Why are some people invoking Locke in order to, invalidate Empirical evidence? The Neuroscience he is talking about is standard medical practice in brain surgery. Philosophy doesn't decide what exists in the real world I'm afraid guys. Philosophy of mind was surpassed in descriptive and medical science. If you don't believe me. Next time you are in hospital ask the cleaner if they wouldn't mind operating on you? It will be cheaper, but that won't matter for long.
The narrator puts forth a flawed argument. The flaw in this argument is that awareness does not equate to free will and it is false to repackage Pinker's explanation as if it denies that awareness exists. Pinker is explicitly saying that what he means is that there is no "soul" external to our physiology that is making decisions for us, which is the only rational conclusion since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a soul.
The use of the term "free-will" is entirely false. It is an utter corruption of consciousness, and anyone who even takes cognizance of this term is thus tainted. Noam Chomsky does not understand this, hence there is a big black cross against his name in regards to these matters. He should have read more Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Locke. There is an illusion here, caused by a weak will-power, and ultimately leading to an even weaker will-power...the strongest don't even let these concepts in...
@blacknganga What an addled statement. Truthfully, I don't think you even grasp exactly what you're trying to communicate yourself. You come across as quite the mental pygmy.
@jackgfenwick YOU are actually the addled one; addled with "philosophy", no doubt... make yourself aware of the determinist arguments of Locke and then get back to me (when your up to speed with the basics). BTW, happy sipping with your latte set, twit.
even if the consciousness comes from the brain, that doesn't disprove God's existence: when he said he gave a divine life blow into he man, he meant he created the universe with its laws able to create consciousness.
A universe with free will is "equivalent" to a universe without free will. This knowledge is going viral. I can explain this view and trace is back to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Please take a look at my work on FB.
Surprisingly, my solution answers and settles this old debate and is directly tied to relativity due to my usage of the concept of equivalence.
To find my main page search FaceBook for "Mathematics and Conjectural Reasoning for Math & Physics".
See how people behave when they approach a man wearing a Uniform. Our behavior changes without us thinking about it. People dress Casual, they talk casually, people dress up with suits and ties or gowns, they begin to behave according to an Influence, that has nothing to do with DNA. These are learned behaviors so early in life, that no one really remembers all those events and so they presume much about themselves is biologically determined, and yet there is a vast stage undetermined
Human Behavior is an Emergent Behavior, that which is rising above a threshold of DNA subsidized corporal masses, i.e the Body. Behavior can be influenced by Nurture, and repressed by personal will or outside agency. Because we walk in shoes, the shoes cause us to take on certain behaviors, that are not DNA directed, but caused by the history of people wearing shoes. There is allot in the environment that is Nurture, that is taken for granted, Clothes, Shoes, etc, "Make the Man"
Say if a person, is fully biologically appearing and operational as a man, But in his mind, he truly believes he is a woman. Is that an act of Free Will or simply Deterministic ? Traditionally we have held that if the Biological Appearances is Male, that the Mind is structured also by the DNA as a Man's brain in a man's brain case. So we have believed the anomaly is "Psychiatric" not a DNA determined espousal of thoughts . Behavior is Collective and Generalized without DNA direction
Anarchy may require Absolute Power , if on the one hand, the Selfishness is to be Gratified without limit. But if one does not require gratification from any experience, then to become unconscious , or even dead, may conclude as the ultimate "Anarchist" experience. So, if Power is needed, one must be a Dictator, if power is not sought, once must be dead. So we have a ranged limit of choices between Selfishness and Death. One from Column A and One from Column B, you choose.
Freedom is not equal to Anarchy, That is the Breach, that is the argument here, A limited choice, however freely you can choose, or avoid choices, does not satisfy the desire of some people to engage in total Anarchy. Anarchy is like free falling , with our without a parachute, depending on how you wish to end the experience. Being in a Balance of Forces is often equal to being without any forces at all. Weightlessness is only an experienced "anarchy" while in free fall,
Say we took a group of children in the schools, and gave them all 100 items of educational use or design, be it building blocks or sets of tools, and generally allot of stuff. Then each student is free to take all this stuff home and keep it. Then in one year , the researchers go to each home to see how and where all this stuff , each student put away in storage or in use, and to ask why . Then we would see how Free Will alters Set Notations , of numbered items as a Design.
If we judge by the theory we all are born intellectually with a Blank Mind, We then accrue behaviors and sort them out in our minds and become Intellectually Actors upon the Stage of Life, At home you choose to behave as a certain person, familiar then to your family. At work you choose to behave as a person known to your coworkers, And this selectivity of choice of Behaviors, is the reason why ,people are held liable for the Crimes they commit, because they choose intellectually to Act.
When you go into a Chinese Restaurant you have Freedom of Thought, Free Will, to choose one item from Column A and one from Column B. So you have made a choice, it was limited to what is already on the menu, but you don't have to eat what everyone else would prefer, you get to make a selection . That is not Anarchy , that is Free Will, and many people are totally confused over the great difference. A Leopard cannot change it's spots, but a Human Being, can become another Person.
Free Will is not "Anarchy" 99% of the physical reality is schooled by laws imposing upon the outcomes. But One Percent , by Chance or Desire, whether one is alive and thinking, or inanimate subject to environmental pressures, or both, The One Percent of Reality that is truly "IRRATIONAL" to any school of law or logic, is sufficient cause to believe we have Free Will, while we cannot escape the Law of Gravity, Freedom has it's Material Limits, and cannot become Anarchist.
Free Will is not standing alone, of course, But it is the Irrational Factor known to exist in better Scientific Models of Physical Sciences. Determinism would attempt to factor out any chance of Irrational Acts , and factor out any Placebo of Pleasure, that the Mind is moved by, to be called as Free Will, But a dog can chase it's tail , and never catch it. There is Free Will, there is Uncertainty, and there is Irrational Exceptions to all known Laws, Free Radicals, which undermine
The Day of our Conceptions, governed by a myriad of implausible events cultured by Nurture and Chance events, including the Free Will timing of your own parents. " Not tonight I have a headache" and someone who might have lived, now never shall be. No Science of Determinism is going to account for all these events to then predict or select, who might have lived or never have been conceived. The Events are not the answer, but the Ordering of Events that changes all outcomes= Free Will
The Principle of Uncertainty, valued in Quantum Mechanics Theory of Math, by Heisenberg shows that an outside agency of Free Will, can exist and cause things to happen that never would have happened naturally. Say, your parents had a religion they were faithful to, The timing of their marriage vows and the day they came together, then ordered events by an imposed Free Will expression, that you were Conceived and so do exist now as a human being, based not on the Election of your DNA.
