Stuart Kauffman - How Free Will Probes Mind and Consciousness

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 10. 06. 2023
  • Can free will reveal the nature of mental states? Free will seems so obvious, yet defies physical explanation. That’s the reason why free will can be a tool to explore the mind. Free will probes consciousness by examining what it means to pick, choose, select, decide in the closed physical system of the world. But is ‘free will’ just a trick of the brain?
    Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
    Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
    Watch more interviews on free will and consciousness: rb.gy/c0iqv
    Stuart Alan Kauffman is a medical doctor, theoretical biologist, and complex systems researcher who studies the origin of life on Earth. He is a former professor at the University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Calgary.
    Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
    Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

Komentáře • 204

  • @Paraselene_Tao
    @Paraselene_Tao Před rokem +11

    This is possibly the closest & fullest explanation to how consciousness works in the brain-body that I've ever heard. If he's right, then we're perhaps a few important research papers away from understanding consciousness in an empirical manner. What a great clip from this show.

    • @Desertphile
      @Desertphile Před rokem +1

      "This is possibly the closest & fullest explanation to how consciousness works in the brain-body that I've ever heard." It is also wrong.

    • @Paraselene_Tao
      @Paraselene_Tao Před rokem

      @@Desertphile
      We will wait and see, won't we?

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      @@Desertphile no explanation as to how we move from decoherence to coherence as well. Back to the drawing board.

    • @tajzikria5307
      @tajzikria5307 Před rokem

      Unfortunately, we will never know.

    • @Paraselene_Tao
      @Paraselene_Tao Před rokem

      @@haxstir
      These are new-ish hypotheses. Neuroscience has a similar concept named the Critical Brain Hypothesis. Kauffman's poised realm is similar: tries to show how consciousness perhaps exists at or around the boundary of coherence and decoherance (poised realm). Who knows yet if this is accurate, true, or applicable at all? Perhaps we will find out later.

  • @futures2247
    @futures2247 Před rokem +14

    I wish I understood even 1 percent of this

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem

      *"I wish I understood even 1 percent of this"*
      ... If you believe that some of the decisions you make are of your own accord and other decisions you make are the result of having no other option, then that represents the 1% of required knowledge. The other 99% is nothing more than a bunch of really smart people using semantics to obfuscate reality into some type of new draconian religion so that they don't have to accept any responsibility for the decisions they make.

    • @alexatedw
      @alexatedw Před 11 měsíci +1

      It’s a bunch of nonsense

    • @stevenverrall4527
      @stevenverrall4527 Před 11 měsíci

      Go read some basic quantum theory. You don't need to get deep into mathematics to understand this discussion.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před 11 měsíci

      @@stevenverrall4527 *"Go read some basic quantum theory. You don't need to get deep into mathematics to understand this discussion."*
      ... Quantum theory is next to irrelevant within the Free Will vs Hard Determinism debate.

  • @wattshumphrey8422
    @wattshumphrey8422 Před rokem +2

    KABOOM!
    By far the most coherent speculative scientific hypothesis of what "consciousness is" that I've heard, here or elsewhere.
    And refreshing - someone with a genuinely scientific approach: clear about what he knows and doesn't, proposing ideas with testable elements, etc.
    Bit of a disconnected topic, but -- if recent "UAP" reports are as verified as they appear, we have strong evidence, if not proof, that our current physics is not anywhere near complete (visually observable objects which appear on standard sensors and move with effectively zero mass/infinite acceleration, and then vanish entirely).
    A huge dose of humility is called for.

  • @williamcallahan5218
    @williamcallahan5218 Před 11 měsíci +2

    As Rupert Spira says... "Only consciousness is conscious" . "We don't have consciousness, consciousness has us".

  • @saeiddavatolhagh9627
    @saeiddavatolhagh9627 Před 2 měsíci

    The association between quantum measurement and consciousness is very appealing. But then one has to assume that everything around us must be conscious at some level.

  • @earthjustice01
    @earthjustice01 Před rokem +2

    The problem is in identifying brain with mind. Identifying contents of mind can only be done by referring to other contents of the mind. It is internal to the mind. Mind is roughly: perceptions, memories, and imagination. The relations between the mind's contents are not causal relations they are psychological associations. Experience is private, whereas observations of things, like the dissection of neurons or the recording of an MRI scan are publicly verifiable causal processes. Mind is really our way of understanding our social world which, of course, includes ourselves. It is a kind of understanding not a thing or a physical process. This understanding projects from memories of events to imagined predictions and conjectures about the people we live with and the places we live in. Most of what we think about is conjectures and predictions about things, people, and events that are not now present, but that either we experienced in the past or that we anticipate happening in the future. The fact that we are often thinking about things not immediately present means we our using our imaginations rather than our sense organs which implies a kind of internalized way of understanding things, just as dreams are a completely internalized experience, disconnected from the majority of sensations, and mostly associated with day-to-day memories. The mind is a kind of understanding, as opposed to our understanding of the natural world and its causal processes, which is mainly about empathizing with others, imagining ourselves in someone else's place, and utilizes metaphor, more than it utilizes causality. One could say that understanding the natural world is derivative from using our minds to understand our social world, which would explain why the first attempts to understand the world were all anthropomorphic, they were projecting human emotional traits onto natural processes like the weather.

    • @thomasellis8586
      @thomasellis8586 Před 4 měsíci

      Thank you for this brilliant and thoughtful comment!

  • @Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done
    @Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done Před 2 měsíci

    "That's why a lot of people say the mind's an illusion."
    "They're nuts. My mind isn't an illusion."

  • @alex_madeira
    @alex_madeira Před rokem

    Great thoughts here!

  • @MegaDonaldification
    @MegaDonaldification Před rokem +5

    I will download this video and rigorously find the meaning of every word and add that to my living thought process. I am glad I listened to this completely to the extent where I am thinking of watching 46 more times. Sir, 72 years, you are still young and I strongly believe in you more than I believe in most people younger than yourself.

