mind" including components of the system that are subcontious actors. I find the arguments weak.
Because the conscious awareness cannot precede the subconscious processes as a matter of causality. Without the subconscious mind having responded to whatever relevant sensory data it analyzed at time t, there would be no content to be conscious of at time t1. You cannot write a book by reading it, because the words have to exist before you can read them, by definition. If you consider the brief time it takes a baseball to be thrown from one person's hand to another's, then you can imagine how useless it would be to wait until the lower order brain processes not only made sense of the relevant sensory data that they were receiving, but then have wait the additional time it takes for all that information to be edited into something coherent for higher order analysis. We humans would never be able to adequately respond to our environment if action was not determined until the level of conscious awareness, and also conscious states are the effect of the "subconscious" lower processes, so you would have to reverse causation to do that.
"Nothing can violate the rules of physics" - except the outrageously bizarre, irrational, illogical, magical, quantum effects upon which the very foundations of the physical world are constructed.
That's still physics. Not magic. And if it's unpredictable and undetermined, free will doesn't exist. Choices are either determined or random / undetermined. Freedom of the will is an illusion.
@@ricardoalmeida4719 Precisely!!!! Came here to post the same thing. The quantum brain idea is the last hope for free will believers but even if it is revealed our brains are quantum then that still does not provide evidence of free will existing in any meaningful way.
This video is extremely interesting. Im from Chile, spanish native speaker, but understood it perfectly. Maybe I could help you guys translate this to spanish
It is suprising to me that all the discussion was on freewill and no discussion about defining who we are that supposedly has the property of freewill. It is impossible to show freewill using particle physics but it is also impossible to create a definite boundary between a human and the environment using particle physics. So, in the same way that a human can exist as an abstraction freewill can also exist.
there is no such thing as free will. society was built by all people so we live in a realty of others, meaning we are trying to add free will to others creations. free will would only work for the first humans when there was no influence from others. we built away free will. if you leave society for free will then all you have is survival.
Even the first humans didn't have free will. Because their influence goes back to when they were evolving from apes. The universe is deterministic. It goes all the way back to the Big Bang.
We always do what we want to do most! You can have two opposing wants and whichever one is stronger is the one you will do. I like ice cream and want to eat it. I know that eating ice cream can be unhealthy for me to eat.
Every decision, emotion and though is produced by physical processes in the brain. We can predict peoples choices before they are conscious by looking at the physical processes in the brain. End of story.
+prygler the process of the body as it comes to do what it will has not a thing to do with free will ..unless u damage it so it will not work as it was intended to do.Processes have to be willed to action in a conscious state or at sleep by a thought we started.
+f150bc Why do you think that? Do you have any scientific evidence to back up that theory? because it strongly contradicts the scientific research I have read....
Mr. Shariff needs to spend a month in a correctional institution, just to see reality as it is. Zen moment guaranteed. Psychopath do not have a functional moral compass , so how are you handling this ?
Robert Sapolsky, a professor of evolutionary neurology, holds the position that free will is an illusion. He was asked in an interview, how do you handle criminality. Sapolsky's response was a simple example. While a car has no free will if its brakes are not functioning you don't let it out on public roads. Just because someone was driven by unseen neurological forces does not mean that person should be let out on the streets. If you're interested at all there are quite a few interviews and lectures on youtube.
+Legal Fiction Natural Fact awwwww is that the kind of science that dumbasses major in? or is it another invented name just like how psychologists call themselves "neuroscientists"? fucking imbecile
'Free will' is still vague and ill defined in my opinion. Your future decisions/choices are based: 1) purely on past events I.e. deterministic (the universe existed before you were born :-) >>> no free will. 2) purely random i.e. nothing can influence it >>> no free will. 3) on mixture of both past + randomness >>> still no free will. It's not about predictability, unpredictability could be a result of complexity and/or ignorance and/or randomness. It's about what factors influence/determine your future state.
Free Will only exists in an imperfect world. If there was a scenario where perfection was attainable, then it may be the case that there would only be one option to choose. When there are options there is Free Will. In our imperfect world we have Free Will. Maybe Artificial Intelligence would always only choose the perfect option, even if it had other options to choose from. But that’s because it could calculate every possible outcome of its actions and always chooses perfection, as choosing otherwise may result in extra calculations later to compensate for not choosing “perfection” in the first place. AI most likely wouldn’t choose extra computations if it could at all avoid it. JMO.
You are watching a TV show and they show a bunch of young woman - so as a man, you are attracted to one of them, but she may not be the most prettiest lass from all of them - but that is your choice. You did it wilfully but can't explain why you are attracted to her and not one of her more prettier colleagues & that says you do not have free will
This doesn’t “end the conversation about the soul.” The soul is the voice in the back of your head that guides your conscious mind on decisions. There needs to be an entire discussion on what the soul is thought to be by philosophers, theologians, and religious people alike.
the voice that talk in back of your head is nothing more than memories and experience your brain reconstruct to create the conscious self. its just thought process, an illusion the brain make to sanely understand your surroundings and to have a higher chance of survival. that's why we have evolved and survive in the nature but that may be also the reason we will self-destruct
Do we have "FREE WILL?" What really is being asked is... do you have the ability to make decisions (well of course, that's literally all we're doing every second) the question is, to what level is one aware of thier decision and the memory algorithms that resulted in the intuitive response prior to when you will choose... Being able to connect the intuitive triggers and level of intellectual ability to make accurate connections or logical conclusion just before deciding to click the button or withdrawal a snap of your finger.. So... How much ignorance one tolerates within himself to satisfy one's desires and whether or not it interferes with his or her immediate want and to which degree he or she uses confirmation bias and the effort one will go to manipulate or influence people to adopt their false reality despite levels of cognitive dissonance..
Christof has yellow pants & an orange belt which matches his yellow patterned socks w/ sparse orange squares. Then his shirt also has bits of orange & the 3rd color that’s in his socks. BUT, what tops it all off is that his watch is yellow! Lastly, I noticed that he has a few purple circles on his shirt also. Well wouldn’t you know that he has purple shoe laces. No joke. He does. Idk why but I really like the way he is dressed. Maybe because it’s different and interesting. Plus he has an accent so he can pull the whole thing off.
I shall tell you what actually free will is...... So suppose I arrive at one of your science experiments and you give me information wich requires me to make this choice or that choice and that will help you get paid to decide if free will exists, then I stand up and do neither this or that, but I leave and go ride my bike..... that my friend is free will..... I wish I could get paid for my observations as you do. Offering limited choices to a complex organism such as the brain and body, then measuring electrical frequency and action vs time and saying I'm not choosing to move my arm is ignorance, of course there will be a delay, your brain is so complicated it has to allocate a measure of time to allow you to decide if you want to change your initial decision, you even stated we have the freedom to decide to reject an action rather than initiate an action , free won't vs free will. That is what your observing in your test. Ps. To the man who spoke of mercy for murderers and reducing the guilty sentence, this is exactly what Jesus spoke about pure total true forgiveness even for the guilty, wich in turn alleviates our own innermost struggles with ourselves, for if we can forgive with love others who are guilty, then we can forgive ourselves for our many crimes and we all have some blemishes that we want to be forgotten. Ps I'm not religious either. I do believe in kindness joy love forgiveness and treat others how you want to be treated, and I choose to belive in thoes attributes vs meanness, sadness hate grudges and revenge ciao bella.
If a decision is an event in the real universe, it is governed by the same laws of physics as any other event. If a decision is not an event in the real universe, it cannot affect anything. Free will is like free lunch - there ain't any.
Azim Shariff said that non believers in free-will do not hesitate to commit crime.. but laws and punishment will keep them from doing it so we can comfortable adopt the idea, its like re inventing the wheel ... isnt thats what religion is ? from laws to cult, to believe, to morality.
The key is that whether it happens consciously or unconsciously we remain the agents of our own actions. It is still actually us, consciously or unconsciously, that is making the choice. And both our conscious and unconscious selves, as a whole person, will be held responsible for that choice.
I don't trust the 3rd speaker, a couple of times, he changed what words he was using, and... it really matters. If the studies told people "There is no free will" is *NOT* the same as telling people "You have no moral responsibility", he conflates the two several times... which makes me wonder *EXACTLY* what the studies were, *EXACTLY* what the subjects were told, etc. I worry about some bias from he, especially since he's *STILL* and *INTENTIONALLY* dodging the question of whether or not he believes we have "free will".
My hypothesis would be: That the initial conditions of a person shape their will. Like velocity is the measurement and acceleration is the rate of change. The higher the velocity the harder the acceleration will have to be to change the direction. In the case of the will, The more initial conditions toward a certain goal the more stimuli will be needed to change the trajectory of ones will.