Pinker is making alot of sense. I have sided with the epiphenomenalism outlined in this video for quite some time; I conclude that it is, logically, and by the standards of the laws of science, the most sensical view, albeit the least intuitive one. Philosophical determinists are happy to accept the distinction between involuntary reflexes and supposed "choices" or "decision"; nonetheless, we do not accept that the distinction is to be made in terms of the latter exhibiting free will.
Steven Pinker said that he thinks our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain. However, whenever such a thing is indeed fact, we know what is its identifying characteristics. Its precisely the behavior of the animals. The animal's behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain & they don't posses freewill. But this causes for the animals to not posses the conceptual understanding of consciousness itself, or any of the relevant matters
Animals don't possess "freewill". They behave from program or instinct. Simply the fact that Steven Pinker can conceptually understand the meaning of "behavior being the product of physical processes" & it being implicit of that he's aware that there exist alternative explanations, are themselves proof of that his mind's thoughts are not the product of physical processes
@Chuichupachichi "Animals don't possess "freewill". They behave from program or instinct.
If it's an instinct for an animal to go after food when he sees it, then how come my Dog doesn't go for it? Because he knows he would get yelled at because it happened before, he is making the choice to not go after the food.
@theBartone9119 your dogs choice not to go for it is determined by a prediction of the aversive tension he will get from being yelled at. the mechanism to do this is predetermined in the brain and uses learning to activate it. the stimuli means he may never go for it
@qoakzm2qoakzm You know nothing about animal behavior. Sometimes my Dog will feel bold and go for it, other times he knows he will get yelled at. If he was a robot just off acting on instinct then I would agree, but my dog does different things in the same situation all the time. Maybe you have had robot pets or pets with brains the of peas, but Dogs, Dolphins, Chimps ect. are extremely smart and make tough conscious choices all the time. You clearly have no education on animal intelligence.
@theBartone9119 tbh dude, animals and humans have such a complexity that mybe they seem to have free will when they dnt. you can make that chance out of simple observation otherwise we would have no need for science, we would only need ur observations. humans are biased in their own observations too for example to attribute intentionality to inanimate objects like a child would to a teddy. the point is logically. free will cannot exist. and its the logic science goes on. end of
@qoakzm2qoakzm I agree, conscious free will probably does not exist because neural-activity produces choices before it tricks your conscious into thinking it made the choice. My whole point is humans are just a more advanced breed of animal and can do things better than most animals, this doesn't mean that animals are bound by their instincts. Choices are still choices regardless of whether you consciousness is aware of it in time or not.
{my dog does different things in the same situation all the time}
On occasion, your dog's desire for the food will be of a great enough degree to override the lesser degree of his desire to not experience the negative reinforcement received during his earlier conditioning We, being the human race, have established the understanding that human beings, possessing freewill, may be attributable with guilt & be punished for unacceptable behavior. We have also established the
understanding that animals, not possessing freewill, shall not be attributable with guilt nor be punishable even if they take the life of other living beings
Civilization's foundational systems of "law & order" & "crime & punishment" are based upon the existence of "freewill". If freewill didn't truly exist, then no person would be attributable with guilt for any undesirable act or behavior. Without freewill, "predetermination" would be a far more justifiably effective defense than is insanity
In fact, the insanity plead is based upon not possessing the function of discernment between right & wrong. Otherwise known as the function of "freewill". Predetermination would be more effective simply because there wouldn't exist any system within which any defendants would be produced. Precisely as are the animals, no human could possibly be guilty of anything
Subscribing to "Predeterminism" is simply insanity in itself
@qoakzm2qoakzm you wrote " determined by a prediction" That infers too heavily, you are relying on an Intelligent Notion, not a mechanistic DNA response. Tanning your skin by the Sun may show a DNA deterministic change, but choosing to risk being Sun Burned to do that, proves your Free Will, has entered the fray in deciding your eventual dooms. "Predetermined in the Brain" is your own contradiction. You can rationalize jumping off the roof, but whether you do this is Free Will
{he knows he would get yelled at because it happened before}
Within your own words is the key to understanding what occurs within your dog's brain. "it happened before". The process you are describing is simply "conditioning"
This is what always occurs within modified dog behavior, i.e. "obedience training"
Humans can be, & are, conditioned as well. If a 2 yr old desires something & is denied, he may throw a tantrum. If a parent makes the mistake of being manipulated into giving
the child his desired object, the child's mind will become conditioned to associating his undesirable behavior with reward. Afterward, the child will continue to throw tantrums whenever he's denied his desires. However, if the child's undesirable behavior reaps him the consequences of inflicted pain (spanking), then he will be conditioned to associate throwing tantrums with pain. If done correctly, only a minimal number of spankings are required, prior to when merely a threat will suffice
In recent times this method has become controversial due to claims of lasting damage to the child's psyche. This is valid only if its applied too late, when the child is beyond the applicable age. However, in their earliest years, children have yet to develop an individuality with independent cognition. During this period their person is not violated by being struck & if followed soon after by affection & explanation they soon forget & will not associate the fear of pain with fearsome parents
If the Bears did not elect to nurture their cubs , the fact is, Natural Selection fails to permit the cubs to live and become adult bears. DNA election has a glass ceiling, the potential to enhance the ability to survive by Nurture might be seen , but the DNA cannot deliver the goods to each new generation. An outside agency of Nurture is demanded. Nurture is then like a third rail to the social development and it is "spiritual" in the sense it is not absolutely controlled by materialism
@qoakzm2qoa Nurture is not predestined or determined by DNA. DNA does not behave in this kind of Newtonian Mechanics. The Theory of Uncertainty prevails to deny DNA the ability to avoid a Free Will agency of Nurture. If the weather is poor, the Bear might decide to stay with her cubs and nurture them ,even if it means death, or she might abandon them, so that without Nurture the Cubs cannot prove "Natural Selection" is a Sufficient Cause of determined evolution. Your hypothesis fails.
