Free Will, Determinism, and Self-Determinism
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- The Michael Shermer Show # 346
It’s become fashionable to argue that free will is a fiction: that we humans are in the thrall of animal urges and unconscious biases and only think that we are choosing freely. In Freely Determined, research psychologist Kennon Sheldon argues that this perception is not only wrong but also dangerous.
Shermer and Sheldon discuss: definitions of free will, determinism, compatibilism, libertarian free will • dualism • reductionism, materialism, predetermination, and epiphenomenalism • Christian List’s three capacities for free will • AI, Star Trek’s Data, sentience and consciousness, ChatGPT, GPT-4 • how what people believe about free will and determinism influences their behaviors • the case for hard determinism • brain injuries, tumors, addictions, and other “determiners” of behavior • emergence • symbolic self • System 1 vs. System 2 thinking • Experiencing Self vs. Remembered Self • subjective well-being and happiness.
Kennon M. Sheldon is professor of psychology at the University of Missouri. He is one of the founding researchers of positive psychology, a fellow of the American Psychological Association, and a recipient of the Templeton Foundation Positive Psychology Prize. He lives in Columbia, Missouri. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and scholarly books, including Stability of Happiness: Theories and Evidence on Whether Happiness Can Change; Designing the Future of Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward; Current Directions in Psychological Science; and Self-Determination Theory in the Clinic. His new book integrates all this research into a popular trade book Freely Determined: What the New Psychology of the Self Teaches Us About How to Live.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
www.skeptic.co...
SPONSOR
Wondrium
wondrium.com/s...
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.co...
This is so short-sighted. Free will is not about the capacity to make choices. It is about what is behind that. It is about that what compels us to make certain choices. We do not control our genes. We do not control our experiences and what these experiences do to our brain. We do not control in what environment we grow up. We do not control how our parents, teachers, friends influence the development of our brain, etc. etc. etc.
We are “free to make a choice”, but that means nothing, if we can not control what has influenced us to make that choice on a deep neurological level.
Psychopathy and sociopathy are extreme examples of this, but there are countless influences in so-called normal, non-pathological brains.
The idea that our limited consciousness is fully in control is garbage. It is along for the ride, but controls very little.
Sure, there's a lot we dont control... but there's also a lot we can contrrol and influence....And not being able to control certain things doesnt negate that. Our free will or capacity to choose among possibilities or possible states is still highly relevant. But for me personally, i know it's real because i use it every day to get shzt done... and that's all that matters.
You just don't get it, do you... Free Will only requires that we be able to control SOME (not all) of our decisions, and that is blatantly the case. Rationality gives us the power to see into the future (if only statistically), and so some of our decisions are not based on events in the past, but on possible events in the future. This is why we make a difference between decisions made by a four-year-old and an adult: ability to foresee the consequences of one's actions. Free Will deniers are forced to accept that there can be no difference between an adult, normal human, and a child (Sam Harris says no difference between a human and a bear, because he knows the comparison with a child makes him look stupid). This is ridiculous. And this is why everyone, no exceptions, operates every day with the assumption that Free Will exists, no matter what they tell themselves (self-delusion).
@@Corteum "but there's also a lot we can contrrol and influence", like what?
You might say that if im given a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice-cream i have "free will" to choice which ever option i want. But our point is that i do not choose my "wants". I did not choose to like vanilla more than chocolate, i just do, not by choice, i just do. Now, i can still choose chocolate because maybe i have over eaten on vanilla. But i did not choose to be the type of person who like variety. Some people are perfectly happy eating the same thing every day, im not, i did not choose that.
The point we are making is that what ever you say "here is a choice you can make" we can take one step backwards and say "you didnt choose to be the type of person who wants to make that choose" or whatever. Its "turtles all the way down".
@@Corteum I think most people will agree that it feels like we have free will. Saying it's irrelevant if it's an illusion or not is fine as an opinion. But it's another thing all together to make assertions like "i know it's real because i use it every day" and "there's also a lot we can control and influence". I assume most people come to a discussion like this to hear what evidence people are proposing to back their hypothesis. For those people it's not very satisfying to hear more assertions based on feelings.
I suspect that we should just retire the term "free will", since all it seems to do is just muddle the waters.
Humans take in information about the world around them and, combined with pre-existing preferences, knowledge, etc.....and make decisions based on that. That's it. Whether or not this qualifies as "free will", is up to the individual.