    • @nupraptorthementalist3306
      @nupraptorthementalist3306 Před rokem +1

      He* wrote some books, you know.

    • @Desertphile
      @Desertphile Před rokem +1

      The video is B.S., and insulting to one's intelligence.

    • @MegaDonaldification
      @MegaDonaldification Před rokem

      @@nupraptorthementalist3306 for a 72 years old man, plus he still have hair on his head, it speaks volume and greatness. He patented what he should have used to convert himself into a supernatural being. I still think and feel that he can do more by applying this principle to himself but he would need 3 years at least, plus he would need to stay by himself most of the time for more insightful revelation.

    • @nupraptorthementalist3306
      @nupraptorthementalist3306 Před rokem +1

      @@MegaDonaldification I just mean his books have more content, his ideas. He is one of the greatest living scientists and I expect will always be remembered. There was a documentary about him but I could never find it and now forgot the name of it.
      His humility about Kant means he's actually concerned with answers not fame, but you can tell anyway. An invaluable thinker, unlike Sean Carroll or the pop scientists of today, he's real.
      Edit: The documentary is called 'Thinker of Untold Dreams'.

    • @stevenverrall4527
      @stevenverrall4527 Před 11 měsíci +1

      ​​​​​Sean Carroll is very intelligent, but highly arrogant. The Many Worlds interpretation is about as absurd as it gets...

  • @forresthawkins6621
    @forresthawkins6621 Před rokem

    Very very good

  • @gokhanqurnaz
    @gokhanqurnaz Před rokem

    I would like to watch such a beautiful channel with Turkish subtitles.

  • @Catdad76801
    @Catdad76801 Před rokem

    Good stuff!

  • @quantumkath
    @quantumkath Před rokem

    Stuart Alan Kauffman: That's what I was going to say! 😊 That's why you are in my top ten!

  • @TheDeepening718
    @TheDeepening718 Před rokem +4

    The total number of actions that any human in history has taken that wasn't rooted in a DESIRE stands at 0. Action is rooted in DESIRE as it states in the opening of the Upanishads: "You are your inmost DESIRE." An investigation into "Who did it?" is an investigation into the ORIGIN OF MY DESIRES!

  • @onedayapp3534
    @onedayapp3534 Před rokem

    Very interesting

  • @juanfranciscogonzalez8288

    Hola. Felicitaciones o congratulation por tu búsqueda. Un aporte NO olvidar que el EPR fenómeno y entrelazamiento es media por fuerza ELECTROMAGNETICAS y la partícula es el FOTON. UN ABRAZO. DVM JFG Chile

  • @wayneasiam65
    @wayneasiam65 Před rokem +1

    A long argument, yet quite believable.

  • @jamesruscheinski8602
    @jamesruscheinski8602 Před 5 měsíci

    transition from mass (time) in quantum wave at speed of causation squared to energy (probability) at expansion into space to particles (space) at speed of light and below has free will from having the time and energy to produce or create? in this transition, energy develops free will from time which has consciousness, and produces particles that are aware (as in brain)?

  • @kiran0511
    @kiran0511 Před rokem

    Hi, Is it possible that you may interview people doing origin of life research or artificial life ? People like Nick Lane, Sara Walker etc.

  • @playpaltalk
    @playpaltalk Před rokem

    My mind and my tiny🧠are like my soul and my spirit fueling my Consciousness .

  • @TracyWitham
    @TracyWitham Před rokem +2

    "The causal closure of classical mechanics" can be broken by an organism that can learn in accordance with adaptive principles: A new way of responding to stimuli introduces new causal actions into the world, actions that cannot be accounted for using information that precedes the new learned behavior/response/adaptation.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem +1

      *""The causal closure of classical mechanics" can be broken by an organism that can learn in accordance with adaptive principles: A new way of responding to stimuli introduces new causal actions into the world, actions that cannot be accounted for using information that precedes the new learned behavior/response/adaptation."*
      ... I'm in the same camp of thinking.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem +1

      "A new way of responding to stimuli introduces new causal actions into the world, actions that cannot be accounted for using information that precedes the new learned behavior/response/adaptation"
      Approaches that do this are out of theory and into actual practice. Alpha Zero is a version of the AlphaGo engine that starts by priming the neural network with entirely random weightings. Purely by introducing an element of random variations between generations, and selecting networks with more effective behaviour, it became so good at Go that it beat the original AlphaGo. So all you need is a source of randomness that varies behaviour, and a selection mechanism that weeds out ineffective behaviour, and you can generate highly sophisticated learning systems.
      Similar approaches have also been used in hardware engineering, improving hardware efficiency over time by introducing small random variations and selecting out ineffective changes. So we can evolve the hardware for a computer system, and the software starting with only random noise between generations and a mechanism that excludes (kills) unfit instances.

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem

      Interesting. I look at it as, life may have emerged out of a deterministic system, but it is no longer completely bound by that system. Biology / life brings with it consciousness and free will into the world.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem +1

      @@longcastle4863 *"Interesting. I look at it as, life may have emerged out of a deterministic system, but it is no longer completely bound by that system."*
      ... And I agree! Life introduces "multiple options" that inanimate structure does not possess.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem

      @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The alternate view is that this appearance of a huge array of options and unpredictability is just a matter of complexity and scale.
      No engineer at OpenAI can predict what responses GhatGPT will provide. It's network encodes about 1000x as much information as is known by any one human being. In theory it would possible to back-track from a response to the network weightings, and from the network weightings to the source data that they were generated from. In practice you would need a computer that's many orders of magnitude more powerful, retaining enormously vast amounts of transactional information during the training process to do that. It's absurdly impractical to do it.
      Biological systems are enormously more messy than that. So for all practical purposes predicting cause and effect for individual choices is completely impossible. How would you distinguish between that situation, and genuinely undetermined choices, through some as yet unknown process?