@CarmineFragione dude you dont seem to understand that determinism is not just physics or dna. determinism is learning, conditioning, lots of thing. free will just doesnt work in a scientific framework unless u redefine it choosing to be burned is determined by the perception that its worth the risk for the rewards . read philosophical argments on free will. youre not even using proper reesoning coz u seem to be foreign so i dont know wt the fuck you are saying. dick. u know 0
@qoakzm2qoakzm Heidelberg's Theory of Uncertainty blows your premise of Determinism away , You can construct any design you wish, a checker board or target you made up. You can throw stones all day long, but you cannot determine where all the stones will fall. except you can say if the stones were inside the Universe, they will remain so. And that is conditioned upon not knowing if a hole in the fabric of the Universe, may permit a stone to be eternally lost to the rest of it.
@CarmineFragione dude uncertainty principle is a description not a thesis on indeterminissm. there are many different interpretations from indeterminism to hidden variables to epistemics. secondly quantum indeterminism occurs on a microscopinc level. correspondence theory means everything statistically averages out to a determinism in macroscopy ... like stones. just extremely complex cariables. 4th i read ur ther posts, indeterminism doesnt mean free will, it is meaningless
@CarmineFragione if free choice was indeterministic they wouldnt be choices because choices are inherently deterministic based on motivation etc. and last of all... stop polluting this place with your scheid inarticulate bullshit and read some books and learn how to evaluate a proper argument. tbh no matter our feelings and subjective personal perceptions on free will. the world is easier to explain without it. redefine it in anyway u like but our actions are determined
@qoakzm2qoakzm so you think my exercise of free will is to you "Bullshit" ? That only proves my point, you have no idea how I formulate my thoughts , because if you were ever right, I would not express concepts that disagree with you, but the fact is, I do. I did not have to respond to you, so I flipped a coin and I lost.
@CarmineFragione dude i dont even know what your point is and no, i dont because you have very special thoughts . very very special thoughts. dude im talking about logic. you cant use empiricism against logic - u have to find my logic unsound or my premise false. you cant just say " you dont know how i formulate my thoughts ". if you're wondering, flipping a coin isnt free will either, and why wouldnt u express concepts. thats irrelevant. you dont use logic.
@qoakzm2qoakzm Some portion of reality is predetermined, because everything came out of the Big Bang. but Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is upheld in Physics because within a range of possible results, anything is likely. So, between two Maxims or Vectors creating an Absolute Border of Reality , but within the Range of Numerical Possibilities, within this selection of options, we human being have FREE WILL, but not ANARCHY, and that is what they complain about.
@CarmineFragione your confusing determinism and predeterminism. and uncertainty doesnt make free will. it makes something random. randomness is not free will because if uncertainty principle affected our behaviour hypothetically we cdnt predict it. if we cd predict it, there is a deerminism which is linked to the outside world. free will is incoherent. it cannot exist
@qoakzm2qoakzm OK...sorry. Im a determinist too, but im not sure I understand your splitting of determinism and predeterminism.
If the universe is a deterministic system, then what happens tommorow is predetermined even though we do not understand what it will be, do you follow?
@HedgehogRebellion ha i cant remembver what i was saying but youre right. i still split predeterminism and determinism though coz if this world was indeterministic truly then there could be deterministic processes ( or close enough, e.g classical mechanics ) without the whole world being deterministic i guess... but i relly cant remember what i was saying
@CarmineFragione and i didnt reply to ur excercise of free will. youre presupposing youre own free will in an argument. you cant do that. jesus christ. i dont even think your opinion is bullshit. its the way you justify it.
If one reads the story "Lord of the Flies" they would learn what really causes us to have thoughts about ourselves and that is it not nature, but nurture that controls our feelings and thoughts. The children lost to an island by themselves, grows into cruelty and chaos , because their culture was plateaued shortly after being toddlers, and separated from Society. This is a proof of Free Will, that people cannot be human without being attached to a long time system of cultural growth.
People often find themselves growing up thinking they are intrinsically different ,but cannot locate the cause. One cause is biological construction, say a person is born with both sexual organs and might have been incomplete in developing as zygotes. That is a natural cause one has a different identity. Others cannot remember what nurturing events affected them that brought them to ideas about themselves. Often parents will not admit, they will deny any misdeeds, so the truth is never known
John Locke held a priori assertion we are born with a blank mind. There are impulses and nervous conditions but no ideas about what they mean or what they might mean . People who find themselves later in life with haunting ideas and feelings about themselves, if they are homosexual or pathological , they cannot believe they learned this , they will believe they were born that way by Nature, they cannot remember the early life conditions which afflicted them with pain, so they are confused
Pain and Pleasure, has no thought to it, It is chemistry, without attachment to meaning that is then assignable to thoughts. The person must attach ideas and beliefs and priori to the sensations and arrive at a conclusion what the signals of pain and pleasure mean. People born in total isolation, with no human contact, do not naturally arrive at social behaviors because of innate DNA design. Nurture determines how we craft our pain and pleasure signals into the art of social life.
Pain and Pleasure is persuasive control mechanisms but not absolute and does not dictate forever the Free Will. People can train to withstand enormous amounts of pain that would kill an ordinary person. People can train to withstand all manner of pleasure and abstain from natural impulses of any sort. The few remaining forces that the Free Will cannot overrule is breathing or eating, drinking. So impulsive behavior is no excuse to say we have no Free Will, on matters of Moral Certainty.
There are involuntary actions of the human body, breathing, respiration, digestion, nervous behaviors, pain compliance, etc. If that means one is not entirely free in the abstract sense to be or do whatever one wills, that makes sense. But in the parameters of the design, there is freedom to choose between the limited resources, to go right or left of any obstacle, and "follow the yellow brick road" And there are other decisions, but yes the Universe is a big bubble and is One.
Free will and conciousness is no more than thoughts about your thoughts. No soul no concious mind. But we don't need to feel bad because we have a filter that processes our thoughts every time we think. We can "live" that illusion, as real, it is and will always be very real from our perspective, why botter!