Interesting thought... So if someone decides to change their trajectory it would take a large external source of energy to reverse it. What about people who change based on pain. I suppose pain would be the energy needed to change
The whole thing with your hand going up and down that was a decision you sat there and you didn't think anything therefore you weren't going to do anything then you decided well I'm going to start thinking about moving my arm up and down at a certain time that was your choice and that's what you did when you thought about nothing that was your choice and you didn't do anything that's free will I found your own you have to think about something to move first cuz our mind controls our bodies people Jesus these guys are missing I hate to see the future if these guys were the past talk about missing the whole point of the concept they got things in all kinds of different categories under the same listing when it's completely absurd
Free will on a personal scale just a one-person acting alone doing whatever they're doing without anybody else around you'll see that you have free will to do whatever you please but when it comes to certain things and quite a few things in a societal nature you won't have those free wills because you're not dealing with only yourself anymore you're dealing with all the bullshit that comes with everybody else now you can choose to ignore them and go on doing whatever and act like they don't exist you damn it right you can you can go get snore and do what you want of course you can but society is going to show you for it she said he's going to say you're weird or you can't do that or whatever the case may be because they think you shouldn't have the opportunity to do so or have something or simply because they're jealous so they try and get you in trouble for some reason that's not you you don't have control over them you don't have control over anything of the real world has in living this and that weather is going to storm those things you don't have a well I'm going to go outside today and since I have free will it's going to be nice nope doesn't happen that way the way you think and what you do is your own until you get into societal natures of some kinds other than that Free Will is still there in a sense but if you want to be part of society you have to give up some of your free will if you care about other what other people think about you and what they're going to say about you me I don't give a flying shit what anybody thinks about me or says about me I'm going to do what I want to do as long as it's something I want to do I'm going to do it I don't care what people think if I'm weird or whatever of course I have my moral values I wake up in the morning in the first thing I think of is I want to punch somebody no doesn't happen
The relationship between those two is getting them to actually listen and comprehend what you're saying you understand that if you sit there and not making noise cuz you just did something wrong you're in timeout you're time out time will start and then faster than it will if you keep getting up shouting it has to start all over again and you'll be there longer causing more of a hassle with yourself and get them to realize it get them to realize what you're saying thus all well there's a good positive I sit here and own up to what I've done to if I try to make a ruckus and not listen because I don't want to sit here even though I've done something wrong it's called reasoning and logic you got to teach them reasoning and logic and then you got to teach them the moral fibers of what is considered good and what is considered bad and then you know then you got the whole societal crap but first you should teach them the fundamentals first obviously let's keep them reason and logic going you know problem solving skills asking them questions seeing how they figure things out and what they come up with to solve something or make something that they oh well I don't have the two for this so what can I do now to their actual understanding like reading a book to him or they can read read have them read a book and have them tell you what was going on in the book and why they were doing it hone in on their skills to make them more powerful mentally that was not hard was it that's the most simplest thing in the world a small one of some of the hardest things to do with some kids doing it I suggest you start from birth
Father gave a beings he created with his lit light with the freewill to do as we wish, and a right to choose. And as long as we don’t use our freewill to harm another living creature on purpose; no one really has anything to say. Plus there are no consequences.
Again who has a desire to punish some bully that's not punishing that's just hurting this guy right next to that girl was trying to say people have a desire to punish people no people don't some people have a desire to hurt people some people think people should be punished for things that they do so that they learn which is not wrong but that is that a desire to or is that a well we know we got a punish them where they ain't going to learn that's a have to again damn making us punish them we could just let him go but guess what we know they're going to do it again do it worse maybe kill somebody other than that we have to take an account on our own accountability for not trying to get them to see where they were wrong to begin with in punishing them instead of letting them go to do it again that means we let them go cuz your ideology and this time to go and murder somebody well guess what person that just let them go I didn't punish them for what they've done that blood that murder that life is on their hands too they're just as guilty because they did nothing to stop it they didn't punched like if you go if somebody goes out and sticks a gun to your head and robs you do you think that nothing should happen do you think that they should just get away with Scott for you all in all your good go on you robbed me a gun you think we should just let them go on and get off scott free or should they be punished to hopefully teach them a lesson that they shouldn't do that well of course it should be hopefully so they don't do it again that doesn't mean they won't cuz some people never learn but if you let him off scott free they're sure as hell going to do it again and they're going to do it worse and they're going to do it to more people and more people and more people so is that a I want to punish them or is it necessary need that we know we have to do because they did crime now they have to do the time whether somebody is mad that they did it as a whole other Factor then I want to punish somebody I'm going to go out and look for somebody to punish the people be getting punished for nothing all the time what a bunch of quacks
The fly analogy literally proves that they are making decisions of their own free will either go right or left or stay there or go back just like any creature would just cuz I have less neurons you think they don't have the ability to make a decision
Every choice is consciously made whether you are consciously aware enough you made that decision or not it's another thing because you think about it you make up your decision whether you want it or need it or want it and don't need it and then you weigh the two and then you either get it or you don't depending on you want it and you don't need it do you want it need it to you want it need it but you can't get it because of societal nature I sure make that my own but they won't let me or if they weren't there I wouldn't made it myself to not making it would be your own decision the only thing that would stop you somebody dictating you couldn't do it societal nature horses free will we didn't have free will what would we have nothing there'd be nobody doing anything but something would have to be controlling all of us all at once or would be just aimlessly running around and we wouldn't know diddly shit and we'd be dead because it wouldn't be learning anything we'd be hungry and not know why fools
This debate seems a bit pointless, i mean if there would be a scientific consensus that time is an emergent property and not fundamental it would still serve as a shitty excuse to show up late all the time. Azim only mentioning cognitive dissonance when he's talking about the punitive implications of holding one's opinion on free will as a believe misses the observation that people employ a scientific believe in the lack of free will as a means to refrain from acting responsibly because they can use science as a means to justify their own behavior ie: relieve themselves of cognitive dissonance. It's the same with how people use natural selection as a means to justify their own behavior. If we're all just in one big competition to see who can use up the most resources we end with... well, look around you. Fortunately some of those resources are still being put into the sciences and that's one of the things i feel somewhat proud about when it concerns human civilization. I just hope there won't be a popular debate concerning the concept of responsibility and if it's a fundamental or emergent property... we all know what it is even without scientific judgement.
Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Mind Over Masters: The Question of Free Will to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=uIXGxRZk3G4
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
TR⚪N is the power .the Quantum
The system is not working for me with me the best way as face to face live. 8
8
Ask me a question
@@josepercivalborjarobertson2469
Dear, Jose... Okay, then. How are you-?
Is the 1st quest-ion. 2nd. Where do you reside-? And, 3rdly. What prompted you to posit such a statement as, "ask me a question"-?
My grandmother was full of ismic sayings, lots of isims, like, for instance, whenever I would ask her, why, about whatever, she'd vitriolicly pounce on me with, "why's a crooked letter that can't be straightened" or, if I ever said, "I thought...", in reference to a not so very obvious answer to a query, she'd tell me, "thought shit himself, and you licked his legs"...
Such a lovely lady, was my grandmother...
&, so, Now, I'm approachingng 70yrs of age, and lifes' deepest mysterys' have come home to roost and reside within me, but in a more meaningfully profound and reverential way, and I'm learning to just,
God Bless Everyone, Bless Everything, Always, Amen...
Seeing that, our LOVE is only ever equal to our humility and our gratitude for the confidence and the prowess that stabilises our LOVE...
Regards to you, from OZ, down under, in Australia...
Regarding penalty: The goals of a just penalty would be to (a) repair the harm done to the victim, (b) correct the future behavior of the offender, (c) protect society from further harm by constraining the offender until he is corrected, and (d) do no harm to the offender or his rights beyond what is reasonably necessary to accomplish (a), (b), and (c). This is justice. Those seeking revenge are not going to find justice.
Thief: "I had no choice about stealing the money."
Judge: "I have no choice but to send you to prison."
Yes of course but those scientists do not conclude that we have no control of ourselves. Another thing wrong with what you said is that our choices will be made partly based on laws. What the laws are influences our choices. If the law said you can pay for food you get at a store or you can take some of it for free then that would influence your choices.
it talks like a jew, and it walks like a jew
@@sunray6673 ...it's probably a clever imposter.
@@Jessica-to8um I don't see how unless you think free will is black or white. We have free will to an extent but it is not 100% under our control. The studies do not conclude that we have zero control of ourselves.
Exactly, otherwise he will go out and commit more crimes.