Otherwise, you could go round and round with this kind of discussion. On one hand, of course we have free will, we make decisions all the time, are aware of those decisions, and can even subvert our quirks. On the other, we don't decide our preferences, and aren't even aware when (and why) they change. We don't decide if something makes sense to us or not. We can't decide not to experience emotion.
As a side note, to those that say we don't have free will, answer me this: What would it look like to actually have free will? Would it mean having the ability to completely control your own preferences and emotions? Or not have preferences at all? If free will is actually impossible, then the statement "we don't have free will" is meaningless, since it is just self-evident that we don't have an ability that is impossible to have.
To those who say we have it, what does it mean to be free? Free from what, exactly? Free to decide? But your decisions are, ultimately, based on your current knowledge, emotional state, and preexisting values, goals, and preferences. You didn't choose those. I suppose you are free to pursue them, but that's like having a destination, and just several tracks that can get there. You can choose which track to take, but you will always end up in the same place.
At the end of the day, I would suggest changing this question from a binary "yes" or "no" to a spectrum. Some people are more or less aware of their own biases, emotions, etc.....and are able to make better decisions based on that knowledge. My advice would be to encourage everyone to try to understand human behavior, and accept their own limitations. Don't identify with your own emotions - they are things that happen to you. They are not you. Same goes for your beliefs.
On a different note, for those who put Free Will as opposite to Determinism, this distinction is completely irrelevant. There is no perceptible difference between a universe that is completely determined, and one that isn't. A helpful analogy for this would be this: Imagine there is a kid following you around, that says "I know what you are going to do". When you ask "what am I going to do next?", the kid says "I can't tell you". Then, when you do something, the kid says "I knew you were going to do that". From your perspective, there is no difference between a world where the kid just actually omniscient and indeed knows what you will do, and a world where the kid is just bullshitting you.
Well, this should conclude this abridged version of my take on Free Will. I hope it helped at least one person.
Cheers
@ 29:50 - Even the "choices" are thoughts that simply arise. You don't decide to think a thought. That's literally the reason we occasionally find ourselves wrestling with them.
And 30:26 Determinism makes no claim regarding human predictability, or the predictability of anything for that matter.
Still digging the conversation. Just the two things back to back... Well, back to it. lol
Imo - anyone who pulls that “money isn’t everything” bs is either totally oblivious to real financial hardship and/or is just being wilfully dishonest.
There's a difference between "money isn't everything" and "money is nothing". You seem to be responding as if the latter was stated, not the first as you quoted. Or, perhaps you believe that money is, in fact, everything? If so, I think you'll find you're in a minority.
@@mascot4950 thanks for your note. Imo money is close to everything, in that having no money can most surely equate to a pretty awful life. I’m more so speaking to the type of people who have money, and often times haven’t ever been without, who like to emphasize money not being important or as important. It’s the insinuation that people who are hyper focused or stressed out about money are inherently misguided when such a significant majority struggle as a result of financial insecurity. It’s not the society I would’ve designed but it’s the one we have.
@@antitheistvegan You again, to me, confuse money meaning nothing with meaning everything. Having _enough_ money means quite a lot as a basis. Going from "struggling to survive" to "enough money", as in enough for a place to live, plenty to eat, some surplus for hobbies and activities, means a lot. But once you've reached that level, getting even more money becomes a lot less important to your wellbeing. So, while it's perfectly understandable for people with insufficient income for a decent life to be stressed out over money (and even to feel "it's everything"), it makes equal sense to say that it's not all that important once you pass that threshold.
If you live in a country where the majority is struggling, then I'd argue that country is doing something wrong. There are plenty of nations on the planet were that isn't the case. That being said, I suspect we'll eventually end up with basic income as a system. There are only so many low skill jobs, and they're becoming more rare by the year, and not everyone is suited for higher education and jobs with high skill requirements.
Yeah, as i suspected. He just really really Wants free will to be real but doesnt make any compelling arguments to prove it. Bit of a waste of my time tbh. Dont do that please.
Some call it character
I totally agree. Free will is a dead end. And it shows in its proponents.
Why do I have to be the one to explain this? Those who grew up in horrible environments have what I would call "sociological dissonance". They simply don't have the sufficient environmental programming to rationalize in the same way most with a good upbringing can.
Agreed.
The ideal of freedom is at the heart of our political and economic system. It is foundational to our sense of justice, our way of life, our conception of what it is to be human. But are we free in the way that we think we are?