@DrErkencho you are just dumb. you only equate materialism with reality. Cell division is about the single original cell ,due to being alive, undergoing cell division , making a duality out of a singularity and the result is two cells, where neither is the former or latter, neither is new, what is new is the numerology, that what is one system is now two, and that verbal behavior is not caused by materialism, but an outside force that is contradicting the limitations of matter.
@DrErkencho Maybe you don't understand what the meaning of "Free " is . Maybe you idea of free is your own conundrum, Free to me means privacy of my own mind to seek the pleasure at my own will, and not be dominated by other people. Social pressure to conform, is Orwellian at some point, the desire to be alone and at peace with yourself, no matter what you think you are, is the meaning of being "Free" So, your disagreement may hinge on conflicting definitions.
another way of looking at it, is we don't have the free will to realize our way out of a delusion..if the culmination of thoughts that lead to the opening of a new door of perception don't ever arise in someones mind, they will continue to act of a delusion..we don't have free will over what may or may not delude us, so, the proceeding feelings and actions which are based on those delusions, are therefore not controlled by an agent of free will.
this is why i think consciousness is a curse..take Jeffery Dahmer. He was aware of his actions, but, he couldn't seem to stop the mechanics that lead to his uncontrollable desire for control..there's only one option in such a case..and that's to get external help..but, if one happens to not have the necessary culmination of thoughts that would lead to getting help, then they won't. one cannot choose to have the necessary realizations or epiphanies that drive them to overcome fears or behaviors.
@kanibals100 Things without reason cannot exist. It is simple logic and undeniable. Therefore we can't have free will because in the end every reason of our behaviour would boil down to something outside our brain, which would mean that only our environment affects our decisions.
@MisterBusta06:40 - this part I have particular issue with. How can you know whether or not the computer is "experiencing" the chess game? For that matter, how can you KNOW that any other human experiences things in the way that you do? The only thing you know is that you experience things - and it is so important to hammer home that what you experience IS the experience of being a computational, cross-referencing, input-receiving, output-generating machine.
@MisterBusta Dude you said it yourself in your own video - you answer your question without accepting it and then proceed to say that it cannot be answered by the current paradigm - consciousness IS superfluous, accidental, nonessential.
@MisterBusta - Cons. is a phenom of happenstance; it truly does emerge from the complexity of the physical brain and its actions. Hi-level cons. implies freewill and both are emergent from the cooperative, complex actions of neurons much in the way that flocking birds create something new, beyond themselves, if only fleeting. If somehow held together in a very long-lasting, flexible bubble, explain why a HUGE, INTRICATELY connected, 100 billion member flock as an entity would not be conscious?
@MisterBusta - (part 2) - In regards to our flock, what I mean by "INTRICATELY connected" is that each bird would be able to signal and receive feedback from a large neighborhood and even many distant birds, say 50,000 simultaneously. When looking upon the birds from a higher level and imagining what each of them individually perceives along with their judgments, we get kind of a simultaneous multi-perspective holographic view. It is this higher-level holographic awareness that is consciousness.
@MisterBusta - (part 3) - OK, so what is doing the higher-level viewing, you might ask? In the human brain that would be the frontal lobes; they would integrate signals from hierarchies of neurons from different regions of the brain into one or many holographic views and make judgments on them, sending feedback and results back to the supplying and new regions that will further act upon the assessments. At least that's one scenario of how things might be working. High-level complexity is enough.
@BigMTBrain - (part 4) - One way to know that consciousness and freewill are seated purely in the physical brain is to ask, when you close your eyes, where do you feel the center of your conscious *self*? Generally, just a little ways behind the eyes in the center, not the back or either sides of the brain. Consciousness and so-called freewill are emerging from processing there at whatever brain component exists there. If the brain were to freeze its motions, consciousness and freewill vanish.
How do you define consciousness then? Are you sure that the chess program isn't consciously aware of what it's function is? It has a preprogrammed "desire" to win and it makes choices. How do you make the distinction between that and consciousnes?
Second... What is your position on this? Are you religious or just a deist/panthiest? If you're arguing from a (let's say) Christian perspective, you've got a long road ahead. I'd really appreciate an answer to this, cheers!
I enjoyed this video, the hard problem of consciousness is fascinating and it's nice to see people like Dawkins and Ramachandran acknowledge it. To me it absolutely must be that consciousness was designed by evolution, but the question I'd like you to answer is what precisely would satisfy you as an explanation for a something that it is like to be? it seems impossible, but I believe that everything can be explained, does Penrose's quantum decoherence in the microtubules feel more satisfactory?
I am looking into this as well. I am a materialist in the general sense. However, your observations on free will, consciousness and evolution are exactly the subject of my studies into this area. But, I think you are missing that consciouness COULD be nothing more than a byproduct of evolution. Many have argued that consciousness is sort of an echo of the complex tasks of the brain, of which we have not come close to modeling.
Conciousness is necessary to understand and intuit the concious minds of others, an evolved competitive invention. An unconscious machine would likely be autistic, disabled. It would lack social skills.
An unconscious machine cannot lie nor suspect subterfuge, for example. Conciousness was centrally evolved to understand other's minds, though experiencing its own conciousness and in turn creating simulations of other's minds and experiences, thus predicting behaviour.
To answer about astral: The observations indicate that OBEs/astral and complex somatosensory illusions can be artificially induced by electrical stimulation of the cortex. The association of these phenomena and their anatomical selectivity suggest that they have a common origin in body-related processing, an idea that is supported by the restriction of these visual experiences to the patient's own body
Im glad you liked it. Speaking about consciousness: the proof you are looking for wont be available for few more years for sure...but 99% of neuroscientist today reject the concept of dualism as they have enough evidence to be pretty sure what they are talking about. Anyway i watched few more interesting videos regarding consciousness and i think u might like them as well.
U cannot study pshyhology and at the same time believe in mumbo-jumbo like afterlife, astral projection and all that crap. Try to learn sth about the brain and how it works and u will see astral projection is an illusion. It sure feels real just it it feels real to mentally sick person who claims he is controlled by aliens...but that doesnt mean it exist. It just an illusion created by the brain. thats it. im objective here but u are biased obviouslly as u wont hear the truth
While it is true that if the brain is a complex computer then both consciousness and free will are illusory. Since we are clearly conscious then either the brain is not (just) a computer or there is more than just the brain (the dualist view). I take the former view while the speaker takes the latter. I think dualism is incoherent. The error many materialists make is to believe that the brain is a deterministic system on the grounds that physics curently only allows determinism (or randomness).