I go with Schopenhauer in this-
Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer
That's a nice one.
But you do will what you will though.
@@owensspace Nope, scientific research shows that we do not choose to choose, (or as you said "you do will what you will"). At least not consciously. To make sure you don't misunderstand me an example is from me debating with devout (religious) people. Some of those people say "Open your mind and let God into your heart then with time you will have faith.". My answer to that is I cannot choose to have faith. That's what I mean.
Dan Kelly what I’m saying is that you choose to not have faith. Because, something could always change your mind. Maybe your friend dies and god comes to you in a dream and somehow you start to have faith. Now, is that an external force causing you to have a dream and to start having faith, maybe. But if you don’t believe you want the new iPhone, but then you see a commercial and it looks good and you decide to buy it, did external forces make you buy it, or did you choose to buy it?
You do choose, consciously, to have faith or not. At least, I, do.
Interesting discussion, but I do feel a paraphrased Christopher Hitchens quote is appropriate here, "Do we have free will? Of course, we have no choice but to." ;)
i miss that man
+twstdelf I think I'll leave this one here as well from Christopher Hitchens, when he was asked if he believed in free will, he responded with "I have no other choice."
Which is to say that there is no such thing as absolute free will, but within the constraints of our human natures there is free will, in other words the innate potential to choose or perhaps modify our own behaviour in accord with higher mental concerns, rather than allow them to be determined by biological imperatives as with other animals.
Hitchens was right. Better take him serious. Read!
Free will is an urge, a desire, Not simply an ability. What an individual is perceiving as his own free will, is a self conditioned illusion which was and is constantly refined by oneself. This illusion is completely internalized, or assimilated inside of every individual mind, because this illusion is inseperable connected with individual intelligence (the implantation of indiviudal intelligence and the evolution of itself over generations). On that basis an understanding or better the understanding of everything is impossible. We humans call that illusion life.
But death is only biological.
Who said your unconscious mind is really your own unconscious mind all the time and that the unconscious mind is not available to introspection, or that it dies? No it was not Freud , it is you, dear reader.
Benjamin Libet’s experiment regarding the so called readiness potential, which results were confirmed by Haggard and Eimer and lately (2009) by Kühn and Brass proofs that every single voluntary action is preceded by a measure of activity in the motor cortex and supplementary motor area of the brain.
The illusion of free will is only maintained in the individual mind through believe.
This believe is shattered by simultaenously aknowledgeing the available data humans acquired and understanding that the unconscious mind is not only your own unconscious mind. In true reality every individual being is a conscious part, who needs to sleep, of an enormous collective unconscious. SRS, NREM or deep sleep is our state of sleep cycle in which we power up through a connection to the enormous collective unconscious, which we can make visible on an EEG of a sleeping and living brain. It is called the Delta wave.
Now from the real perspective, as an individual conscious part of a bigger collective unconscious, the illusionary ability free will becomes something far more important than just simply an ability.
It becomes an urge, an instinct, a desire and every single individual human is suppressing this through a selfconditioned illusion based on the arrogance and ignorance of individual intelligence from her/his conception until death. It is therefore a basic requirement for every single individual being like air to breath and to consider what you know as free will as just simply an ability is suppressing the theoretical and practical gifts of every single human being.
The evolution of diseases are an inevitable consequence of this fact and must therefore retroactively be determined for our whole species.
You gonna learn the only possible way now. The fucking hard way. I'm done now with your work and ready and I don't feel like waiting anymore.
You wanna be healed? Then feel the sickness first!
... JUST, to set a president, here... it's not so obvious, until IT BECOMES obvious, that something, anything, everything, is, in all-ways, a product of something else. And, we are, by nature, naturally compelled, to be, to learn... It's is instinctively-intuitively, innately, hormonelly, chemically, adictively, and dictatorially a control function of ISNESS. &, the
BUSINESS of ISNESS is to make purposeful meaning, and meaningful purpose from, and within, existence. So... go for IT, and
God Bless Everyone, Bless Everything, Always, Amen... for...
Our Love IS ONLY Ever Equal To Our Humility And Our Gratitude For The Confidence And The Prowess That Stabilises Our LOVE...
The molecules in my brain made me type this comment.
BigBen Hebdomadarius I’m a physicalist and your statement is all sorts of wrong
@@raresmircea Molecules lack intentionality, since when? 😉
Glaucon-5 First of all, ‘intentionality’ is a poor choice of words because in the philosophical and scientific context it is used to refer to something very different then what you have in mind. And in this context, molecules definitely *don’t* have intentionality. But even in taking the most relaxed and broad meaning of the word, molecules still don’t appear to have intentionality. You’re free to indulge in your own kind of animistic beliefs, because i don’t think that there’s an absolute proof that molecules aren’t manifesting intentionality. It might be, but in my opinion the chances are very slim and even if it were true *it wouldn’t change anything.* Acids and alkanes and alkenes will still behave as we’ve learned in our basic chemistry class.. like simple "chemicals". It doesn’t matter what we believe them to be, it matters what the do. If someone throws acid on me *i only care about what acid does* , it doesn’t really matter what the underlying metaphysics are.
@@raresmircea First of all, I was making a joke regarding the OP's comment. Second, I was laughing at the idea of molecules making anyone do something. The implicit idea in using the word "intentionally" was the idea of molecules being the reason your mental states are about something. The molecules are behind it all!
I majored in philosophy, and I graduated at the top of my class, by the way. My senior thesis explored how one would explain our mental representations of time's purported passage if you accept a B-theory account of time. I hoped the emoticon would have conveyed that my reply was not serious.
Glaucon-5 Looking back on it yes, that emoji did warn me. I just had my mind set up.
The funny thing is (about the alcholics anonymous question) my understanding is a big part of the program is actually built around the concept of surrender and admitting you're powerless. It sounds to me that letting go of the concept of free will is actually necessary for recovery. And I know from my own life that relying on "will power" in the areas that you are weak is a formula for disaster. What seems to work is support (mental and emotional) and changing your environment.
Replace my will with God's will.
You have the free will to call your sponsor when you're supposed to. You have the free will to attend meetings and participate. You have the free will to choose God's will and make better decisions. Or not. It's entirely your doing. Aa and na disarm ego. This gets you into the habit of thinking before reacting to stimuli, either internal or external.
Exactly. Otherwise why would you even need a program? Just decide not to drink. Any such program works on the principle that your brain is like a machine which responds in predictable ways to stimuli and adjusts its habitual behavior. It's a matter of using thst knowledge to change that habitual behavior or mindset rather than relying on "force of will"
Yea I feel like that’s a good thing. It causes one to know that he or she have to take necessary steps. They can’t just procrastinate, brush it off, wait until they “feel” like it or next time. Like knowing that it’s been deterministic causes them to forgive themselves from the past literally and fix it by taking the steps towards sobriety
Kinda dark don't you think? "Surrender"... "powerless" .... Jesus man....
One of the biggest problems with trying to understand free will and figure out whether or not it exists is the semantics of it. We need a memetically stable definition of free will if we, as a society, are to figure this out.
I agree. But in order to do this we must first define our terms. I think our misunderstanding of the question "Do I have Free Will?" stems from our misunderstanding of the term "I".
What is "I"? What is the self? When one interrogates oneself on this topic, one realises that the 'self' that we think of as existing is actually an illusion, there is no thinker in addition to the sensory data (thoughts etc) - there is just the data.
The disintegration of the illusion of self runs parallel to the disintegration of the illusion of Free Will. They're two sides of the same coin imo.
@@Prime-o8f I'm going to politely disagree with you. The "I" I believe most people believe in is similar to a "soul" the more religious the person, and similar to "free thinking consciousness" the more scientific the person. But however ones attempts to define what is meant by "I", I still say it's not an illusion. The "Me" that's conscious *IS* different than *ANY* other "part" or "Version" of "myself". I don't think it's completely separate like a soul, and it may only be something akin to a "Simulated intelligence" (Some form of psychological phenomena) that's "running" on my "computer's hardware" (Bodily Organs). Now, you might argue that this "version" of "i" is an illusion as it's still completely run by my organs, However, it clearly has it's own input and output separate from the "unconscious mind", as a person can have multiple thoughts at the same time, and then *also* have that gut feeling that either agrees or disagrees with some of those thoughts.
The Conscious "me" is distinct, and *does* exist, and therefore is *not* an illusion. It is quite often conflated and confused with a "separate" or "non-physical" self, and I agree that would be an illusion. The other reason I say that "I" isn't a complete illusion, is because there are times where a person can do something, against their own interests (as far as they know) and not at all understand "why" they did it. In those cases, I'd say that the "self" I'm referring to isn't privy the reasons (data) that such an action was taken.
