Video

Gracias por tu atención y comentarios, espero poder brindarte nuevas ideas y reflexiones. Si es posible, por favor compártelo con tus amigos, ya que necesito más suscriptores. ¡Gracias de nuevo!🌹🌹🌹

I think when Tyson talks about aliens, he means viewing human events from a third-party cosmic perspective. We don't know exactly how aliens would think, but we can assume that beings capable of interstellar travel, observing Earth from outer space, wouldn't care about our skin color or national borders. They would simply see us all as Earthlings. 'I also intermittently explore how we might appear to space aliens who arrive on Earth with no preconceived notions of who or what we are-or how we should be. They serve as impartial observers of our mysterious ways, as they highlight inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and occasional idiocies in our lives.' ---'Starry Messenger'

Thank you for your interest! I hope this brings you new understanding and ideas! If possible, please help me share the channel with more people! Thank you.

Thank you for subscribing and commenting. Thank you for all you do for women! I hope everything is going well for you, especially in this uncertain environment!

Sorry, I found the will power passage, it was buried and one sentence on the idea. Sorry. Re-reading book. For fun….

Thank you for watching. I hope it has inspired you. Let's explore new possibilities together.

You must provide proof of your dispute.

@@MrGreystone59 We are obviously influenced by countless things in countless ways. Nor do we have 'completely' free will (I can't decide to be a fig leaf, I can’t decide to be weather, I can't decide to be you, >>>>>>).

@@MrGreystone59 Sapolsky’s argument is very simple. He is claiming that consciousness (aka: you) is a function of biology…and biology is deterministic…therefore ‘you’ (and your decision-making) are also deterministic. But…nobody actually has a clue what consciousness is…let alone how it is created. If you put Sapolsky and every living cognitive scientist in a room they still couldn't even begin to explain how a single moment of human subjective experience occurs (...that's worth emphasizing: It's not just that they couldn't explain it...they couldn't even BEGIN to explain it). These are FACTS. If Sapolsky wants to pretend he has solved the consciousness problem…then there is a Nobel prize with his name on it.

@@MrGreystone59 What this means…is that there is a VAST area of ‘you’ that is utterly inscrutable. Nobody has a clue either what it is or how it works. That 'something' ALSO influences everything you do.

@@MrGreystone59THAT...is f.w.

Thank you for your response, sir! If this part resonates with you in any way, could you help me by sharing my video? Much appreciated.

Thank you for your feedback. Have you ever heard of audiobooks with electronic voices? It's also AI-generated speech. You can give it a try. I have a severe stutter in my spoken language. I will try to address this issue. However, the AI-generated speech does not affect my ability to express viewpoints.

@@DeepDiveBooks I respect your position, just saying it is not for me. I have tried, but it really puts me off, and I can't help it. I'm sure a lot of people don't mind. Good luck with the stuttering, I hope you can overcome it some day.

As an adult, when expressing opinions about others' views, it's best to read their words in full. I also hope that after watching the entire series of videos, you express your opinions. Otherwise, you might think that concepts like "emergence" and "subatomic" are known only to you.

In my opinion,Dr Rober Sapolsky's point in writing the book seems to be denying free will in a biological sense.He said: Beyond all biological factors, you don't have a single neuron that is genuinely free. All your previous experiences have shaped your biological being, determining your current actions. To prove the existence of free will, you must demonstrate that there is some behavior beyond all biological attributes - and currently, nothing known in the scientific community can prove this.

@@DeepDiveBooks But OBVIOUSLY, that is complete bullshit. Computation is NOT a biological phenomenon. And in any case: Sapolsky himself believes there is Free Will. He is unable (or unwilling) to go to the logical conclusion of his (idiotic) assertions. The laws of physics do not even address the concept of goal-oriented action, yet that is a basic FACT of human action> Physics CANNOT explain human behavior. Sapolsky is motivated by a POLITICAL agenda, namely Leftist collectivism. Nothing else. Science has nothing to do with any of this. His arguments are infantile. Shame on him for pushing this nonsense to make a buck and promote Communism (oh, the irony!)..

This is false. He clearly discusses the cases where brain damage exonerates a perpetrator from responsibility. He extends that insight to all brains. Just as we realized that epilepsy is not caused by demons, and developed treatments instead of blame, we must do the same for unacceptable actions.

Thank you for your reminders and guidance! This is just my understanding of the content of this book, and it may be one-sided. I will continue to learn.🤝🤝🤝

Thank you for your reminders and guidance! This is just my understanding of the content of this book, and it may be one-sided. I will continue to learn.🤝🤝🤝

I think saying progressives and conservatives can be determined by answering the climate question is crazy.arw you from the states where you only have republicans and democrats ? Basically how conservative of progressive you are, is an description of how fast you think the world should change. Extreme conservatives want no or very slow change. Extreme progressives will call for revolution. Change stuff yesterday not tomorrow. Extreme conservatism has a risk of stopping progress all together. To conserve the world the way it is now. Amish are extremely conservative for example. Extreme progressivism have the risk of tearing down the current world, without a prober replacement thereby creating powervacums and therefore chaos. Both are bad.

My viewpoint is that life is not a computer program with only binary options of 0 and 1. Everything cannot be extreme. I find the Bayesian approach effective-be a bit conservative when being too radical, and be slightly more radical when being too conservative. The key is how to maintain a balance between the two.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused! My English accent is quite strong, so currently, I can only use AI-generated voice. I'll work on finding a solution for this in the future. Thank you for your feedback! If you're interested in the content, I can provide you with the written transcript!