  • @thomassoliton1482
    @thomassoliton1482 Před rokem

    The arguments in this dicussion regardng conscious are based on the premise that conscious involves decisions: that is, choices, and hence “free will” to make some decision based on available information. That’s not how the brain works. The brain process information and converts it to patterns that are stored in memory - words for example. Those patterns can be associated by processes that take place in dreaming as well as daily experience. But the fundamental aspect of consciousness is not a decision, but a comparison. Awareness of some bit of information triggers recall of another pattern and a “thought” emerges consisting of both patterns and other related patterns that lead not to a decision but to an action. No quantum measurement decoherence is involved. “Mind / Body” is a perfect example of how the brain is constrained to deal with comparisons. Dualism is a false-flag created by the brain to deal with information from different perspectives. Are you conscious now? How do you know? Because you were conscious a minute ago. But that state no longer exists! How does your brain deal with that? It invents “consciousness”.

  • @jazzluvr87
    @jazzluvr87 Před rokem

    Wow 😮 That was fascinating

    • @jazzluvr87
      @jazzluvr87 Před rokem

      @PraiseTheLord777-nb3il am I the only one unlucky enough to be the recipient of this garbage???

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem +1

      @@jazzluvr87 Yes, you're the chosen one 😏

  • @katherinestone333
    @katherinestone333 Před rokem

    The final sentence of "conclusion" to a recent paper (BioSystems 223 (2023) 104820) by Stuart A. Kauffman and Dean Radin reads: "Mind, in short, may have had -- and still have -- an active role in the evolution of the world."

  • @paulwary
    @paulwary Před rokem +1

    Why isnt it enough for a deterministic algorithm running in our brain to simply call upon some quantum or chaotic process to generate random alternatives? Then it can evaluate the options so generated. (PS Ive been looking for videos like this since watching Sabine H's 'debunking' of free will, which I cannot agree with.) Even if those processes are only 'pseudo'-random and deterministic, with ~10^23 atoms involved, the distinction seems moot to me. In other words a chaotic process could give you a 'full' range of options for behaviour.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      Even within the more philosophical moments in religion they hit the same problem but yet phrased it differently as the "unmoved mover", thereby creating a sense of dualism or at least a disconnect between what was felt was the invisible infinite and the visibly finite. Science is beginning to push these boundaries thankfully but it seems it may require some rather radical thinking, such as giving up space/time or perhaps looking at time as being physically embodied within matter etc.

    • @John-uh8kl
      @John-uh8kl Před 10 měsíci

      paulwary
      Wow, I've re-read your comment, and your question, the why don't ~ we ask our brains to, or, the brain asks..~, very approximate, this,..
      .., I suggest it, this, probably does happen.
      We're looking at a brain, and all within it, including, see other article, my other comment, Fe3 O4, little magnets then, bacteria, and these, the brain then, uses 'entanglement' to serve 'it' purpose.
      ...., Next comment regarding religious references, also references 'in stillness and in motion', and suitable from Dao-ism, so something ~' something else's purpose, something unseen unknowable.

  • @randomone4832
    @randomone4832 Před měsícem

    This entire conversation is lost on Robert. Me too. I don’t blame him.

  • @juanfranciscogonzalez8288

    Es EM generado por neuronal web o redes neuronales. Muchas Gracias.

  • @brothermine2292
    @brothermine2292 Před rokem +1

    Descartes erred by assuming "thinking" is on the same side of the mind-body divide as conscious experiencing of mental qualia. If instead we assume (1) thinking is a brain activity (analogous to computer processing) and (2) conscious awareness experiences the brain's thinking but doesn't in any way influence thinking, then the mystery of consciousness is less complex: the Hard Problem (as Chalmers described) only requires materialistic neuroscientists to explain #2: the conscious (passive) experiencing of (some) brain activities.
    Although it would appear to a consciousness passively experiencing aspects of the brain's thinking process that the consciousness itself is the source of the thinking and isn't passive, that appearance is an illusion.
    The experiencing, though, is not an illusion. I know by introspection that I am experiencing qualia (and that's the only fact I can be certain about). I presume you too are experiencing qualia, because everyone I meet appears to be constructed like I am. So, explaining conscious experiencing of qualia is the Hard Problem, because it's not an illusion.
    I don't understand why Kauffman thinks lack of free will is a problem that must be solved by showing will is free. If moral philosophers' problem is to justify society holding people accountable for bad behavior, it can be justified without believing in free will, because accountability causes a deterrent effect: If someone's brain expects s/he will be held accountable, the brain will induce better behavior, and fewer people will be victimized.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem

      Hi, all very good stuff, thanks. There is a movement that thinks conscious awareness is epiphenomenal, that is it's a non-causal phenomenon. So essentially it's an incidental side effect and all actual choices come from our subconscious cognitive mechanisms, independently of consciousness. This would mean that the experience of qualia is also epiphenomenal. I think that's nonsense, we are discussing the experience of qualia right now. If experiencing qualia was a side effect which didn't 'do' anything, it wouldn't cause us to get excited and start typing about it. So clearly there is a complete causal loop from sensory experience of the world, to qualia, to taking action in the world.

    • @brothermine2292
      @brothermine2292 Před rokem

      @@simonhibbs887 : If I understand the last part of your reply, I think your argument is faulty. As I mentioned in my initial comment, noncausal consciousness would create the illusion that consciousness drives thinking & choosing, and that illusion would naturally result in many people erroneously believing consciousness is causal. As you say, that (possibly erroneous) belief excites people to argue for that belief. (And that leads people who doubt the belief to argue against them.) But a belief and excitement about it aren't evidence that the belief is correct.
      Noncausal, passive consciousness is as compatible with a version of Dualism as it is with Materialism. The dualist version might be comforting to people who want to believe consciousness survives after death and/or is part of some greater cosmic entity that it reunites with after death. Perhaps it even becomes causal in some way after death.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem

      @@brothermine2292 you haven’t actually addressed my argument though. If conscious awareness is not casual, how can we even talk about the experience of conscious awareness? Talking about it is acting on it. Acting on it means it has a causal effect.