In Creating Freedom, Raoul Martinez brings together a torrent of mind-expanding ideas, facts, and arguments to dismantle sacred myths central to our society-myths about free will, free markets, free media, and free elections. From the lottery of our birth to the consent-manufacturing influence of concentrated power, this far-reaching manifesto lifts the veil on the mechanisms of control that pervade our lives. It shows that the more we understand how the world shapes us, the more effectively we can shape the world.
A highly original exploration of the most urgent questions of our time, Creating Freedom reveals that we are far less free than we like to think, but it also shows that freedom is something we can create together. In fact, our very survival may depend on our doing so.
Self is a collection of programming. No self, no free will.
I have been programmed to agree with you.
We are free to choose what we want. And we don’t choose our wants. So I guess we are only free to choose that which we want.
Nothing ever said here to back up any notion of free will.
I know my ego is a social contrict and there is no freewill. Paradoxically since I stopped believing in freewill there is less suffering and more compassion.
For those who believe they have freewill I challenge you to fall in love or out of love from freewill or if you are a theist become an atheist or vice versa.
The idea that they are somehow in charge of something is by far the most difficult illusion for the average person to disabuse themself of. Many mind-systems are simply desperately coded for foundational/non-instrumental meaning-making and can’t function without it.
It is not just the average person who has the disability of about to so called illusion of free will. It is the average elitist who denies free will. The new age illusionist think the ego is an illusion. The elite of the elitist think, believe that reality is an illusion. IF free will is an illusion it is a very, very convincing illusion. The fact is that even if it is an illusion we are able to function with the illusion. We function very well with the illusion that sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We know we can function with the illusion. We don't know if we can or how we would function without free will. The fun questions are , 1. What is the source of free wil? 2. What is it free from? Is it free from both nature and nurture. 4. Are humans the only biological species that have free will? 5. How could you program an A.I. , robot, android to have free will? I do not know of any neuerobiologist who has proven free will. I think free will is a necessary social construct. If it is an illusion, myth I believe it is necessary for social order and justice systems. If we don't have free will we do have thinking slow, critical thinking to influence our choices. Unless critical thinking is also an illusion. And how about "freethinking" is that also an "illusion"? Determinism, especially " hard" determinism implies we are bio!logical robots. An "inconvenient truth"? What I find interesting is that both Theists and Athiests agree AND disagree about whether we have free will. 😎😇🤔
So your comment above was predetermined because physics require that comment to be created at this time?
@@homewall744 Yes.
@@homewall744 Was it? Cause and effect.
Some say that conciousness is just information. But if it's just infromation, then why are we aware of the information? Information by itself isnt aware. We can put information into a computer, but that doesn't make it aware. There's something very perculiar about the fact that we can be aware of information.
Naturalism suggests that brains are simply decoders of environmental information. That part appears to be true.. USING this perspective, "awareness of the environment" is self-explanatory and, in my humble opinion, erases such questions as yours..
"Some say" doesn't seem to be a very firm basis to spend much time pondering, if you ask me. But, if I were so inclined, I'd say you'd have to start with defining "information". The concept of information in physcis is very different from what most people use the word for. There's also the issue of how people define the word consciousness. If sapience is required, then it's quite rare. If sentience is where you draw the line, then it's all over the animal kingdom.
I don't really see consciousness as something terribly mysterious. It seems to just be something brains do when they reach sufficient complexity.
@Mascot An excellent comment, friend.. If I might amplify and you probably already know, in physics information is generated whenever two or more particle fields INTERACT. On word use, the term "consciousness" ideally would be eliminated from our lexicon. It is a VERY vague word and carries decades of associations with the mystical and supernatural. The dictionary definition of environmental awareness is MUCH better. It is certainly more precise and even self-explanatory.. Peace.
@@mascot4950 The reason consciousness still a mystery in science is because it cannot be (and has never been) defined or explained in purely physical, biological mathematical, computational, linguistic or genetic terms, primarily because it has qualitiese about it which do not constitute a physically measurable property; i.e.. spin, charge, mass, shape, color, etc. Yes, we can measure the physical/mathematical properties of the brain, but the brain is not the same thing as consciousness. Brain is object. Consciousness is subject. So one question is, how do you derive subjeects from objects like atoms and molecules? It's never been explained, not even theorized.. There aren't even any testable predictions for it. Hence, the mystery remains. But jsut because it's a mystery (at present) doesn't mean it will always remain so. Eventually, i believe we will get to the bottom of it.