So even if "I" isn't separate from the mind/brain, I still don't think it's an "illusion".
@@dementare The Holographic Universe theory would posit that everything within existence is a high-functioning illusion.
@@GrimSleepy Depending on the version of the holographic universe you mean, I have different rebuttals, but I'm not a proponent of any of them.
Would you agree with this statment? For there to be an illusion there must exist something real and tangible that is experiencing or creating the illusion?
Another thought is this, if we to think of our existence as an illusion, and the illusion is so realistic in every way, so real that we cannot even prove it, I then would tend to believe that we do live in a real physical state with the mental ability to conceive otherwise.
I think the my Neuroscientist friend missed few basic glitches in the Modern Physical Laws designed by humans : i) you can not determine the exact motion and mass of any particle at the same time, ii) there is a lot of dark matter and dark energy which is yet to be understood fully and that may play a role in non-material things like consciousness. Further the Whole is often behave in different ways than the Sum total of its constituent particles as a result you can't predict human behaviour simply by predicting the state of individual particles in the body.
"How do you tell an alcoholic they need to stop drinking if there is no free will?"
This is a dumb question and the type of question that many free will proponents flaunt in the face of anti free willist's without thinking things through critically. You don't even have to fake free will as the psychologist responded. All you have to understand is that we are beings who can respond to feedback and we can adjust future actions based off the feedback just like all self monitoring, self reflective machines in the universe do in order to survive and progress. Free will is not a prerequisite for self improvement.
I join you on this. I was a bit disappointed by so much dodging, inaccuracies, logically loose statements, and inaccuracies. In the end, it just shows how uncomfortable we still are with having a clear view on the topic, and how it raises more questions than answers.
The important distinction is between when our brain has made a decision and when we become consciously aware of making the decision.
i just decided to not to listen to this crap that is free will ..
I was thinking when she introduced the 1st guest how mind boggling it was that a professor could write 100 books. When he corrected her and it was said that he wrote 10 I thought “that makes a lot more sense”.
Interesting...Some addicts are addicts bc it is something that they can control
Whoaw! (Mind blow)
What a terrifying place this would be if we HAD to do what we wanted all the time...Anyway, I don't believe in free will for the same reason I think the entire universe was inevitable. It can't not exist and it couldn't have existed in any other way. Me and my brain/consciousness are constructed and influenced from a causal chain billions of years in the making. I have no more control over what the rest of the universe does/has done, than I do over those events which wired my brain nor how the neurons fire in response to inputs. I believe in behavioral adaptation and that humans can be trained. So thus we should punish destructive behavior and reward good. but not that we should harbor hate or superiority over them. I have bipolar so I know what it's like to live with strong, sometimes overwhelming impulses.
Decisions are based upon and emotional response to one's beliefs. I wish these guys knew more than what they do. It's so disappointing to me to hear where they are at in the question of freewill.
Experience shows that most people believe in the could have done otherwise free will. That's the free will of catholicism that I'm concerned about. Such a free will is impossible since what we do would be determined by prior causes whether we live in a deterministic or indeterministic universe. No one can be deserving of reward or punishment in an afterlife.
John Calvin became convinced that any action on our part toward God would be contrary to the belief of grace being the only means of salvation.
This resulted in his adjusting the concept of Predestination into double Predestination. This meant in simple terms that God predestined not only those who would receive the grace of salvation, but that God had predestined those who would not receive this grace. All was God's divine will.
Calvin anecdotally called it "that horrible doctrine".
If nothing else it's an interesting study in one of many attempts to resolve the question of free will or determinism.
I'm not aware of any other Christian theologian prior to him that proposed the radical idea that humans do not have free will. As the speaker mentioned the concept of sin is predicated upon the idea of personal choice. Calvin reversed this idea declaring we are not free to sin or not sin.
IT all comes down to perspective! If we live in a random universe (which evidence strongly suggests), then you can look at the whole universe as being like Pascal's triangle where we can see from a perspective outside the universe that all possible combinations of matter and energy get "tried out" eventually, at least once, in a very specific sequence over time. So, everything is determined, from that perspective. And if you are a limited being (as we humans are) looking at the universe from inside the universe, we're located at some point within Pascal's triangle, and because we're limited, we can't possibly know exactly where we are in the grand map of things, so reality is at least somewhat unpredictable. This is the experience of free will, where effects aren't totally obvious from the (known) causes.
As for whether we are "responsible" for our actions, yes and no: no more or less responsible than the sun, a bicycle, and a pickle are responsible for their actions. For an effect to come about, regardless of what individual we're talking about, the factors/causes that create that effect, have to be in place first. If you want me to do X, then you have to make sure that all the things that make me do X are input into the system that is me. Neglect to give me any one of those X-precurssors and it will be physically impossible for me to do X. We intuitively understand this for computers, airplanes, and usually even simple living things like trees and bacteria, but somehow we haven't yet fully comprehended that this is just as true for us complex beings, too. :-)
But that, likely, is something that will come with time, as the universe moves on from trying out "humans are confused about cause and effect" to "humans understand cause and effect". :-)
i can tell you the two groups of people
one group is people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. so they invent this story that they dont have free will, and thusly can not control themselves. with this rationalization, they free themselves of the guilt that they would otherwise feel, when they did something wrong.
the other group, of course, are the people who understand that they need to take responsibility for their actions. and instead of making excuses, they take responsibility for their actions.
another very simple question to answer !!
It's been a burning question of mine for forever- if free will is true or if fate/destiny is real. They can can't both be true.
Neither.
Fate or destiny implies there is someone who's written a script for us/the universe. There is no such thing. We don't understand time yet but as far as we know, the future is unwritten.
And we don't have free will because if we did rewind the world few seconds back, we would always make the same decision all things being the same.
But we do make decisions all the time. And those depend on an incredibly complex set of priors that can come out in any number of ways that nobody can predict (essentially because of quantum randomness - which has done away with Laplace's demon).
You are the story you tell yourself
There is also a concept of Quantum Leaps. When you decide to shift your reality total opposite of what you would normally do and change the story. Kind of like the movie Groundhog Day, the character gradually changed his personality as he was stuck and lived the same day over and over, but you can also shift from day 1 to the end results of his journey of 100th day within a split second. If everything is based on making a choice, isn't making a choice considered free will?@@katarinajanoskova
I don't see any evidence for free will. I do see a lot of evidence for a causally driven reality, and if the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is true, then we absolutely do not have free will.Nevertheless, it does seem useful and more engaging to act as if I do have free will, so that's something.
I debunked the finger snap experiment and free will prevailing .I simply snapped my fingers when he got to 3 you have a choice not to do what you told
my free will got me to about 25 mins into this video. After which the boredom and bullshit made me click on something else
Isn't the delay just the processing time from when from when your brain accesses the wave field and projected into the particle field? How would this prove there is no free will?
Agreed, the argument that free will does not exist, from these experiments, does not logically follow. It is by definition invalid and thus incoherent.
The experiments essentially show that your thoughts/decisions come after the brain's input. The subject is asked to do a random/free movement to perform, but the experimenter can see the decision made in the brain before the subject is aware of making any decision - hence no free will. Our brains basically comment on what is happening.
Of course we learn and can rationalise about future decisions etc etc, otherwise we wouldn't have youtube videos to comment on, but there is no free agent in the brain making decisions this or that way.
I don't know about you but I can feel myself making a conscious decision to do something before I actually do it.
Almost like you make the decision.. it just then takes time to propagate from that decision to using it to remember how to send exactly the right signal you are going for before it turns into actual physical movement.
Am I missing how they are accounting for that?
Free will begins to exist once the consequences of your action to yourself and/or others is understood. Before that is self centred indulgence and before that survival instinct....
Everyone are playing their parts in the game of life. You have no choice. The drug addicts have not choice. The homeless guy have no choice. The grocery clerk have no choice. The caveman have no choice. We are all put here for one person to find herself in this twilight zone call earth. She thinks its a waste of time.
The reason this issue is so difficult to discuss and wrap our heads around is due, I believe, to a fundamental misconception of the notion of free will in the first place. First we must define the will. The will is nothing more than that faculty/function of the mind which chooses. But I contend that the will is constrained to choose that which is most strongly desired at the moment of decision. It must select the strongest inclination as its end.
Clearly, in this sense the will is not free at all; or at least only as free as the desire/inclination which it seeks to effect. This brings us to the crux of matter: are we in fact free to consciously determine and control our strongest desires/inclinations? Or, do we merely become aware of what they are? I would challenge someone who believes in free will to choose other than his/her strongest desire.