    • @brothermine2292
      @brothermine2292 Před rokem

      @@simonhibbs887 : No, talking about consciousness doesn't imply consciousness is causal. Similarly, talking about the number 42 doesn't imply 42 is causal. There's no need for consciousness to cause brain activities, because the laws of physics & chemistry appear to account for brain activities.
      If you're merely saying consciousness is an emergent property of brain activities in accord with Materialism, then it's not interesting or exciting to say the emergent property is causal, since the emergent property reduces in principle to deterministic physics, in the same way that the emergent property "temperature" reduces in principle to the kinetic physics of an ensemble of particles.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem

      @@brothermine2292 42 isn’t causal, your knowledge and experiences and memory associations of 42 are causal. Similarly ‘redness’ isn’t causal, but my emotional associations and feelings when I see a vivid red are causal. The might cause me to feel sad or excited, or to talk to you about how lovely the red roses were. But the concept of redness didn’t do any of that. My phenomenal experience did it. Therefore my phenomenal experience is causal.
      And to be clear, I think it’s causal because it’s a result of physical brain activity. I’m not a dualist. But that doesn’t matter to my point. It doesn’t matter what your philosophical position is, that’s irrelevant, that our experiences of qualia are causal is just a factual observation.

  • @Bassotronics
    @Bassotronics Před rokem +5

    There is no bigger irony than the brain trying to understand its own brain processes.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem +1

      Is there such a thing as a perfect mirror? Or to out it another way I use an irony on my pantsy when I want to go outsy and have a drinky winky.

  • @courrierdebois
    @courrierdebois Před rokem

    Conciousness is thought in a field of awareness.

  • @tajzikria5307
    @tajzikria5307 Před rokem +3

    Randomness is when we can't understand all the variables then we call it randomness. It is basically not knowing a mental construction.

    • @alihasanpoor44
      @alihasanpoor44 Před 11 měsíci

      How about it is like irrational numbers that don't have any pattern as far as humans have known

  • @WildMessages
    @WildMessages Před rokem +4

    Even if this guy is wrong ... He is really smart :0

    • @milanjovanovic7143
      @milanjovanovic7143 Před rokem

    • @Cr0uch1ng71g3r
      @Cr0uch1ng71g3r Před rokem

      Well he did dismiss mind being an illusion with "they're nuts, my mind isn't an illusion!", so there seem to be some obstacles to his smartness..

    • @PeterS123101
      @PeterS123101 Před 11 měsíci

      So you think the mind is an illusion?

    • @Cr0uch1ng71g3r
      @Cr0uch1ng71g3r Před 11 měsíci

      @@PeterS123101 It's not clear to me what is meant by people who say "mind is an illusion", do you have an explanation?

  • @matterasmachine
    @matterasmachine Před rokem

    We are huge robots and our consciousness is group consciousness of all matter of our nervous system.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      If we're robots we're actually very, very small.

  • @n.y.c.freddy
    @n.y.c.freddy Před rokem +1

    Prof. R. L. Kuhn~! Prof. Stuart Kauffman! HEY! *Kuhn! Hey Kuhn~! *Me! I've been obsessed literally - my entire LIFE on the issue - issue - issue -., of ., - 'incontinence'' - as well.! So~! **! Believe me! Both consciousness and incontinence are closely, closely, closely - related as 'we' together live ''this life''~!" *PEACE! {*Voila~!*}

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem +1

      *"I've been obsessed literally - my entire LIFE on the issue - issue - issue -., of ., - 'incontinence''"*
      ... You can probably correct that incontinence issue with a trip to your local drug store.

    • @n.y.c.freddy
      @n.y.c.freddy Před rokem +1

      @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC What's the problem? Buddy! You no likey., comedic elements!

  • @nyworker
    @nyworker Před rokem

    It amazes me that they recognize the 40 hz oscillation in the brain but act clueless where this is being generated? Dr Earl Miller's work on the role of the advanced pre-frontal cortex and how it directs the 40 hz is all about this. Most of these philosophical arguments are muddled because they fail to unify all levels of the brain. Like looking at the spark plugs in the engine and being baffled how they make the tires turn.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      But that's because there are different aspects to brain activity. There is the computational side and then there is qualia of being a consciousness and so on. Threading it together in one theory is very hard and perhaps not helpful as a goal.

  • @williamburts5495
    @williamburts5495 Před 11 měsíci

    Can we really say that neurons are the cause of desire.

  • @evaadam3635
    @evaadam3635 Před rokem

    Please read the following very important sincere comment :
    The choice to believe does not necessarily require a reason. For lack of knowledge of truth, we can believe anything for any reason even without a reason. This is because our selves (souls) are not physical - not bound by natural physical laws but free...
    But, when you are absolutely sure about the truth as stated in your comment, then you are not believing but KNOWING which is hard to change. Belief can change when the absolute truth comes out. There is a huge difference between knowing and believing.
    Basic science states that properties of physical matter are bound or governed by physical laws (physics) beyond control and, so, physical matter has no power to make the change so to choose on its own to freely believe in Supernatural God. You are flashing material science into the toilet bowl if you think so. The power to believe to act on that belief on its own freely can not be a property of physical matter otherwise basic science or physics becomes obsolete when physical matter becomes free, out of control.
    Once again, ask your self : if everything is already determined by nature , or our choices are driven by physical laws beyond control, then how is it possible for us to have free time to decide what right choices to make while driven by physical laws ALL THE TIME, rather than just function automatically, driven by nature, like a clueless unaware computer driven by programmed switches ?
    You are almost saying that physical matter can take a break from physical laws to have free time to decide on its own what choices to make, what choices to terminate, when to make a choice, etc etc when the choices are already made in advance by nature for you just to follow like a programmed robot, if indeed your whole being is just physical mater driven by nature.
    And of course, if you are just physical matter, then physical processes takes time as you are driven by nature ALL THE TIME where you have no free time to decide on your own to make your own changes because all your time is taken by physical laws. In other words, you are not free to decide because the decision were already prepared by nature, if indeed you are just a physical robot.
    And the fact that we can have free time to decide on our own, screams loudly that our true being inside this physical body is NOT physical.... and, by webster's dictionary, we fit the definition of a soul, spirit, ghost, etc., as non-physical free entity.
    Don't you see the humongous contradiction when you define your whole being as just physical matter ?