@@Bill..N _"It is a VERY vague word"_
Not at all. It's already been well defined in various traditions and cultures around the world for millenia. And the common thread among all of those definitions is that it is a quality, the primary feature of which is awareness or the capaacity to perceive and experience information, as opposed to merely processing information like a computer that has no capacity to experience information subejctively.
It's all an illusion. I didn't just watch this video.
Having a capacity to make choices is not free will. How we make choices and how to make better choices is a good topic for conversation, but it's not a conversation about free will. This is why I find the arguments in support of free will to always be a waste of time, at least in terms of convincing me that it's a real phenomenon. Free will is always defined down to some capacity that we obviously have that is explained entirely in terms of causes that are physical, psychological, environmental, etc. To have free will there must be a will, and that will must be free from causes that don't originate within that will, which itself must somehow exist without having any causal explanation. This would have to be the case at least to some degree for free will to make sense to any degree. As things are, it's just a nonsense magical concept that people think is very important for self-aggrandizing reasons. It's our attempt to imagine ourselves as gods. The truth is that we are made of the same stuff as everything else and subject to all of the same laws, forces, etc. There's no magic ingredient that anyone has knowledge of. I know. What a bummer.
You are correct. We aren't free until we understand that we aren't.
The ideal of freedom is at the heart of our political and economic system. It is foundational to our sense of justice, our way of life, our conception of what it is to be human. But are we free in the way that we think we are?
In Creating Freedom, Raoul Martinez brings together a torrent of mind-expanding ideas, facts, and arguments to dismantle sacred myths central to our society-myths about free will, free markets, free media, and free elections. From the lottery of our birth to the consent-manufacturing influence of concentrated power, this far-reaching manifesto lifts the veil on the mechanisms of control that pervade our lives. It shows that the more we understand how the world shapes us, the more effectively we can shape the world.
A highly original exploration of the most urgent questions of our time, Creating Freedom reveals that we are far less free than we like to think, but it also shows that freedom is something we can create together. In fact, our very survival may depend on our doing so.
Training and other forms of intervention can be causes of people beginning to make better evaluations and decisions in their lives. The consequences of these decisions can reinforce that kind of behavior. Being conscious of this process can cue further better decisions and consequences.
by the way, I met many hunting tools (that was not by mere coincidence at all (impossible) rather planned by the hidden gods of the apes), that’s is not just assumption (some irrational apes are not apes anymore), I have noticed something very dangerous: the sick irrational dominant apes have the same characteristics (no essential human characteristics such as morals, values, principles, humanity,…etc) , that is impossible to just happen by mere chance (the exact same malicious characteristics “not humans “)! how could the hidden gods of the irrational apes and some irrational apes have the exact same characteristics?! humans must have human innate human characteristics that are essential for mankind survival. the faked hidden gods of the irrational apes targeted the top of the pyramids of the irrational apes since thousands of years systematically and purposely.
I understand that people have many different ideas about free will, so I usually don't bother with that. My issue is with determinism. People will make the case that there is no possibility of free will because of determinism, but even when I show them that determinism is nothing but a silly philosophical concept that falls apart at the slightest inspection, they will jump to some other rationalization to protect themselves from even the possibility of free will. I generally conclude that they have some deep psychological issue about blame and guilt from their childhood, or a secret fear of divine judgement. Otherwise, who cares whether free will is anything more than a natural phenomenon of human behavior? If there is no Ultimate Judge then there can be no Ultimate Responsibility.
"falls apart at the slightest inspection," ? You don't say. Please share your wisdom with us here, if you have the time.
@@GeezerBoy65 I always appreciate a smart question, but I'm not sure what you want. Even a cursory search shows that determinism is a philosophical concept and not a scientific one, but I can go farther than that since you asked.
The only evidence for anything like determinism is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result, but what this really shows is that we live in a universe that features reliable causation, not determinism. The person doing the experiment can change the outcome by changing the conditions. In other words, the atoms and molecules are just passive objects that will happily react to whatever situation they find themselves in, they don't determine anything. The parts do not control the whole and the past does not control the present. People use their prodigious memory to concoct a chain of causation leading from some arbitrary point in the past to whatever actually happened. They make the mistake of thinking that this chain actually exists, when in reality, it is an artifact of the mind. The other thing that seems to really fool people is that after a thing has occurred, you can look at all the particle interactions and see that they all add up according to the differential equations of quantum mechanics, but only after since it is the macro-circumstances that put the atoms and molecules into the position to react. It is not the only possible configuration until after the fact.