Oh so you are talking about astral projection? oh please...thats another mumbo jumbo. you should read more about how the brain works and how astral projection is an illusion created by the brain which happens when parietal lobe is malfunctioning. it can also happen when stimulated in the lab so it can be artificially induced. seriouslly...get some proper scientific education...dont waste time with mumbo-jumbo things...they are waste of time(remember u only have 1 life)
and what i hate the most is the pessimism from people like you when saying "...oh this is si big and misterious we will never be able to grasp it..." haha....please stop, THERE IS NO REASON to pressupose anything without evidence !!! only scientific evidence counts...rest is part of your immagination
i know very well what you are saying...u dont believe in biblical god but u still believe in some "highier" concept which is just as dumb as beleiving in religion. please watch that video i showed you...it explaing nicely why people have the need to believe in some highier power and u will see how wrong you are. anyway ur analogy with cells is not compatible as cells cant think offcourse. there is no need to believe in any sort of highier being without any evidence or logic
Sure we will be able to grasp it and once we do and science show us the way we will finally reject this stupid concept of god. Dont be a moron...get ur self educated...and you can start with the this video /watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg which explains why people belive in god. Offcourse becouse they are stupid but there are also other reason. watch it and then comment please /watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
@keyboardmousepad dude listen, the scale of our logic goes that way atom, molecules, cells, oragan.... up and up .... but really everything is just one there is no separate we take on the universe through our 5 senses all held up from energy ,energy is everything but still.. we wont find the answers were looking for in this life not any definite answers anyways just live and love xD
my view: =we are all god (consciousness) inside our bodys that are completely separate from us in the sense that we really don't have a choice in what we do say feel or whatever were on the roller-coaster of this existence just experiencing and that is all this is all about ,free will is the will to be free by connecting mind and body together in love rather than hate.
So a man is religious because he grew up in a religious enviornment however if he thought of the reasons why he was religious he would understand the cause of his religion and therefore have free will by understanding the cause and choosing to let go of it. So free will is not choosing the opposite side (atheism) it's about letting go of attaching yourself to anything. Not having a belief or disbelief in anything and only looking for the truth regardless is the best example of free will.
If you observe a ball rolling off a table, all the subjective emotions, concepts, thoughts, ideas of the ball are caused by the observation of the ball rolling off the table thus you have no free will. If you take a step back after the observation of the ball and objectify your own thinking of the ball (so you're thinking about thinking about the ball rolling off the table) and you understand the cause and the effects it had on you that is free will.
Free will may be no more complex than the ability to perceive multiple possibilities of action and to exercise conscious judgment in selecting one action over others.
We have a "self" and this self, whatever it is, it takes decisions. Wether it is in a "hardware" of meat or in sone kind of immaterial soul makes no difference.
God does not exist. Anyone who believes in god is simply a moron. We live in 21 century and this outdated concept should have been abandoned long time ago.
While I don't believe in god myself, I'll have to call bullshit. I'm sure that you, as everyone else in the globe, hold some mistaken belief. This does not authomatically make you a moron.
Dyson, George Ellis, Paul Davies, Cristopher Langann... They are hardly fools.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@MisterBusta actually you are wrong about how computers "behave". The Computer chess player actually doesn't understand the board. A computer understands chess about as much as the genes that formed your body realized a body plan. All it is is algorithms of events with no construct . The construct is an illusion. So no a computer doesn't even qualify as something with a construct or "self reflecting" of actions.
I think any explanation for consciousness (regardless of whether or not it's theistic) has to postulate that it's something very different from all physical entities we know about now. There's a long video called "The primacy of consciousness", I think you'll find it interesting; check it out. watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE
This subject is too complicated for most youtubers.
One could possibly say, consciousness is merely "experiencing" what the brain is doing. The brain "projects" things into consciousness, including decisions. But this leaves out an important aspect of consciousness: we are aware of our own consciousness. That is, the fact that we are conscious also is projected into our consciousness. This must mean that the brain knows about consciousness and its one of the brains inputs.
This is exactly what I see about atheists, they hold irrational nihilistic views and wonder why they are so unhappy. Self rejection is the word, I don't hold any religious views but I won't deny who I am. Science hasn't advanced this far to explain everything, but atheists always rush to conclusions.
Excellent video; nevertheless, wouldn’t the fact that we are able to describe and discuss consciousness conclusively prove that consciousness has the ability to influence neurophysiology? (argument stated at 09:45)
Open Google search engine and read book .Seeing is Believing: First Time in World by V.K. Sonakia
From his childhood, V.K. Sonakia’s interest has lain in solving the deep mysteries of nature. His research in nature and invention revealed a story which needed to be told.
FIT is powerful and unified science-based tool, which is available in the human body. It generates logic and decodes future manmade and natural disasters as RDX blasts, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-Boso¬¬¬n-or-God-particle-which-exis¬t¬-¬in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
to take consciousness out of this, is like taking the computer programmer who programmed the computer to do what it does in the first place. yes the brain is a computer of interpreted information, but who determines the will? it has to be that which came before the brain, and the person ( I me) which is wholeness absolute orchestrating this apparent dance we call life.
I believe that what i truly am is conscious energy experiencing the world through a mechanism that has been programed by my genes and past experiences. Your life is on a trajectory toward an inevitable destination--no choices are involved, no changes are made, no predictions are cast. You dont choose birth,life, and death. Conscious awareness doesn't make decisions, it witnesses the decisions that your brain develops as a functioning organ. It is an illusion that you think you are in control.
@justinroseart if you truly believe this when you might aswell commit suicide. I tried to let my body determine my whole day today without me ever deciding to do anything. What happened ? I sat there all day without moving what so ever then after about 4 hours I decided its not working so I said I am now going to stand up and get a drink before it actually happened then 5 seconds after I told myself to do it I went and did it. Therfore I did not get up and do it automatically and witness it lata
also why do we not say forget the law lets not jail a person for 20 years who murdered an innocent little girl because it was not his fault it was the fault of having bad genes. Although his mother and father never did anything like this so where did he get the bad genes from ? he chose to do it because he is a sicko simple as.