    • @godjesus3342
      @godjesus3342 Před rokem

      Watch archeological discovery and very not long,

  • @tajzikria5307
    @tajzikria5307 Před rokem

    Consciousness is fundamental.

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem +2

      How can something that either only emerges with biological life or is an outcome of it be fundamental?

    • @waynedarronwalls6468
      @waynedarronwalls6468 Před rokem

      ​@Praise TheLord777 GOD HATES US AAAAALLLL...🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘

    • @abelincoln8885
      @abelincoln8885 Před rokem

      freewill, NATURE & consciousness .. are fundamental ... functions of an Entity with a Mind.
      Universal Functions .. is the hypothesis .. for Sir Issa Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago ... & .. Machine Analogies used to explain Intelligent ... design/creation.
      A Machine Analogy .... is simply an OBSERVATION ... not a proof.
      Man ... is an Intelligence with a Mind ... freewill, nature & consciousness .. to think & do as he/she wants ... do good or evil, created or destroy, be just or unjust, believe or ot believe .. and .. make, operate, improve, fine tune Functions ... for a reason/purpose.
      And truly stupid Men ... have freewill & nature ... to ignore the scientific method & actual facts .. and claim Machine Analogies are fake science or they have DEBUNKED an "observation " of natural phenomena. Idiots. Oh year these clowns state there is no freewill & "corrupt" nature of Man ... but ... say there is no God because of all the evil, decay & death in the world. WTF?

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      Consciousness is actually mental. 🤔😉

    • @tajzikria5307
      @tajzikria5307 Před rokem +1

      @HaxStir Actually not in my opinion. It is outside of space and time. Our brains are an interface to consciousness.

  • @emilianosintarias7337

    72 is the new 62

  • @1p6t1gms
    @1p6t1gms Před rokem

    I always wondered why my parents didn't hit me in the head with a frying pan after they brought me home after giving birth to their child. As well as, how far back does this premise go where there is a natural caring for the offspring of species seemingly with any higher or lower consciousness function, including the human development of evolution. It seems predetermined altogether from the very beginning of existences among all mammals. A kind of natural morality built into the programming throughout all times in order to survive and then over time develop ethics to a degree?

    • @philosopher0076
      @philosopher0076 Před 10 měsíci

      Well a materialist would simply explain it to you by saying, " Well, it's simply natural selection, not some ethics and morality. The parent animals from the beginning of biological life who walked away from their young with no care, or little care, and the ones that hit their newborns over the head with a, " frying pan " as example...just didn't survive because they had no children to carry on their genes. Those parents got selected out of the gene pool." "Therefore the only animals to survive were the ones that took care of their young very diligently."

  • @bobcabot
    @bobcabot Před rokem

    i go with the illusion as Poe does: life (consciousness) is just a dream within a dream, but i give you that for some maybe most it´s a just nightmare for no reason...

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem +1

      If life is but a dream does it matter if you are Hitler or an industrial polluter or a school shooter? I'm beginning to see what Nietzsche meant when he said something like, we need to choose the truths that are good for us. "Life is but a dream" seems a philosophy to me that benefits no one -- except it may offer comfort to the most despicable among us.

    • @tajzikria5307
      @tajzikria5307 Před rokem

      If you only believe in classical mechanics then yes. However, quantum mechanics proves otherwise.

    • @Paraselene_Tao
      @Paraselene_Tao Před rokem +2

      @@longcastle4863
      Dreams can be great, terrible, a mix of both, or neither at all. It's my observation that life is generally dull about 90% of the time, mildly nice about 9%, great about 0.9% of the time, and terrible roughly 0.1% of the time. These are ballpark guesses: perhaps other people feel differently, and perhaps my appraisal of the situation changes over time. Also, who knows if it's even a good system to rate life-dream by dull, nice, great, and terrible? How should we define these personally, socially or otherwise?

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem +1

      @@Paraselene_Tao Ask a scholar, a scientist or any layman interested and fascinated with exploring and discovering the various aspects of the world around them and I think you will find some of them saying, they've never been bored a day in their lives. Spitballing: maybe boredom originates in part from not being able to find interests outside ones immediate concerns.

    • @Paraselene_Tao
      @Paraselene_Tao Před rokem +2

      @@longcastle4863
      Sure, people often times have interests, hobbies, careers they genuinely enjoy, and so on, but I'm fairly certain that most people agree that their lives are majority of the time dull, peaceful, and serene. Perhaps I'm projecting my feelings about my life onto everyone else's lives. Perhaps some people focus or stay excited, interested, or enthusiastic about their lives more than I do. For me, it's largely a boring landscape of the same old, repetitive stuff.
      There is some interesting, nice spontaneity, though. I still enjoy enjoy my life overall: folks like you bring me some enjoyment. My girlfriend, my dog, my job, my family, and yada yada bring me some enjoyment, too. Have I not put the effort into making my life more exciting? 🙃 Perhaps it's my fault for having a boring, regular life, but this is the life I wanted anyhow. It's been a good dream-life so far, and I would dream-live it again if given the chance. I even go on to thank whatever or whoever dreamed-lived me. That's a rather Neitzschean idea. Amor Fati.

  • @missh1774
    @missh1774 Před rokem

    Sooo... A fruit fly in South America has the same gene as a fruit fly in India? Hmm decoherence...what is the constraints?
    13:50 must be like an entanglement hot bed. Do you like octopus tentacles fried to a crisp or flame grilled? If one suction cup is so extremely slow that in the first plot over the centre line
    1) it is giving the entire arm decoherence transfer of the entire updated anatomic rule
    2) it is co-ordinating with two other arms in close proximity to assist with the one plot over the line.
    3) it can enter double dutch motion and it be in an identical synchronous pattern to feed information back and forth to the other two arms?
    4) and when it has elegantly found a new plot/position, does that arm somatically read the direction flow and refrain from analysing/probing further.
    5) then the entire systems priority is to sufficiently optimise quality equilibrium between the other core functions as that will always be paramount. Makes no sense really to do that experiment.
    Might as well make a fire and throw money on it so we can have saki and crispy tentacles. Im thinking bad quantum maths makes war with the waist line 😳... thank God for alchemic tomfoolery

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem +1

      Well they're both fruit flies, so they will have some genes in common, but I'm sure they have differences too. Every individual has genetic difference from every other, except for identical twins.