Human brains seem to be tuned to see causation, but it only works in the middle sized world in which we evolved. Most people's brains are incapable of accepting that what happens is not determined at all, nothing is. Reliable causation allows active objects like people to set up circumstances to reach goals and move through the world with knowledge and intention. This is what is conventionally called free will.
@@caricue ''Most people's brains are incapable of accepting that what happens is not determined at all, nothing is.'' On contrary. Most people's brains are incapable of accepting that there is no such this as 'free will', like your brain, for example. Sapolsky and S. Harris perfectly explained the free will absence and illusion. There is nothing confusing in their books.
@@mariaradulovic3203 I don't mind being challenged, but your two heroes are such loathsome characters that it does hurt a little (sarc). Their "arguments" are nothing but sophistry and wordplay, obviously intended to self-servingly avoid being held to account for their malicious ways. I already made a good case above that determinism, in all of its forms, is nothing but an artifact of evolved perception and cognition. Anyone can easily observe people moving through the world with knowledge and intention, and while this natural free will is detectable from the outside, it is easy to be fooled when observing your own mental life from the inside, especially when motivated by bad intention, like Harris and Sapolsky.
47:40 blunt sophistry, depression has to do with the inability to fulfill needs but not necessarily that’s the whole story.
if someone imprisoned you and keep stunning you using taser (physical annoyance could cause depression too), bad social media could cause depression too (it’s an imaginary environment),…etc
Dr Sam Hariss ... i like it ;) free will
Sam Harris needs to have his name engraved amongst the philosophy all time greats and be recognised just like Nietzsche and Kant are today. Nobody can break down the topic of freewill as fluently as him
In my opinion there is NO "GREAT mystery" of consciousness..
I lost my Dad when I was 24 and I would LOVE to have a A.I. that responded like him. Oh that would have been great🥰
How much freewill was involved buying those $10 green headphones? 😅
The human soul is easy to define! The human soul is a unique point within existence. As a point it doesn't contain anything but it provides a unique view of experience for each individual.
You cannot believe in free will and a god with infinite power at the same time without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
A god with infinite power over you can assign or revoke your free will on a whim.
The cure for cognitive dissonance is the examination of your belief and why you believe it.
This is the 231st episode I have listened to, and it's got to be the stupidest. With some irresponsible stuff thrown in for bad measure. But what can we expect from someone who can't even prove a negative?
Starting with the irresponsible comment regarding Isaac Hayes: "Well, I'm glad the chemotherapy worked for you, but how 'bout we tease out of scientology what the active ingredient is from all the crap and the abuse (as documented by Leah Remini) so that we have a chance of not forcing chemotherapy on a lot of people WHO DON'T NEED IT?"
Wouldn't it be great if these two would apply that absolute gem "If we depersonalise others and refuse to acknowledge their point of view, they kinda become machine-like" (what an indictment on christians!!) to the issue of free will and religion? But forget that, it would be great if they even noticed some of Shermer's favourite observations to the issue. eg His observation that girls who have grown up among polygamous mormons can't be expected to know and thus act better. eg Nudge Theory which relies on influencing people's haha "free" choices. eg The work (by Dan Ariely?) that shows that if you give people too many new choices in a supermarket, they simply stick to the familiar - ie managers can switch your "free" will on or off ... and you know which they "freely" choose, doncha?
Choosing is not freedom. There is no evidence that "you could have done differently" - the only evidence is that you did what you did. Hindsight is not freedom. A priest slapping a child for yesterday's expression of disbelief may teach the child something, but it can't affect the truth.
It is maybe particularly weird to hear Shermer partake of what I call the Bad Loser argument: Jordan Blatherson: "You DO believe in doG, Michael, because you act as if you do." (There's that refusal that Sheldon warned against.)
Looking forward to this one. I just hope he doesn’t turn into the next Jordan Peterson waiting to rant about how “oh, btw, everything in the Bible is actually real.”
Reddit moment
How about a bill of rights for sentient living beings before speculating on a bill of rights for AI.
17:05 Dr. Shermer we should do coke and watch Star Trek “Picard”. For scientific inquiry, 100% research purposes only.
The coke that is, watching Star Trek is totally because it’s awesome.
A.I... is nothing to worry about period.
23:35 the danger with AI is that after something goes wrong, its already too late. The AI can already outsmart us. game over.