You explain the issue well, and yet come to totally illogical conclusions. Pinker is right. You confuse the issue by holding a dualist view of consciousness, as something separate from the physical process.
Consciousness IS the physical process. It is not automatically caused by complexity, or by a number of computations per second. It is a very specific state of existence, enabled by the specific structure of the brain, and evolved over millions of years.
What is free will, does it mean liberated from any causal factors ? How can that possibly be. The only thing that works in this way is god and to say that kind of thinking is discredited is a huge understatement.
consciousness is being we just block out most of it so we consider our bubble to be consciousness but its a bubble in an ocean of consciousness.......
just because a choice is mechanically based doesnt mean its not a choice. consciousness is the word for the brain making its choices and being able to take on board new input to change the choice making apparatus constantly...it does it all the time unconsciously but you have to focus on some part of the road.....its imperitive that you have conscious focus and although that is all chemical doesnt mean its not called free will...thats what we call that process..
The word "choice" here seems key. You are saying that "choice" can not exist in a fully causal system. The brain's mechanisms are the thing that we perceived as making choices in the first place when we initially coined the word "choice". So, whatever is happening in the brain seems to be closer to "choice" than the word itself. The brain is "selecting" things through its own mechanisms. It's what you call it when you have a list of possibilities and at the end, have only one remaining.
That doesn't make any sense. Consciousness requires free will? You just said in another video that you could be conscious and be observer of determined events. And even if materialism is in deep trouble how should I take your view seriously from a metaphysical standpoint? No matter if it's material or not anything that occurs needs an explanation or cause or else it just simply is. If my will just simply is, it's not really free. If it's caused by God it's not free either.
Cmmon dude get urself educated a bit on consciousness. Ur reasoning is wrong here in the video. Not only free will is an illusion, also our subjective experience of initiating a movement is an illusion. Just becouse ur brain see coulours doesnt mean there are any. Its only electromagnetic radiation. So just becouse it seems to you u have free will doesnt mean u really have it. Deepest form of self-betrayal? Hahahaha....dont bring this religious crap into consciousness debate
Yes, it is a problem to explain the subjective experience. On the other hand, there is nothing in this video that really refutes determinism. Just because my consciousness may not be what I experience it to be, it doesn't follow that it is superfluous. It can still be beneficial to have one, even if we ultimately lack free will. And the alternative to materialism is, well, magic.
@gluemoae Why is it 'magic'? I just heard someone say todays supernatural is tomorrows natural. Just because you acknowledge consciousness doesn't mean you have to shave your head and wear orange.
There is an assumption mad here that I think is questionable. It goes something like this: "On determinism and materialism, our minds cannot alter affect the physical processes in the brain". It only follows that we cannot WILL (whatever is meant by that) changes in in physical processes; there can still be cause and effect between physical events leading to a e.g. thought and other physical events, potentially giving rise to an experience.
What is wrong with saying, on the explanation of consciousness, "we don't know" rather than suggesting some "other"? I suspect the metaphysical explanations of consciousness will eventually go the way of phlogisten and ether.
Pro-tip: consciousness represents a phenomenological work space, accessible to all relevant neurological processes. It is by no means "useless" or redundant. Your depiction of free will, determinism, and the brain also leaves out the very important function of inhibition.
MisterBuster seems to argue that, because consciousness is an abstract byproduct of the brain, it is therefore a "useless" one. In other words, consciousness has no evolutionary function. If that were the case, then neuroplasticity would only be one-directional when, in reality, conscious experience shapes the physical circuitry of the brain. Pain and pleasure, as abstract projections of the brain, appear to reinforce adaptive behaviors, so consciousness has some influence over its "hardware."
We have been here before... Remember the church claiming that the Earth is the center of the universe? We are too darn special for it to be otherwise. You could say the same of the argument that the brain is too darn simple to give rise to consciousness. But regardless, it seems that people on either side who are making positive assertions about this are both wrong. The only prudent thing is to wait and work on completely understanding the brain before making sweeping statements on this or that.
The conciousness is the final scale pan. It's the part that goes after one of the many predictions that have been made up as an inner image of the outer reality. It's the part that tries to make the picture clear. So you can adapt to the environment it describes. If more predictions/calculations is made, more conciousness you experience. The picture of what's in the reality is more detailed.
So funny! Using the brain to understand consciousness. This is the oldest spiritual joke on the books. How can you understand the infinite with a limited brain? So funny. Also no clue as to the nature and quality or Will. Like trying to understand Dark Matter. Good luck with that!
The biggest problem is that all scientific inquiry is done in the context of consciousness. That is, science presupposes consciousness. Knowledge, truth for that matter is in consciousness only. There is no truth without a conscious knower to behold it, and since truth is that which is the case, there is no reality without consciousness
Matter does not act upon mind and mind does not act upon matter because
they are both aspects of mind-brain. We experience mind and matter with different mechanisms and what we are experiencing is different somewhat analogous to the
2 physical sensory entities of light and sound. Both (light and sound) and (mind and
matter) are real but experienced thru different mechanisms and experiencing different
Why are some people invoking Locke in order to, invalidate Empirical evidence? The Neuroscience he is talking about is standard medical practice in brain surgery. Philosophy doesn't decide what exists in the real world I'm afraid guys. Philosophy of mind was surpassed in descriptive and medical science. If you don't believe me. Next time you are in hospital ask the cleaner if they wouldn't mind operating on you? It will be cheaper, but that won't matter for long.
WinstonSmithist 2 days ago
The narrator puts forth a flawed argument. The flaw in this argument is that awareness does not equate to free will and it is false to repackage Pinker's explanation as if it denies that awareness exists. Pinker is explicitly saying that what he means is that there is no "soul" external to our physiology that is making decisions for us, which is the only rational conclusion since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a soul.
noxidereus 5 days ago
steve ur genious man,NOT
WhiteMoonLights 3 weeks ago
The use of the term "free-will" is entirely false. It is an utter corruption of consciousness, and anyone who even takes cognizance of this term is thus tainted. Noam Chomsky does not understand this, hence there is a big black cross against his name in regards to these matters. He should have read more Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Locke. There is an illusion here, caused by a weak will-power, and ultimately leading to an even weaker will-power...the strongest don't even let these concepts in...
blacknganga 1 month ago
@blacknganga What an addled statement. Truthfully, I don't think you even grasp exactly what you're trying to communicate yourself. You come across as quite the mental pygmy.
jackgfenwick 1 month ago
@jackgfenwick YOU are actually the addled one; addled with "philosophy", no doubt... make yourself aware of the determinist arguments of Locke and then get back to me (when your up to speed with the basics). BTW, happy sipping with your latte set, twit.
blacknganga 1 month ago
even if the consciousness comes from the brain, that doesn't disprove God's existence: when he said he gave a divine life blow into he man, he meant he created the universe with its laws able to create consciousness.