  • @mcgee227
    @mcgee227 Před rokem +1

    Sorry, but you can wrangle it around all you want. It's "ALL" still Causal Determinism.

  • @marvinedwards737
    @marvinedwards737 Před rokem +2

    Consciousness is a physical process running upon the neural infrastructure. Because it is physical, it is already connected to everything it needs to make changes in the physical world, like opening a car door or pouring a cup of coffee. A small signal in the brain tissue is amplified by the muscle tissue. And that is how consciouness interacts with the physical world. Right now it is telling me that I just wasted 15 minutes listening to a bit of nonsense.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      "Consciousness is a physical process running upon the neural infrastructure" yes, but that doesn't actually explain what consciousness is, it describes an aspect of the process, not the aspect of a conscious being. It also doesn't explain the interactive nature of quantum entanglement or the double spit experiment in terms of us as the qualia of measurement effecting the outcome.

    • @marvinedwards737
      @marvinedwards737 Před rokem

      @@haxstir Neuroscience is still mapping specific mental functions to specific clusters of neurons. This is useful information because it helps the neurosurgeon deduce where the injury or illness or tumor is located based upon the patient's symptoms.
      But I doubt that anyone is attempting to map these functions to specific quantum particles. Quantum mechanics is only relevant to the theory that physical determinism may fail at that level.
      As a compatibilist, I asssume perfectly reliable causation at all levels of reality, and that meaningful free will (a choice free of coercion and other forms of undue influence), is a deterministic event, just like every other event. Ordinary cause and effect is not a threat to ordinary free will.
      As to the qualia of experience, and why our experience is as it is rather than some other way, I see this as an unanswerable question, similar to "why does anything exist rather than nothingness?". It's just the way things are.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      @@marvinedwards737 What happens to the mapping if the brain is holonomic, or actaully hosts consciousness as a quantum field? Just looking at the brain or consciousness mechanically has its merit it certain respects but I think is in doubt as a catch all hypothesis.

    • @marvinedwards737
      @marvinedwards737 Před rokem

      @@haxstir I have no clue. I was a psych major, so if I want to know what the brain is doing, I'd simply ask someone "What are you thinking about?"

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      @@marvinedwards737 thoughts are certainly a lot of functioning of the brain but there seems to be so much more than this and I don't mean just experientially.

  • @MrSanford65
    @MrSanford65 Před rokem

    I am not sure quantum entanglement can explain the unifying systems that could create the consciousness of self because these independent systems quantum that are entangled , would still have to maintain a structured locality in order to maintain the single self identity. Somehow these quantum entangled systems would have to “ know “ to remain in a local space and Time to give the “self identity” . Perhaps a better question is “what would be the parameters of the self”

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      And if consciousness is actually a fundamental part of a quantum field effect?

    • @picobarco4407
      @picobarco4407 Před rokem

      @@haxstir I really like that you states this, being explicit if Quantum Field is the generator of Consciousness, and hence the Quantum behaviour is essentially Consciousness. BUT, I like to think of Consciousness as being Separate from the Quantum, and either one of these 2 possibilities: 1) Consciousness gives RISE to Quantum Fields and matter, OR, 2) The Consiousness (field) and the Quantum Fields can interact with one another. These are my ideas on this.

  • @Veed.l0
    @Veed.l0 Před rokem

    He raised an interesting experiment idea which might be impossible to test about entanglement at the end. However, otherwise; even Robert was getting tired of this guy prattling on and really not saying anything.

    • @ronhudson3730
      @ronhudson3730 Před rokem

      Was he not saying anything or were you not understanding anything he said? Given the tone of your comment, I think it’s a fair question.

    • @Veed.l0
      @Veed.l0 Před rokem

      ​@@ronhudson3730​@ronhudson3730 he kept trying to derail Robert's question about what consciousness was to elaborate his work/patent on decoherance to address Decarte classical theories. While never backtracking to a significant answer, only potential experiments that he would like to see conducted.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem

      @@Veed.l0 I think that's a little unfair, he things consciousness affects the world through the process of decoherence. It's just a shame that the idea doesn't seem to make any sense, to me anyway. He says himself decoherence is acausal. His stuff about proteins carrying out quantum measurement, well, I don't know what that even means. A measurement is just an interaction. Of course all proteins will interact with other molecules via quantum interactions. I don't see how the question makes any sense.

  • @georgebrucks2833
    @georgebrucks2833 Před rokem

    It is true that the unknown is the largest need of the intellect, though for it, no one thinks to thank God.
    --Emily Dickinson

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem

      No, but Emily Dickinson sure did her fair share of not just arguing with God, but criticizing God from the perspective of living creatures. Her's was by no means a simplistic sheeplike acceptance of God or the teachings about God common to the religious of her day. At least imo -- from my reading of her poetry, which, contrary to how it is often portrayed, is complicated, dense and multi-layered; while nevertheless all being expressed with a brutal parsimony of words and a delightfully impish sometimes almost bratty playfulness.

  • @rickwyant
    @rickwyant Před rokem +1

    So many people desire there to be something more, there isn't.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem +1

      *"So many people desire there to be something more, there isn't."*
      ... The number of people that desire there to be nothing more is in direct proportion to those who desire there to be something more.