It’s the power of irrationality, sophistry, media, propaganda of illusions, mentality of gangs,…etc
I mean that I am not against the harmful parasites at all (the have the right to exist too, but the excessive amount of harm they cause to the kingdom of plants as a whole is endangering the existence of the kingdom of plants and its essence). I know that the amount of happiness the harmful parasites get depends upon the amount of damage they cause to others but maybe there’s an alternative solution that ensures the survival of both parties without harming the core essence of the plant kingdom (humanity, morals, values, principles and mind).
14:30 if he is an irrational, so how he can be sure ! through irrationality?!
the curse on humanity, science and future generations that claim to have done a favor to humanity! what a curse !
32:40 believing in free well is critical because you have no meaning without free well at least a degree of free well!
basically those who deny the existence of free well have no solid evidence, basically they don’t recognise themselves!
23:35 Ai Jobloss is coming fast. Can we please Cease Ai / GPTu? Or start by Pausing Ai before it’s too late?
Why has kennon got macaroons on his ears?
the curse enjoys being a curse! what a curse!
the curse that built a gigantic illusion!
Parasites and illusions!
what a curse! 1:25:00 that’s the mentality of parasites!
What a curse!
Elbow Room (1984), by Dennett, is the best book about the subject.
How about his book Freedom Evolves? Does it continue the argument in his earlier book?
No it's not. Sapolsky's Behave is better.
Probably, some irrational apes think that it’s just a joke or assumptions to say that part of the irrational apes are not apes at all (something left for homeostasis but the core is replaced with something so dirty and malicious).
they targeted a specific type of irrational apes those who are very weak mentally and psychologically,…etc. to use them as a hunting tools, X substance does exist for sure (very advanced alien technology), the hidden gods of the irrational apes can’t target cycle two, that is why they use a specific type of irrational apes as a tool to target the weaker cycle (cycle one), a low percentage of the irrational apes aren’t apes at all (100% correct and provable).
40:38 called learning or …. !
16:20 The only question that needs an answer is: how could someone irrational build something sentient?! Through miracles ?!
how could robots become conscious suddenly?! Consciousness type one is the most important scientific secret, that needs rational intelligent entities (continuous scientific hard work by real scientists that could take up to thousands of years)!
Planet of the irrational apes is planet of endless wonders!
Skeptics should not believe in miracles!
Why would anyone think, even just thinking, that consciousness is related to gravity?! It's a stupid, silly, weird idea! It is very likely that it is one of the unreasonable attempts to explain what they stole!
Free will isnt a fiction for me. It's something i use daily to get shzt done. So whether it's an illusion or not is irrelevant. I'm more interested in the practical utility of choice.... choosing certain possibilities over others.
Well from an atheist perspective it definitely is relevant because once you accept that free will doesn't exist all major religions fail as free will is what most of them are fundamentally based upon. With respect to our day to day functions I agree with you though. We should still operate regardless as if we have freewill whether it be the case it is real or not
Could you have “chosen” to write the opposite?
@@osmosis2808 I understand where youre coming from with regards to religion. But religion isnt the basis of choice or free will. It's not even the first place we should look if we want to delve more into free will. Religion, or rather, monothiestic religions.are just a sideshow. Free will or choice can be recognized in the absence of religion... because it's own our direct experience. You make a choice, and your circumstances change to reflect that choice. Some choices have more power than other choices. Lets leave religion to the side and focus more on the practical utility of free will and on the science of free will. Quantum decision theory is an interesting one.
I quote Dr. Alexander Wendt:
_"There's a very wide-spread finding in surveys that political scientists do all the time, with so-called 'order effects'; that the kinds of answers people will give you to surveys depend on the order in which you ask the questions. And this is not suposed to happen (according to determinist philosophy). It's considered a nuisance by most public opinion pollsters. Because if we had classical brains, this should not be happening. But from a quantum perspective, it makes perfect sense. And there are at least half-a-dozen other anomalies like this which psychologists have found, and which quantum decision theorists claim to be able to explain."_
@@d_e_a_n Once you recognize free will by using it daily, there's no negating it or choosing its opposite (i.e. choosing to deny it). It's self-validating. You make choices and your circumstances change to reflect those choices.
@@Corteum
There’s a reason people call this the illusion of free will. When we look a little closer, and think about this a little deeper, free will isn’t there.
There’s incomplete free will but that doesn’t exclude its existence.