Narftaxaku200 1 month ago
@Narftaxaku200 Well hes not a very good creator then. Too many errors in peoples awareness.
qigong1001 1 month ago
@qigong1001 crazy but possible
Narftaxaku200 1 month ago
@Narftaxaku200 Possible, but not probable.
qigong1001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universe with free will is "equivalent" to a universe without free will. This knowledge is going viral. I can explain this view and trace is back to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Please take a look at my work on FB.
Surprisingly, my solution answers and settles this old debate and is directly tied to relativity due to my usage of the concept of equivalence.
To find my main page search FaceBook for "Mathematics and Conjectural Reasoning for Math & Physics".
HeliumXenonKrypton 1 month ago
Does the fact humans awoke to their 'existance', (as in realizing their mirrored reflection), mean they in some way operate outside of determinism?
I hope, that we have upset a 'mindless' chain of life.
camraid9 1 month ago
See how people behave when they approach a man wearing a Uniform. Our behavior changes without us thinking about it. People dress Casual, they talk casually, people dress up with suits and ties or gowns, they begin to behave according to an Influence, that has nothing to do with DNA. These are learned behaviors so early in life, that no one really remembers all those events and so they presume much about themselves is biologically determined, and yet there is a vast stage undetermined
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
@CarmineFragione dude...... i give up, you win, im not gna answer another of your comments. you are a fucking idiot
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
Human Behavior is an Emergent Behavior, that which is rising above a threshold of DNA subsidized corporal masses, i.e the Body. Behavior can be influenced by Nurture, and repressed by personal will or outside agency. Because we walk in shoes, the shoes cause us to take on certain behaviors, that are not DNA directed, but caused by the history of people wearing shoes. There is allot in the environment that is Nurture, that is taken for granted, Clothes, Shoes, etc, "Make the Man"
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Say if a person, is fully biologically appearing and operational as a man, But in his mind, he truly believes he is a woman. Is that an act of Free Will or simply Deterministic ? Traditionally we have held that if the Biological Appearances is Male, that the Mind is structured also by the DNA as a Man's brain in a man's brain case. So we have believed the anomaly is "Psychiatric" not a DNA determined espousal of thoughts . Behavior is Collective and Generalized without DNA direction
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Anarchy may require Absolute Power , if on the one hand, the Selfishness is to be Gratified without limit. But if one does not require gratification from any experience, then to become unconscious , or even dead, may conclude as the ultimate "Anarchist" experience. So, if Power is needed, one must be a Dictator, if power is not sought, once must be dead. So we have a ranged limit of choices between Selfishness and Death. One from Column A and One from Column B, you choose.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Freedom is not equal to Anarchy, That is the Breach, that is the argument here, A limited choice, however freely you can choose, or avoid choices, does not satisfy the desire of some people to engage in total Anarchy. Anarchy is like free falling , with our without a parachute, depending on how you wish to end the experience. Being in a Balance of Forces is often equal to being without any forces at all. Weightlessness is only an experienced "anarchy" while in free fall,
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Say we took a group of children in the schools, and gave them all 100 items of educational use or design, be it building blocks or sets of tools, and generally allot of stuff. Then each student is free to take all this stuff home and keep it. Then in one year , the researchers go to each home to see how and where all this stuff , each student put away in storage or in use, and to ask why . Then we would see how Free Will alters Set Notations , of numbered items as a Design.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
If we judge by the theory we all are born intellectually with a Blank Mind, We then accrue behaviors and sort them out in our minds and become Intellectually Actors upon the Stage of Life, At home you choose to behave as a certain person, familiar then to your family. At work you choose to behave as a person known to your coworkers, And this selectivity of choice of Behaviors, is the reason why ,people are held liable for the Crimes they commit, because they choose intellectually to Act.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
When you go into a Chinese Restaurant you have Freedom of Thought, Free Will, to choose one item from Column A and one from Column B. So you have made a choice, it was limited to what is already on the menu, but you don't have to eat what everyone else would prefer, you get to make a selection . That is not Anarchy , that is Free Will, and many people are totally confused over the great difference. A Leopard cannot change it's spots, but a Human Being, can become another Person.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
@CarmineFragione dude but ur choice is constrained by your preference. you would onlly pic due to some kind of preference
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
Free Will is not "Anarchy" 99% of the physical reality is schooled by laws imposing upon the outcomes. But One Percent , by Chance or Desire, whether one is alive and thinking, or inanimate subject to environmental pressures, or both, The One Percent of Reality that is truly "IRRATIONAL" to any school of law or logic, is sufficient cause to believe we have Free Will, while we cannot escape the Law of Gravity, Freedom has it's Material Limits, and cannot become Anarchist.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Free Will is not standing alone, of course, But it is the Irrational Factor known to exist in better Scientific Models of Physical Sciences. Determinism would attempt to factor out any chance of Irrational Acts , and factor out any Placebo of Pleasure, that the Mind is moved by, to be called as Free Will, But a dog can chase it's tail , and never catch it. There is Free Will, there is Uncertainty, and there is Irrational Exceptions to all known Laws, Free Radicals, which undermine
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
The Day of our Conceptions, governed by a myriad of implausible events cultured by Nurture and Chance events, including the Free Will timing of your own parents. " Not tonight I have a headache" and someone who might have lived, now never shall be. No Science of Determinism is going to account for all these events to then predict or select, who might have lived or never have been conceived. The Events are not the answer, but the Ordering of Events that changes all outcomes= Free Will
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
The Principle of Uncertainty, valued in Quantum Mechanics Theory of Math, by Heisenberg shows that an outside agency of Free Will, can exist and cause things to happen that never would have happened naturally. Say, your parents had a religion they were faithful to, The timing of their marriage vows and the day they came together, then ordered events by an imposed Free Will expression, that you were Conceived and so do exist now as a human being, based not on the Election of your DNA.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pinker is making alot of sense. I have sided with the epiphenomenalism outlined in this video for quite some time; I conclude that it is, logically, and by the standards of the laws of science, the most sensical view, albeit the least intuitive one. Philosophical determinists are happy to accept the distinction between involuntary reflexes and supposed "choices" or "decision"; nonetheless, we do not accept that the distinction is to be made in terms of the latter exhibiting free will.
oali94 2 months ago
Comment removed
oali94 2 months ago
Thought is just the failed distinction between the concious and the sub.