    • @longcastle4863
      @longcastle4863 Před rokem

      There could be something more -- a lot more! -- for the species if we as individuals living now decide to live in a way that gives a chance for future generations to continue to grow and flourish. And I do believe that _is_ enough to find meaning in life, even if we living now will not get to directly experience the wonders future generations of ourselves will get to experience. If we love our species, we will be glad for them. Unfortunately, all or at least almost all religions teach some form of human beings as a "fallen" species whose only chance of happiness lies elsewhere in some place outside this life. What a terrible thing for a species to accept about itself. Especially as that afterworld / after life hypothesis has not an iota of truth backing it up. But what dreadful fruits it bears.

  • @MegaDonaldification
    @MegaDonaldification Před rokem

    Flies are too fast.

  • @MegaDonaldification
    @MegaDonaldification Před rokem +1

    I am extremely happy with your thought processes. It is absolutely, super on point. Every thing you just explained and described I found in the bible, especially in Jesus's quote.

    • @danzigvssartre
      @danzigvssartre Před rokem +3

      Since when was Jesus talking about quantum decoherence, entanglement in synapses in the brain?

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem +1

      @@danzigvssartre when he was walking on water, don't you know 😇

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL Před rokem +1

      @@danzigvssartre Seems to me that
      folks like me who've tried LSD
      are much more impressed with the capabilities of brains
      than are folks who haven't,
      generally speaking.
      LSD does not tweak quantum this or that.
      LSD changes the discharge frequencies of neurons.
      The discharge frequencies of neurons are the foremost candidate
      to be understood as thoughts encoded.
      Minds are made of thoughts.
      Correct me if I'm wrong but
      doesn't this information constitute the foundation
      of psychology's 'standard model' of the relationship between mind and matter?
      It's been many decades since I was last in school so I can't be sure.
      Is there a mechanism that is more likely to encode thoughts
      than neural discharge frequency?
      Ockhams razor tells me this information forms the basis of
      the most likely hypothesis.
      Wouldn't you agree?

    • @MegaDonaldification
      @MegaDonaldification Před rokem

      @@REDPUMPERNICKEL every thing you need for what the gentleman was explaining is in you laying dormant. What do you know of endurance or spirit being both will and endurance?

    • @MegaDonaldification
      @MegaDonaldification Před rokem

      @@danzigvssartre lol! don't worry you wont understand where I coming from. don't look at words. What do you think? Is patience the same as kindness?

  • @georgegrubbs2966
    @georgegrubbs2966 Před rokem

    What we call "mind" is a collection of capabilities emerging from the electrochemical reactions in the brain that form neural networks that learn and create the capabilities. The capabilities are the senses, actions, memory, logic (thinking), sense of identity, and subjective experiences.

  • @rickwyant
    @rickwyant Před rokem

    No brain no consciousness. There has never been an instance or observation of consciousness without a brain.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem

      *"No brain no consciousness. There has never been an instance or observation of consciousness without a brain."*
      ... No sound; no wavelength. There has never been an instance or observation of a sound without a wavelength. However, every wavelength of sound that's ever been generated requires a source.

    • @heinzditer7286
      @heinzditer7286 Před rokem

      How can we know someone is conscious? We can't. We just assume someone is conscious because he acts like me, when i am conscious. So if there would be consciousness without a brain, or a body, how would that consciousness tell us that its conscious? It wouldn't.
      So your statement is not helpful.

  • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

    (3:05) *SK: **_"What's it supposed to do, make the billiard balls swerve?"_* ...I argue that before human consciousness ever existed, Newtonian physics ruled the day, The cause-and-effect interaction of billiard balls can be accurately predicted because they have *no option* but to comply. But predictability only produces so much information before it all becomes redundant.
    So, if you were "Existence" and you wanted to generate _new information_ to overcome this redundancy, then the next logical move would be to see what would happen if the billiard balls had *multiple options.* Thus, we are the newly emerged billiard balls of Existence that now possess *multiple options* (free will).
    ... All of the *determinism* generated by Newtonian physics is still in play, but now *free will* steps into the arena as a _game changer!_

    • @vroomik
      @vroomik Před rokem +1

      Maybe updating the information / predicting how the balls would swerve is generating so much new causal probabilities, that we get into recohere /decohere situation as in the opposite of the classic koan with the fallen tree.
      Those properties of any given moment are becoming emergently infinite as we try to look at it.
      Stuart is bonkers, but still thought provoking

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem +1

      "What's it supposed to do, make the billiard balls swerve?" The thing here is we are the billiard balls. All of them all together.
      It's the classic dualist delusion. They just cannot break out of the mind set of assuming that the 'person' is a separate entity from the body. They can't just look at a living human body and think oh, here is a person. It's all of the person. It's all here. There just has to be something else. They look at the human body and human brain of Joe and say oh that's very interesting, this is Joe's body and brain, but where is Joe? For goodness sake. He's right there, you're looking at him. Joe is the 'billiard balls' - the atoms and molecules and magnetic fields and electrical signals and such. That's Joe and we know how all of that stuff works already. We study it all the time. This is all stuff we already understand.

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem

      ​@@simonhibbs887 *"The thing here is we are the billiard balls. All of them all together."*
      ... I argue that there are two sets of billiard balls. *(1)* A set that has *no options* other than to go where they go and do what they do. Each ball must follow the exact same set of rules as all the others. *(2)* A set that has *options* other than to go where they go and do what they do. Each ball can deviate from its course based on the choosing of one or more options.
      *"It's the classic dualist delusion. They just cannot break out of the mind set of assuming that the 'person' is a separate entity from the body."*
      ... Whether or not the brain is responsible or something else is responsible is irrelevant. The fact remains that we have two sets of billiard balls: one set has options, and the other set doesn't. This represents a distinction between the two sets that must be acknowledged.
      *"They can't just look at a living human body and think oh, here is a person. It's all of the person. It's all here. There just has to be something else."*
      ... It's the "ability" to select from a series of options that transcends the brain that's facilitating the decision-making process. One sees the brain as merely a tool to aid in the selection process, the other sees no tool being involved and the brain executing all actions involved.
      I subscribe to the former. Brain and self are two distinct conditions that are a byproduct of "evolution" in the same way that there is a clear distinction between "life" and
      "inanimate structure" - even though they are both comprised of the same material.
      *"Joe is the 'billiard balls' - the atoms and molecules and magnetic fields and electrical signals and such."*
      ... That's Joe when he is a dead billiard ball. When Joe is dead, he can no longer choose from a set of options. However, while Joe was a living billiard ball, he was able to select from a set of options. To claim that there are no distinctions between the two Joes is to ignore the difference between "alive" and "dead."
      *Summary:* This debate will not be settled in a comment thread. However, I see it all as an "evolution of information" to where both conditions are working together to fulfill a single objective. Therefore, it doesn't really matter to me if one believes it's just the brain handling it all and another thinks it's something more than just a brain.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 Před rokem +1