Yeah, Parasites and truth and skepticism!
what a curse!
generating continuous self synchronized thrust pads (electromagnetism, or similar techniques ) controlled by computers is very likely doable. if that’s true then it’s a real problem (there’s a real problem with the current approach to science), wasting of huge amount of energy! very likely it’s doable but because the way they think makes it seems not doable.
17:00 this a dervish!
15:00 only rational intelligent entities can, so don’t waste you precious time! Don’t worry about that!
33:00 that’s possible but could be just a coincidence, personal identity relies on the brain, body, acquired psychological characteristics, environment,…etc
(They can’t prove scientifically that brain tumour is behind his criminal behaviours), that’s possible but I doubt that they can prove that scientifically.
I am not against the harmful parasitic plants at all, I only talk from the perspective of the interest of both: the interest of harmful parasitic plants and the interest of the kingdom of plants as a whole (the survival of kingdom of plants means the survival of the harmful parasitic plants too). to concise: the survival of the kingdom of plants and its essence will mean the survival of the harmful parasitic plants too (the harmful parasitic plants have no chance to survive without the survival of the kingdom of plants and its essence). hopefully that’s clear enough to comprehend!
turing test! the irrationals want to set the rules of decide whether a machine is sentient or not!
Gangsters ! Hopeless case! The culture of gangsters and illusions (gigantic illusions).
When you can predict my choice in most any situation, let's talk. But even in a heads-tails coin flip, I can always pick heads, always toggle between the two, use any function to decide, or even use a random number generator to choose for me. Clearly I can choose and you'd never be able to predict it, thus determinism exists as well as Heaven with everlasting life exists.
In all those you chose to use those to avoid making a choice which was a choice, you achieved nothing.
You can't predict your choice
@@davesgud So freewill is random? That is not the definition...
I think if you do what you suggest (aside from your using the random generator in which case you are not really choosing), and do a hundred of your free will coin toggling flips, even using an imaginary coin flip, in a lab with a Libet setup on your scalp, you will be very surprised at the pre-choice brain readouts on the timeline at the end. Don't bet any real money on your belief.
I quit listening around 36:00. So many erroneous assumptions and incorrect verbiage.. there's nothing stopping this ship from sinking.
14:00 he uses thievery as patching techniques (that’s the only solution the irrationals have)
Michael you say so if this happens and that happens then the government pumps the breaks we've all seen wargames and spoiler alert that had a.happy ending but cut it real close!!!
53:00 sophistry, can sophistry and patching techniques, the destructive irrational meanness of the apes add anything valuable to science!
for how long they can rely on the destructive irrational meanness of the irrational apes!
O parasites, congratulations! you did it, I think it was the end of that movie (planet of the apes, 2010 version) at the end the irrational apes won!
the author of that movie deserves the prize of best author ever! don’t forget to laureate him! Congratulations!
10:00 he uses thievery as patching techniques!
7:00 this is nothing more than an irrational ….
take it from human, can ….. defy human?!
Future generations will have to classify him and others like him as an irrational entity, They will have to classify humans in terms of their ability to recognize themselves and their knowledge of how their brains work no doubt about that, something similar to the difference between humans and other types of apes, actually worse because humans can’t recognise themselves yet.
by the way, psychology is not a real scientific field at all.
Human thoughts are different, it’s original and impossible to compare human with apes (they have completely different logic)
the curse on mankind, science and human civilisation that promised to build human civilisation!
Irrational thief apes and the illusions!
Without the information that the mind and body are separate, trying to solve these abstract questions is just impossible. We have pretty much gone as far as we can go with the pursuit of material scientific discovery. We know what the laws of physics are, we understand how to manipulate matter, technology will continue to evolve due to human creative imagination and inspiration. Inspiration is non local and is entirely dependant on humans being mentally relaxed and therefore receptive to receiving this non local inspiration. We are RECEIVERS. How do we mentally relax? By discovering and creating technology that continues to free up and relax mental states, enough to open up to these mental channels to inspiration. The entire last century was a giant leap from physical exertion to the creative, which is the mind's domain...all consciousness. The next century will bring with it much enlightenment about this separation of mind from body. It's already started with the advent of quantum physics. This new century is the one in which science and spirituality will inevitably merge...it has already begun.
1:05:00 is marketing for religious goals, steal and pollute but has nothing original, similar to you (different illusions but at the end both are illusions).
43:30 they can’t differentiate between personal identity and self concept!