Now some will say that they choose other than their strongest desire all the time, but I would disagree. You may greatly want to punch someone in the face sometimes and refrain from doing so, but that is due only to the fact the you want something else even more than to punch the person - be it to avoid punishment, out of fear for your own safety, to plan your revenge in a more subtle way, because it conflicts with a higher belief that you have which you want to be true to, or whatever the case may be. You may choose not to eat the piece of pie you really want, but only because you want something else more (perhaps to demonstrate that you can not choose the pie). If so, that is what you will be compelled to choose.
There is and can be no evidence to support 'traditional' free will b/c no one has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to not choose what they wanted most at the moment of decision, or to demonstrate that they could have chosen otherwise under the exact same set of circumstances in which they made their original choice.
The implications that accompany the rejection of the comforting fiction of free will are, of course, enormous. But if we want to live reasonable lives we must embrace them. We have no choice.
I agree, and I just explain it by the fact that it's all included, and we are living in this skin or this mind, we are effected by everything in our universe and acting within the unbroken chain of causality.
I believe it doesn't hurt to think we have a practical level of freewill, because we live and feel the choices, but a God given level of freewill is totally incompatible with the all powerful will of the hypothetical God character.
Another thing is that when someone commits a crime, they are behaving like a broken machine, and when we see something is broken, we permanently or temporarily take it out of service, and if the malfunction is fixable, it can go back out on the floor, but if it's serious, it is permanently taken out of service.
I have known people addicted to heroine and crack and the likes, (sugar is the worst addiction) and when the poison runs out, they sometimes cannot get out of bed and not from a lack of desire, they are literally shaking and shivering and convulsing to the point that they CANNOT physically get out of bed. As soon as the medicine rolls around, they take it and BOOM they're out of bed and back to wheeling and dealing to get the next hit.
I've seen some people break out of that cycle. I've seen the cage take some people (Edit: Overdosed and died to clarify). I've seen some people leave their family and friends behind, living on the street and doing whatever dirty deed or job they can get offered just to get that next hit.
Q: My question to you would be, with the idea that some people simply cannot fight the desire of the opiate receptors, why are some people capable of escaping this downward spiral of destruction?
A: After which, I'll play devil's advocate and propose that it's the differing intricacies of each individual's mind coupled with the entire makeup of their personal past experiences which play a primary role on which is the stronger desire between A) The opiate receptors shouting at the top of their little microscopic lungs or B) The want to be a productive and healthy part of something bigger than themselves.
I'd like to hear if you still feel the same about this topic, and of course your take on my question towards you. Whether you respond or not... Have a beautiful day, week, month, year, decade, century, millennia and rest of eternity! Love and be loved.
@@GrimSleepy i would say that the addiction can be overwhelming for some and for others there is a breaking point where they confront the problem and are successful but as I like to say, everything is included and all reasons that someone is successful or not, it really is a continuous uninterrupted chain of causality where they happen to meet the right people or fall into the correct situations.
I'm not saying that they can't feel proud that they conquered an addiction, but this is where the idea of GOD'S will or predetermined outcome comes into play, or it was never out of play.
People enjoy a practical level of Freewill, but after it happens, it is the only thing that could happen at the last moment.
@@richtomlinson7090 Ya, we are a result of all of our experiences culminating up to the 'now'.
That is the most significant thing that makes each of us unique individuals; The specific order or sequence of events that have influence on our perception of existence.
@@GrimSleepy yes, even twins become unique in so many ways because of that fact.
actions have consequences we can choose to do a thing or not..if we do or do not that will effect something anyway.But sometimes no matter how we try the outcome is not what we wanted..that is not because we do not have free will ..it is because the Universe is in Chaos and not perfect and out of this comes form and creation, some of this looks like we understand it but in true fact we do not .And still we have the free will to do a thing or not regardless of the outcome.We do not have to understand what is going on to have free will because we are part of the Chaos and its outcome.
this is my new fav youtube channel
What a shame that when humans should be responsible for themselves sociologists think that's the parameters for not having fun...✌🏞🎶🏛🎸🌟🎵🌈⛥🤘😎✨
It really doesn't have to be one or the other...
I hold that we have "shackled will," which is definable as a weak free will. We possess the capacity to choose among available options...but the choice is inevitably colored by our biology and experiences. Sometimes we can overcome the circumstances, but the vast majority of the time we are shackled to our neurochemistry and prior experiences and act accordingly.
And since the very act of choosing has a physical effect on the brain, any choices we make must further constrain future options.
Hence i put great importance on personal responsibility, trying to make good choices in an effort to avoid painting myself into a behavioral corner...
Meanwhile i support rehabilitation and improvements in compassionate treatment of prisoners, as i believe society can help some return to a productive life with a bit of work.
For those who can't be helped...we can still offer compassion and a structured existence...
As for the inevitable question of capital punishment...those who cannot be rehabilitated or reliably contained, and who pose a danger...
For such cases, pragmatism must rule the day. Hopefully future advances will allow a better option.
One problem: Define "choosing". If a choice is something conscious, then all neurological evidence shows that the brain has to act before it can develop a conscious narrative in the higher order processes. Provided that is the case, then "choosing" as you implicitly define it would be an effect that precedes its cause, and that is impossible. If you are arguing that "choosing" is some abstract,nonphysical mental-state, then it cannot cause anything in the physical world, including neural events.
The woman seems to be the wisest one on the panel. She understands that becoming competent in anything is a process. It's not just 'do you have free will or not'. It's about taking steps and building layers of competencies. The men make it way too black and white.
while not getting into some gender war I tend to agree I am somewhat underwhelmed by some of the simplistic positions taken here. irrespective of where they orginate
Man, that 4 year old girl that said: "I have to eat the noodles because I like them" is evidence to me of no free will.
Everything else we think is just built off that foundation.
Most of us can decide whether we will do what we like or won't, but we can decide what we like, some of us can decide what we like considering its benefits by logic, but we can't decide whether to decide or not decide :p I don't believe in free will but as more as knowledge you have over the world the more "free will" you have
Let's put 4 determinists together and let them discuss free will. That's got to be informative, right?
who's brain did you get? Abby someone. Abby Normal.
abe
Freedom and responsibility are necessary fictions.
They may be fictions in a pure universal or quantum sense, but to consciousness, and to all related systems, they are not fictitious and are every bit as real as consciousness itself.
So one can disabuse themselves of free will no more than they can their own consciousness.
Actually, consciousness is also a necessary fiction.
@@bobaldo2339 you dont belive in consiussness? That is all you can be sure of. Hell it is even possible that your consiussness generates this whole universe. But you know you are so: no fiction.
@@gergabendi i am a zombie and i am only faking being conscious to fit in.
I wonder why they concluded premium freewill doesn't exist just because we can observe subconscious decisions in the brain before the feeling of agency? It's a useful assumption to make for practical purposes but to say that ends the conversation forever is just seems narrow minded
one of the many shortcuts that occurred during this debate.
The answer depends on how the terms are defined.
Yes but it's like asking is a magician sawing a woman in half an illusion. It depends on how it's defined.
No duh. Such a lame response to an interesting question.
The lectures by Sapolsky at Stanford are interesting concerning the biological reasons regarding this subject.
Cannot reccomend his lectures highly enough. A number of them can be found here on youtube.
Life is the most realistic video-game
So far, I feel that our consciousness is still shedding the constraints of our ancient, necessarily limited selves. The first thing we need in order to evolve consciously is to survive, and the human brain is fairly bossy in the area of survival. As the decades and centuries go by, science will backtrack or retrack entirely on many of these ideas.
Free will is a fantasy. We are in control of our lives and behavior to a degree, however our destiny has more to do with accident than any decision on our personal part. Whether we become physicists, mechanics, physicians, cooks, or dog catchers, depends on our environment. I am talking about our economic environment, as well specifically our parents beliefs and values, and their sanity. The values of the people in our immediate circle, parents, brothers , sisters, friends, teachers, and people who we encounter in our daily lives, living or fictional can all affect the decisions we make in our life. The society we live in has a profound influence on who we are and who we become. It is a complex, phenomena becoming who you are. Free will if it exists at all plays an infinitesimal part in our destiny.
I loved the panel and the direction each one took with the discussion. I believe we have free will to certain extents. I also believe that we are all predisposed and pre-conditioned to follow certain lines of action. Somethings come natural and easy to some of us while other things take a great deal of will power to do/not do. So, we have free will but it is sort of compromised. If we live giving no thought to our actions, our dictatorial pre-conditionings take over, but if we can live consciously and minding our moves, then we do not have to be will-less slaves of our minds.