      @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC does each billiard ball, each atom, have a choice? Where is the choice made, and by what process?
      All this does is push the ‘self’ somewhere else off stage, but there must still be a self. It must still use criteria for making decisions, it must still have a mechanism for choosing one option over another and taking actions in the world. Do it must be a complex, sophisticated system. If it’s not the brain, not the billiard balls. If they’re just levers it pulls, what is it that’s pulling the levers and where is it?

    • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
      @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Před rokem

      @@simonhibbs887 *"does each billiard ball, each atom, have a choice? Where is the choice made, and by what process?"*
      ... Matter has no options or choices. Lifeforms are an evolution of matter that has options and choices. The process is "evolution of information."
      *"All this does is push the ‘self’ somewhere else off stage, but there must still be a self."*
      ... Why can't it be included in the mix? Biological life isn't "off the stage" somewhere else from inanimate matter, is it? Life is the same matter, but with additional properties that matter never had before.
      *"it must still have a mechanism for choosing one option over another and taking actions in the world."*
      ... "Self" enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the brain in the same way you do with your car. You want to get somewhere quickly, and your car facilitates the journey. With both brain and car, you control some aspects of function and other aspects happen without your direction.
      *"If they’re just levers it pulls, what is it that’s pulling the levers and where is it?"*
      ... I could ask the same question about life: _" If it’s not the matter, not the compounds. If they’re just levers it pulls, what is it that’s pulling the levers that makes something 'alive,', and where is it?_
      Just because we can't swish it around in a test tube doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • @donaldmokgale3123
    @donaldmokgale3123 Před rokem

    Holy crap i have no idea what this man is speaking about 😂😂 ....i need to read

  • @Life_42
    @Life_42 Před rokem

    Life equals 42! (Joke)

  • @S3RAVA3LM
    @S3RAVA3LM Před rokem

    The Axiom: closer to truth
    Some how, after viewing this video, found myself in the same position from whence i started.
    What i notice when i ready and study A.K. Coomaraswamy is that he never references those who are contemporary during his time. And what i notice in this video here not one Giant was referenced or anything cited. Therefor i question intention of such inquiry.
    If a man envisages himself as boxing champion of the world merely for wealth and fame he likely will never attain the goal. Intention very much plays a factor.
    GOD is a bad word today. The only time, too, do i hear mention 'Jesus Christ' is when there's contention.
    I study metaphysics, theology etc. and what i learn is there's certain purificatory rituals and rites. There's a type of intimacy and mutualbility of all life as a prerequisite - rigor and stringent tis this; and i mean to the core of Heart. It's not about thinking your way out of a thinking box - it's really the contrary. Is an 'undoing'. It is beyond science, therefor precludes left hemisphere.
    The Cause is in the effect; the Principle in the attribute. It seems, concerning the video question that we're trying to 'think our way out of a thinking box'. In theology there's a phrase, " GOD works in mysterious ways". BUDDHA teachers 'via negativa'.
    And... i buy and study only the oldest texts, as i've no time for modern science. The scriptures, metaphysics, sacred sciences, is all about Consciousness(GOD) and theze guys today, here, trying to reinvent the bloody wheel.
    Science and Theology
    Metaphysics and physics
    Knowledge and Wisdom
    Light and dark
    Principle and attribute
    Cause and effect
    KRSNA, BUDDHA, CHRIST
    EGYPT, INDIA, GREECE
    Vedas, Upanishads, Bible, Kolbrin
    Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus,
    Proclus, Iamblichus, Eurigena
    Coomaraswamy, Uzdavinyus, Carabine
    Are we trying to bury the past here or something?
    Taking something that is not objective and applying physical methodologies is counter productive.
    The Buddha already laid out the ground work.
    Why these men refrain from acknowledging the Giants i choose not to discover.
    I buy and study the heck out of the oldest books and avoid any modern author.

  • @Tozniak
    @Tozniak Před rokem

    The phrase that I keep hearing him arrogantly repeat is, “I wanna believe”, which reveals his desperate hope that there is no God.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      Well hopefully there isn't as this world is a bit of a piece of work despite it's beauty. I mean come on, cancer for newborn babies? Nice job god.

    • @Tozniak
      @Tozniak Před rokem

      @@haxstir your hope sounds as hopeless as the ramblings of that scientist.

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      @@Tozniak oh dear, where did you get your degree in Physics? PragerU? 🤣

    • @Tozniak
      @Tozniak Před rokem

      @@haxstir Obviously nothing embarrasses you. 😬

    • @haxstir
      @haxstir Před rokem

      @@Tozniak "Obviously nothing embarrasses you" you do as an example of the stupidity of humankind

  • @abdelchemami6964
    @abdelchemami6964 Před rokem

    Humankind are slaves of something we are trying to know what is it. But how the slavery serves the something ????

  • @Cr0uch1ng71g3r
    @Cr0uch1ng71g3r Před rokem

    Mind is a tool that determinism uses with sufficiently complex biological creatures, it isn't contradictory to determinism 😌

  • @phuzbrain
    @phuzbrain Před rokem

    This guy is incoherent.

    • @randomone4832
      @randomone4832 Před měsícem

      His particles underwent quantum decoherence.

  • @mray8519
    @mray8519 Před rokem +1

    This guy is trying to understand something way above his ability. So, we end up with talk that goes nowhere.