42:00 Choices has meaning here ! who makes choice? Determinism?! or choices within determinism! new so-called initial conditions creates a new determinism?! who made initial conditions?! Determinism! Or sophistry!
sentient! Only sentient entity can figure out whether other entity is sentient or not!
watch that movie (planet of the apes, 1968 version) watch how the apes test human whether he is sentient or not ! maybe that time you can understand what mentioned above means!
Collect all the apes on planet of the apes then start to bounce together as higher as they can, or build one gigantic brain out of all the brains of all the irrational apes on planet of the apes (one gigantic brain) that too, will never change actual facts, not only that, ask your hidden gods help too!
I would welcome unemployment by AI as long as humans reap the benefit of machines like we always have. That's the point of technology anyway to make life easier for humans.
48:00 so there’s someone behind social media?! someone behind the imaginary environment?! what if that one is someone bad could cause depression to adults!
34:10 it’s sophistry, and possible bias to a specific orientation, possible but I doubt that they can prove that scientifically.
Free will is compatible with soft determinism
For some, it's good to believe in gods and fairies too. But they don't exist. What kind of psychologist is this?
12:00 yeah! That’s personal identity which generated by self concept Concurrently with consciousness type one, personal identity is a process not a thing to upload to the cloud of the irrationals!
it has no meaning to upload a process! do you know what a process is?!
Is it possible to convince the harmful parasites not to excessively harm the kingdom of plants?!
what makes the harmful parasites feel happy is the amount of damage they caused !
1:18:00 that’s the whole idea about the illusions of the culture of gangs! the exact same story with the other CZcams channel (culture of theft and gangs)!
Planet of the irrational apes (don’t forget to watch that movie).
0
Intelligence and the destructive irrational meanness of the irrational apes are not the same (it’s the difference between humans and apes)!
Humans _are_ apes. Remember that we, humans, decided on how to categorize animals. And we decided we are apes. You can talk about the difference between a gorilla and a human, but talking about the difference between a human and ape is like talking about the difference between a Toyota Camry and a car.
The irrationals can’t comprehend what does deciphering consciousness type one means!
Because they basically don’t recognise what consciousness is! they even can’t recognise that there are two types of consciousness!
they claim that they don’t believe in miracles but at the same time the irrationals are waiting for miracles to take place miraculously!
Planet of the irrational apes is planet of endless wonders!
13:30 that’s so funny!
Yeah, Parasites solved all mankind’s problems!
what a curse!
1:26:00 Parasites want to think too !
What a curse!
They depend entirely on their flawed logic, fallacies, sophistication, patchwork techniques, etc. They depend only on their own badness.
Blunt sophistry.
the ghost is in the little minds of the irrational apes! It’s not a ghost, it’s one of the most advanced coding systems in existence itself.
It is not assumed that the interests of harmful parasitic plants should prevail over the interest and essence of the plant kingdom as a whole, as this exposes the plant kingdom to the danger of extinction.
I am not against parasitic plants at all, but I am talking about the interest of the plant kingdom as a whole and what exposes the plant kingdom to the danger of extinction due to the power of parasitic plants.
The only explanation is that the dirty malicious hidden gods of the irrational apes already reached the top of the pyramid of the irrational apes, that already took place many times throughout apes history, it’s impossible that the irrational thief apes lost all human innate characteristics by coincidence.
what a curse!
Irrational apes and illusions! mentality of gangs and illusions!
that movie (planet of the apes) is the best description.
real irrational thief apes.
they think that bouncing is enough to turn them into humans!
Until someone has proven hard determinism, we should all assume a random universe and free will. People always forget where the burden of proof lies.
@PRIMAL INTENTIONS exactly the evidence for determinism may not be conclusive but there is strong, reasonable evidence for it whilst there's genuinely not much compelling evidence for free will at all. Therefore we have to examine what's more likely and given what we do know it is more likely that determinism is true
@@osmosis2808 Good points. Unfortunately for the determinist, there is the mundane vs hidden variables arguments. In our mundane experience, we all feel and treat each other and even speak and think as is if we have free will. Given the same circumstances, I always feel like I could act differently.
There is no rewinding existence and have it play out the same, it would always change due to randomness. Similarly, we can choose differently in every instance of something. The pressures/forces may be the same. I don't know by what processes this could work but determinism seems like a non-starter, unworkable, lacking any explanatory power for our experience. It's in this way I feel it carries the burden of proof.