I don't buy the moral argument of not being accountable. I dont care if you were being controlled by this subconscious agency or not. You, as
a vessel DID it, crime or whatever. Sorry,..but you answer for it. I don't care if you are destined to punch old people in the street against your will. You ARE punching old people in the street and your " out of control self" needs to get locked up. Lol.
Completely agree. I guess everyone make choices. A failure or a murdered can't say I was destined to do this and could not have happened otherwise
They are discussing they are making conjectures they are not claiming that the experiment shows that no one is responsible for their actions.
I enjoyed this very much! Thank you!
I have a simple view based on the knowledge I gained about free will: humans don't have 'free' will, they have 'will', and one's 'will' is shaped by physical processes *and* by *information*. Human brains are information processors. In a sense, 'information' is a *real* substance, and according to others like Dennett, even *agents!*
We have no free will but we can train our brain to make better choices
Once people begin to think about free will I don't know how anyone could concluded we have it. As a society we differentiate between intention and reaction. But look close enough and there isn't a difference. We can't not be reacting to everything. It's impossible.
So because there is readiness potential it removes agency? How do they know that the self didn't cause that onset of behavior, then carried it out these milliseconds later?
Disclaimer: This comment contains opinions. I am in the "no free will" group. But at the same time I am not being a bad person and excuse my actions by the fact that I do not believe in free will. Also, I like spicy food and know that most people have a much lower threshold for spicy, so I would not intentionally make their soup "hot". And one more thing: I cannot feel anger to somebody. I completely lack this emotion. My opinion on free will is that it does not exist. But I am not a determinist, we are chaotic and unpredictable. Even these experiments with rising hands can predict up to 1,5 seconds at best. It is like predicting the weather about three days in advance (more or less), anything beyond that is pure speculation. The difference is that the weather is a system of more or less regular cycles. Our actions are much more chaotic and driven by so many factors (even by the weather itself - so a chaotic system driven partially and chaotically by another chaotic system - think about it). Basically I can see why people like the idea of a free will. But what we have I call "freed will" - it as the possibility to think about itself as being free. And with constant confirmation bias which shape our very own personalities, we tend to cement certain "truths" to make some meaning of the chaos around us. So, even this post written here is just written just to reassure myself here. And also this very idea - meme - is being spread from my brain to yours, if you decide to read, think, understand and accept it. Question about change. Will we change and stop being bad to each other? Depends on chaos and how we make sense of it. I do not know the answer. Actions are choices - if you choose to either excuse or confirm your actions by free will or the absence of it does not make a difference in the end. It is just your own, personal reasoning, based on whatever you believe or disbelieve. Exercising choice or self control? Belief in better self-control vs thinking of developing a mindset that allows self control if I understood correctly? I do not see it especially important - whatever was evolutionary a benefit ultimately became standard, so whatever way it is around, it just is. I completely agree about the cognitive dissonance explanation! Confirmation bias of your own world views supports your very own (and not freely made) conclusions. We need to make these "boxes" to put things into in order to make sense of this great mess around us. And some people end here, others there, in different sets and put others into another sets again. The fly experiments confirms the chaos behind it. You cannot control everything. You can make yourself believe that you have the conditions under control. But in the end, you do not. And the cultural view is correct. I mean, how much free will can you as a little girl experience when you grow up in a strongly patriarchal society where females are oppressed? This has nothing to do with religion, although it "helps". Also, thank you Google and random chaos for making this comment invisible to others. Really well done! No irony in this.
chaos is a consequence of determinism.
+Dominique Dupuis
determinism is only an approximation
and I wonder that my comment was shown, I expected it to be "deleted"... well...
+Erik Žiak (tramstefanikova) "But I am not a determinist, we are chaotic and unpredictable."
I agree that we are chaotic and unpredictable sometimes but I'm still a determinist because I believe everything has a cause. Do you believe in true randomness in the acausal sense?
+Chandler Klebs
I am not sure what exactly you mean by acasual sense and true randomness.
By my understanding of these statements, I do believe in randomness, but I am not
sure if it is *true* randomness. I tend to incline towards true randomness though.
Erik Žiak
True Randomness or Acausality is things happening for no reason at all. What a lot of people refer to as randomness is just the stuff that humans can't predict because there are many causes they can't trace.
Of course neither allows for free will. We sure can't control what we can't predict.
WE=mc2 can't experience Free Will until WE=mc2 all achieve Freed Will that will come when WE=mc2 reach Self-illumination & not selfish rumination. Let US BE=mc2!
It's a pity that Sam Harris did not get involved in this one.
+Adam Mangler He would not have said much other that has already been said here. His best example comes from that machine in the beggining of this presentation, cant remember the name. But he has got many interesting ways to present his findings to listeners, which might have started other interesting discussions between him and the other four.
+Adam Mangler lol he is no where near them its like comparing michiou kaku to Steven Weingberg
Human can deny the truth and reality of the free will of choice, and come up with all types of scientific terminologies. However, God will judge everyone's deeds, actions, and motives, which proves the free will is real.
To deduce that we have no free will because the body movement is first preceded by an unconsciouss trigger is a mistake. We might or might not have free will, I don't know for sure, but the way the idea is discarted makes no sense to me. Unconsciousness is still part of oneself, just different than the ego consciousness.
mich6781 I believe so, yes. For example, if I didn't mean to get pregnant, but I did, am I responsible for it? If I hit you with my car by accident, am I responsible for it? Being responsible for something means you are the factor that caused the effect, it doesn't mean you are to be punished. If you think about it, our personality is mostly the result of unconsciouss processes, so the idea that whatever is not completely aknowledged as our on intention should be regarded as involuntary and therefore anaccountable, to me, is wrong...but this is only my opinion, I respect everyone elses.
with your logic it can be inferred that we are also responsible for production of immune cells , or any other process that is involuntarily directed by the brain. it is easy to see that the logic is thus flawed
Well I think we are responsible for the production of immunbe cells. Get depressed, or get happy and see how that impacts your inmmune system. I don't think not being completely aware of our actions means not to be responsible/accountable. But, it's a matter of opinions, if you don't agree that's fine.
free will imply that a person can exercises his own physics law to himself, but how do we delimit atom by atom a person vs the outside world.
you are not responsible for having the brain of a psychopath or a killer.
These people need to be more mature themselves before they even think they can decide whether there’s free will or not.
Free will could lead to the question whether there’s any will exist or not. And if the will exist, definitely there’s law cause and effect is affecting it. And then getting a constrained will or free will could be studied.
The first question to ponder over is, Is there any will exist at all?
Can we choose to not have free will?
Go sleep ?
is it fated?
it does not matter what it looks like, choosing or not, it is still not a freewilled choice or action
Laura Spring I agree with you, free will is very likely an illusion. Nonetheless, A) the world in which we find ourselves has distinguishable patterns (it’s predictable, not a random mess); B) we are conscious beings possessing valence (we can suffer and we can be happy, so our choices do matter); and C) we have the ability to gather data from the world (memory), to make models based on that data (intelligence), and the ability to maneuver our intelligence to best suit our valence (rationality). Given A, B, C i think that a great deal of my concerns about my free-will are already appeased. Ok, i’m not free in any metaphysical way.. But i’m not worried that i might set myself in fire, jump off some building, not feed myself, not buy gas for my car, not say hello to my neighbors, etc, etc. It’s not a perfect situation, because i’m still manipulated every day by cupcakes to go against my health, wellbeing and lifespan, but hey.. there are probably beings out there in the universe that, for some complex evolutionary interactions, are acting in such a way that they are causing huge suffering to themselves. That’s definitely a lack of personal free-will, and i’m so sorry if such beings exist.
being unconscious is not the same as lack of consciousness. when people say "i wasnt conscious of what i was doing" - it doesnt mean they did not have consciousness. it means they did something most likely fairly routinely, without putting in a lot of current thought to the matter. and then when done, it can appear to them that they were not conscious, or not aware of what they were doing. but clearly they were aware at some level. consciousness itself is about whether we have subjective experience or not.
all we are is dust in the wind
+sinisa majetic Excellent!
+sinisa majetic Some people break more wind than they are dust
+sinisa majetic and we are the wind
+nappybiscuit why is that excellent?
+bugman bugman You had to see the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
If an alcoholic has free will, why are they having trouble with not drinking if they want to stop drinking?
5:06 tell me tamar doesnt look like eilaine from seinfeld.....i dare you to try!
I am without speech.
No he doesn’t
Question: "Were Libet's subjects required to participate in the study for class credit? Or did they choose to do so of their own free will?" -- The answer is unimportant. The fact that the question is meaningful proves there is a simple definition of free will that everyone understands, that requires nothing supernatural, that requires no escape from causation, and that is sufficient for moral and legal responsibility.
did Kristof choose to wear yellow trousers, or did he just have to wear them (to stand out?) ?
Why can't the mysterious action-initiating subconscious be preconditioned by the conscious. The conscious mind has value systems that evaluate the world and set the "state of mind" including components of the system that are subcontious actors. I find the arguments weak.
Because the conscious awareness cannot precede the subconscious processes as a matter of causality. Without the subconscious mind having responded to whatever relevant sensory data it analyzed at time t, there would be no content to be conscious of at time t1. You cannot write a book by reading it, because the words have to exist before you can read them, by definition. If you consider the brief time it takes a baseball to be thrown from one person's hand to another's, then you can imagine how useless it would be to wait until the lower order brain processes not only made sense of the relevant sensory data that they were receiving, but then have wait the additional time it takes for all that information to be edited into something coherent for higher order analysis. We humans would never be able to adequately respond to our environment if action was not determined until the level of conscious awareness, and also conscious states are the effect of the "subconscious" lower processes, so you would have to reverse causation to do that.
"Nothing can violate the rules of physics" - except the outrageously bizarre, irrational, illogical, magical, quantum effects upon which the very foundations of the physical world are constructed.
? Yes...if the basic double slit phenomena now has a logical explanation I must have missed that- please go ahead and reveal it here.
Particles are just concentrated ripples in the fabric of the universe.
At least thats my idea of it.
That's still physics. Not magic. And if it's unpredictable and undetermined, free will doesn't exist. Choices are either determined or random / undetermined. Freedom of the will is an illusion.
@@ricardoalmeida4719 Precisely!!!! Came here to post the same thing. The quantum brain idea is the last hope for free will believers but even if it is revealed our brains are quantum then that still does not provide evidence of free will existing in any meaningful way.
This video is extremely interesting. Im from Chile, spanish native speaker, but understood it perfectly. Maybe I could help you guys translate this to spanish
The moderator is HOT.
It is suprising to me that all the discussion was on freewill and no discussion about defining who we are that supposedly has the property of freewill. It is impossible to show freewill using particle physics but it is also impossible to create a definite boundary between a human and the environment using particle physics. So, in the same way that a human can exist as an abstraction freewill can also exist.
there is no such thing as free will. society was built by all people so we live in a realty of others, meaning we are trying to add free will to others creations. free will would only work for the first humans when there was no influence from others. we built away free will. if you leave society for free will then all you have is survival.
+noelle rogers Free will is better than society.
Even the first humans didn't have free will. Because their influence goes back to when they were evolving from apes. The universe is deterministic. It goes all the way back to the Big Bang.
***** Where is your evidence to support this? Lest not forget the Big Bang is a theory.
We always do what we want to do most! You can have two opposing wants and whichever one is stronger is the one you will do. I like ice cream and want to eat it. I know that eating ice cream can be unhealthy for me to eat.
Every decision, emotion and though is produced by physical processes in the brain. We can predict peoples choices before they are conscious by looking at the physical processes in the brain. End of story.
You r one ignorant man. End of story.
+prygler the process of the body as it comes to do what it will has not a thing to do with free will ..unless u damage it so it will not work as it was intended to do.Processes have to be willed to action in a conscious state or at sleep by a thought we started.
+Michael Seo I am not ignorant. There are neuropsychological scientific experiments, which shows that this is precisely as it is. Go read some!!!
+f150bc Why do you think that? Do you have any scientific evidence to back up that theory? because it strongly contradicts the scientific research I have read....
prygler
Only an ignorant person would try to end an argument regarding one of the most mysterious things known to man by saying "end of story".
Mr. Shariff needs to spend a month in a correctional institution,
just to see reality as it is. Zen moment guaranteed.
Psychopath do not have a functional moral compass , so how are you handling this ?
Robert Sapolsky, a professor of evolutionary neurology, holds the position that free will is an illusion.
He was asked in an interview, how do you handle criminality. Sapolsky's response was a simple example. While a car has no free will if its brakes are not functioning you don't let it out on public roads. Just because someone was driven by unseen neurological forces does not mean that person should be let out on the streets.
If you're interested at all there are quite a few interviews and lectures on youtube.
psychologists and philosophers are really not scientists...
Psychology and philosophy are not even remotely the same thing. Psychology is a science, philosophy is not.
+Phoenix Franks agreed on philosophy. only psychology ain't science either. psychiatry might be.
+Legal Fiction Natural Fact awwwww is that the kind of science that dumbasses major in? or is it another invented name just like how psychologists call themselves "neuroscientists"? fucking imbecile
'Free will' is still vague and ill defined in my opinion. Your future decisions/choices are based: 1) purely on past events I.e. deterministic (the universe existed before you were born :-) >>> no free will. 2) purely random i.e. nothing can influence it >>> no free will. 3) on mixture of both past + randomness >>> still no free will.
It's not about predictability, unpredictability could be a result of complexity and/or ignorance and/or randomness. It's about what factors influence/determine your future state.
that's a very good point. just because it is not predictable does not introduce free will into the equation.
What a waste of time this video was. Four people expressing their subjective thoughts.
Free Will only exists in an imperfect world. If there was a scenario where perfection was attainable, then it may be the case that there would only be one option to choose. When there are options there is Free Will. In our imperfect world we have Free Will. Maybe Artificial Intelligence would always only choose the perfect option, even if it had other options to choose from. But that’s because it could calculate every possible outcome of its actions and always chooses perfection, as choosing otherwise may result in extra calculations later to compensate for not choosing “perfection” in the first place. AI most likely wouldn’t choose extra computations if it could at all avoid it. JMO.
You are watching a TV show and they show a bunch of young woman - so as a man, you are attracted to one of them, but she may not be the most prettiest lass from all of them - but that is your choice. You did it wilfully but can't explain why you are attracted to her and not one of her more prettier colleagues & that says you do not have free will
Free will is the observer
+Anthony Sibley and how does that differ from a soul?
+Henrique Potter no such thing as a soul
Just reminds me that there are still good people in this world thank you to all who where involved in this
This doesn’t “end the conversation about the soul.” The soul is the voice in the back of your head that guides your conscious mind on decisions. There needs to be an entire discussion on what the soul is thought to be by philosophers, theologians, and religious people alike.
the voice that talk in back of your head is nothing more than memories and experience your brain reconstruct to create the conscious self. its just thought process, an illusion the brain make to sanely understand your surroundings and to have a higher chance of survival. that's why we have evolved and survive in the nature but that may be also the reason we will self-destruct
Do we have "FREE WILL?" What really is being asked is... do you have the ability to make decisions (well of course, that's literally all we're doing every second) the question is, to what level is one aware of thier decision and the memory algorithms that resulted in the intuitive response prior to when you will choose... Being able to connect the intuitive triggers and level of intellectual ability to make accurate connections or logical conclusion just before deciding to click the button or withdrawal a snap of your finger..
So... How much ignorance one tolerates within himself to satisfy one's desires and whether or not it interferes with his or her immediate want and to which degree he or she uses confirmation bias and the effort one will go to manipulate or influence people to adopt their false reality despite levels of cognitive dissonance..
Christof has yellow pants & an orange belt which matches his yellow patterned socks w/ sparse orange squares. Then his shirt also has bits of orange & the 3rd color that’s in his socks. BUT, what tops it all off is that his watch is yellow! Lastly, I noticed that he has a few purple circles on his shirt also. Well wouldn’t you know that he has purple shoe laces. No joke. He does. Idk why but I really like the way he is dressed. Maybe because it’s different and interesting. Plus he has an accent so he can pull the whole thing off.
I shall tell you what actually free will is...... So suppose I arrive at one of your science experiments and you give me information wich requires me to make this choice or that choice and that will help you get paid to decide if free will exists, then I stand up and do neither this or that, but I leave and go ride my bike..... that my friend is free will..... I wish I could get paid for my observations as you do. Offering limited choices to a complex organism such as the brain and body, then measuring electrical frequency and action vs time and saying I'm not choosing to move my arm is ignorance, of course there will be a delay, your brain is so complicated it has to allocate a measure of time to allow you to decide if you want to change your initial decision, you even stated we have the freedom to decide to reject an action rather than initiate an action , free won't vs free will. That is what your observing in your test. Ps. To the man who spoke of mercy for murderers and reducing the guilty sentence, this is exactly what Jesus spoke about pure total true forgiveness even for the guilty, wich in turn alleviates our own innermost struggles with ourselves, for if we can forgive with love others who are guilty, then we can forgive ourselves for our many crimes and we all have some blemishes that we want to be forgotten. Ps I'm not religious either.
I do believe in kindness joy love forgiveness and treat others how you want to be treated, and I choose to belive in thoes attributes vs meanness, sadness hate grudges and revenge ciao bella.
The important distinction is between when our brain has made a decision and when we become consciously aware of making the decision.
Much of what you argued against was *not* said by the scientists.
If a decision is an event in the real universe, it is governed by the same laws of physics as any other event. If a decision is not an event in the real universe, it cannot affect anything.
Free will is like free lunch - there ain't any.
Azim Shariff said that non believers in free-will do not hesitate to commit crime.. but laws and punishment will keep them from doing it so we can comfortable adopt the idea, its like re inventing the wheel ... isnt thats what religion is ? from laws to cult, to believe, to morality.
What about people with disorders that make them physiologically less able to do impulse control?
The key is that whether it happens consciously or unconsciously we remain the agents of our own actions. It is still actually us, consciously or unconsciously, that is making the choice. And both our conscious and unconscious selves, as a whole person, will be held responsible for that choice.
So basically only the person who snapped their fingers have free will
The idea of _NOT_ having a free will is quite unsettling.
(BTW, can anyone _choose_ NOT to have free will??)
I don't trust the 3rd speaker, a couple of times, he changed what words he was using, and... it really matters. If the studies told people "There is no free will" is *NOT* the same as telling people "You have no moral responsibility", he conflates the two several times... which makes me wonder *EXACTLY* what the studies were, *EXACTLY* what the subjects were told, etc. I worry about some bias from he, especially since he's *STILL* and *INTENTIONALLY* dodging the question of whether or not he believes we have "free will".
There are levels of free will one can attain. How fearless are you to be free?
We have free will, no choice in the matter though.
Does this have anything to do with will Ferrell ?
My hypothesis would be: That the initial conditions of a person shape their will. Like velocity is the measurement and acceleration is the rate of change. The higher the velocity the harder the acceleration will have to be to change the direction. In the case of the will, The more initial conditions toward a certain goal the more stimuli will be needed to change the trajectory of ones will.
Interesting thought... So if someone decides to change their trajectory it would take a large external source of energy to reverse it. What about people who change based on pain. I suppose pain would be the energy needed to change
If we dont have free will nothing will change because whether we know we have free will or not we are already operating without free will.
The whole thing with your hand going up and down that was a decision you sat there and you didn't think anything therefore you weren't going to do anything then you decided well I'm going to start thinking about moving my arm up and down at a certain time that was your choice and that's what you did when you thought about nothing that was your choice and you didn't do anything that's free will I found your own you have to think about something to move first cuz our mind controls our bodies people Jesus these guys are missing I hate to see the future if these guys were the past talk about missing the whole point of the concept they got things in all kinds of different categories under the same listing when it's completely absurd
Free will on a personal scale just a one-person acting alone doing whatever they're doing without anybody else around you'll see that you have free will to do whatever you please but when it comes to certain things and quite a few things in a societal nature you won't have those free wills because you're not dealing with only yourself anymore you're dealing with all the bullshit that comes with everybody else now you can choose to ignore them and go on doing whatever and act like they don't exist you damn it right you can you can go get snore and do what you want of course you can but society is going to show you for it she said he's going to say you're weird or you can't do that or whatever the case may be because they think you shouldn't have the opportunity to do so or have something or simply because they're jealous so they try and get you in trouble for some reason that's not you you don't have control over them you don't have control over anything of the real world has in living this and that weather is going to storm those things you don't have a well I'm going to go outside today and since I have free will it's going to be nice nope doesn't happen that way the way you think and what you do is your own until you get into societal natures of some kinds other than that Free Will is still there in a sense but if you want to be part of society you have to give up some of your free will if you care about other what other people think about you and what they're going to say about you me I don't give a flying shit what anybody thinks about me or says about me I'm going to do what I want to do as long as it's something I want to do I'm going to do it I don't care what people think if I'm weird or whatever of course I have my moral values I wake up in the morning in the first thing I think of is I want to punch somebody no doesn't happen
The relationship between those two is getting them to actually listen and comprehend what you're saying you understand that if you sit there and not making noise cuz you just did something wrong you're in timeout you're time out time will start and then faster than it will if you keep getting up shouting it has to start all over again and you'll be there longer causing more of a hassle with yourself and get them to realize it get them to realize what you're saying thus all well there's a good positive I sit here and own up to what I've done to if I try to make a ruckus and not listen because I don't want to sit here even though I've done something wrong it's called reasoning and logic you got to teach them reasoning and logic and then you got to teach them the moral fibers of what is considered good and what is considered bad and then you know then you got the whole societal crap but first you should teach them the fundamentals first obviously let's keep them reason and logic going you know problem solving skills asking them questions seeing how they figure things out and what they come up with to solve something or make something that they oh well I don't have the two for this so what can I do now to their actual understanding like reading a book to him or they can read read have them read a book and have them tell you what was going on in the book and why they were doing it hone in on their skills to make them more powerful mentally that was not hard was it that's the most simplest thing in the world a small one of some of the hardest things to do with some kids doing it I suggest you start from birth
Father gave a beings he created with his lit light with the freewill to do as we wish, and a right to choose. And as long as we don’t use our freewill to harm another living creature on purpose; no one really has anything to say. Plus there are no consequences.
Again who has a desire to punish some bully that's not punishing that's just hurting this guy right next to that girl was trying to say people have a desire to punish people no people don't some people have a desire to hurt people some people think people should be punished for things that they do so that they learn which is not wrong but that is that a desire to or is that a well we know we got a punish them where they ain't going to learn that's a have to again damn making us punish them we could just let him go but guess what we know they're going to do it again do it worse maybe kill somebody other than that we have to take an account on our own accountability for not trying to get them to see where they were wrong to begin with in punishing them instead of letting them go to do it again that means we let them go cuz your ideology and this time to go and murder somebody well guess what person that just let them go I didn't punish them for what they've done that blood that murder that life is on their hands too they're just as guilty because they did nothing to stop it they didn't punched like if you go if somebody goes out and sticks a gun to your head and robs you do you think that nothing should happen do you think that they should just get away with Scott for you all in all your good go on you robbed me a gun you think we should just let them go on and get off scott free or should they be punished to hopefully teach them a lesson that they shouldn't do that well of course it should be hopefully so they don't do it again that doesn't mean they won't cuz some people never learn but if you let him off scott free they're sure as hell going to do it again and they're going to do it worse and they're going to do it to more people and more people and more people so is that a I want to punish them or is it necessary need that we know we have to do because they did crime now they have to do the time whether somebody is mad that they did it as a whole other Factor then I want to punish somebody I'm going to go out and look for somebody to punish the people be getting punished for nothing all the time what a bunch of quacks
The fly analogy literally proves that they are making decisions of their own free will either go right or left or stay there or go back just like any creature would just cuz I have less neurons you think they don't have the ability to make a decision
Every choice is consciously made whether you are consciously aware enough you made that decision or not it's another thing because you think about it you make up your decision whether you want it or need it or want it and don't need it and then you weigh the two and then you either get it or you don't depending on you want it and you don't need it do you want it need it to you want it need it but you can't get it because of societal nature I sure make that my own but they won't let me or if they weren't there I wouldn't made it myself to not making it would be your own decision the only thing that would stop you somebody dictating you couldn't do it societal nature horses free will we didn't have free will what would we have nothing there'd be nobody doing anything but something would have to be controlling all of us all at once or would be just aimlessly running around and we wouldn't know diddly shit and we'd be dead because it wouldn't be learning anything we'd be hungry and not know why fools
This debate seems a bit pointless, i mean if there would be a scientific consensus that time is an emergent property and not fundamental it would still serve as a shitty excuse to show up late all the time.
Azim only mentioning cognitive dissonance when he's talking about the punitive implications of holding one's opinion on free will as a believe misses the observation that people employ a scientific believe in the lack of free will as a means to refrain from acting responsibly because they can use science as a means to justify their own behavior ie: relieve themselves of cognitive dissonance. It's the same with how people use natural selection as a means to justify their own behavior. If we're all just in one big competition to see who can use up the most resources we end with... well, look around you.
Fortunately some of those resources are still being put into the sciences and that's one of the things i feel somewhat proud about when it concerns human civilization. I just hope there won't be a popular debate concerning the concept of responsibility and if it's a fundamental or emergent property... we all know what it is even without scientific judgement.
Cool bro