VideoSlob 2 months ago
Steven Pinker said that he thinks our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain. However, whenever such a thing is indeed fact, we know what is its identifying characteristics. Its precisely the behavior of the animals. The animal's behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain & they don't posses freewill. But this causes for the animals to not posses the conceptual understanding of consciousness itself, or any of the relevant matters
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
Animals don't possess "freewill". They behave from program or instinct. Simply the fact that Steven Pinker can conceptually understand the meaning of "behavior being the product of physical processes" & it being implicit of that he's aware that there exist alternative explanations, are themselves proof of that his mind's thoughts are not the product of physical processes
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@Chuichupachichi "Animals don't possess "freewill". They behave from program or instinct.
If it's an instinct for an animal to go after food when he sees it, then how come my Dog doesn't go for it? Because he knows he would get yelled at because it happened before, he is making the choice to not go after the food.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 your dogs choice not to go for it is determined by a prediction of the aversive tension he will get from being yelled at. the mechanism to do this is predetermined in the brain and uses learning to activate it. the stimuli means he may never go for it
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm You know nothing about animal behavior. Sometimes my Dog will feel bold and go for it, other times he knows he will get yelled at. If he was a robot just off acting on instinct then I would agree, but my dog does different things in the same situation all the time. Maybe you have had robot pets or pets with brains the of peas, but Dogs, Dolphins, Chimps ect. are extremely smart and make tough conscious choices all the time. You clearly have no education on animal intelligence.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 tbh dude, animals and humans have such a complexity that mybe they seem to have free will when they dnt. you can make that chance out of simple observation otherwise we would have no need for science, we would only need ur observations. humans are biased in their own observations too for example to attribute intentionality to inanimate objects like a child would to a teddy. the point is logically. free will cannot exist. and its the logic science goes on. end of
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm I agree, conscious free will probably does not exist because neural-activity produces choices before it tricks your conscious into thinking it made the choice. My whole point is humans are just a more advanced breed of animal and can do things better than most animals, this doesn't mean that animals are bound by their instincts. Choices are still choices regardless of whether you consciousness is aware of it in time or not.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@theBartone9119
{my dog does different things in the same situation all the time}
On occasion, your dog's desire for the food will be of a great enough degree to override the lesser degree of his desire to not experience the negative reinforcement received during his earlier conditioning We, being the human race, have established the understanding that human beings, possessing freewill, may be attributable with guilt & be punished for unacceptable behavior. We have also established the
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
understanding that animals, not possessing freewill, shall not be attributable with guilt nor be punishable even if they take the life of other living beings
Civilization's foundational systems of "law & order" & "crime & punishment" are based upon the existence of "freewill". If freewill didn't truly exist, then no person would be attributable with guilt for any undesirable act or behavior. Without freewill, "predetermination" would be a far more justifiably effective defense than is insanity
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
In fact, the insanity plead is based upon not possessing the function of discernment between right & wrong. Otherwise known as the function of "freewill". Predetermination would be more effective simply because there wouldn't exist any system within which any defendants would be produced. Precisely as are the animals, no human could possibly be guilty of anything
Subscribing to "Predeterminism" is simply insanity in itself
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm you wrote " determined by a prediction" That infers too heavily, you are relying on an Intelligent Notion, not a mechanistic DNA response. Tanning your skin by the Sun may show a DNA deterministic change, but choosing to risk being Sun Burned to do that, proves your Free Will, has entered the fray in deciding your eventual dooms. "Predetermined in the Brain" is your own contradiction. You can rationalize jumping off the roof, but whether you do this is Free Will
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@theBartone9119
{he knows he would get yelled at because it happened before}
Within your own words is the key to understanding what occurs within your dog's brain. "it happened before". The process you are describing is simply "conditioning"
This is what always occurs within modified dog behavior, i.e. "obedience training"
Humans can be, & are, conditioned as well. If a 2 yr old desires something & is denied, he may throw a tantrum. If a parent makes the mistake of being manipulated into giving
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
the child his desired object, the child's mind will become conditioned to associating his undesirable behavior with reward. Afterward, the child will continue to throw tantrums whenever he's denied his desires. However, if the child's undesirable behavior reaps him the consequences of inflicted pain (spanking), then he will be conditioned to associate throwing tantrums with pain. If done correctly, only a minimal number of spankings are required, prior to when merely a threat will suffice
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
In recent times this method has become controversial due to claims of lasting damage to the child's psyche. This is valid only if its applied too late, when the child is beyond the applicable age. However, in their earliest years, children have yet to develop an individuality with independent cognition. During this period their person is not violated by being struck & if followed soon after by affection & explanation they soon forget & will not associate the fear of pain with fearsome parents
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
If the Bears did not elect to nurture their cubs , the fact is, Natural Selection fails to permit the cubs to live and become adult bears. DNA election has a glass ceiling, the potential to enhance the ability to survive by Nurture might be seen , but the DNA cannot deliver the goods to each new generation. An outside agency of Nurture is demanded. Nurture is then like a third rail to the social development and it is "spiritual" in the sense it is not absolutely controlled by materialism
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione yes dna can. and nurture is still a determinism.
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoa Nurture is not predestined or determined by DNA. DNA does not behave in this kind of Newtonian Mechanics. The Theory of Uncertainty prevails to deny DNA the ability to avoid a Free Will agency of Nurture. If the weather is poor, the Bear might decide to stay with her cubs and nurture them ,even if it means death, or she might abandon them, so that without Nurture the Cubs cannot prove "Natural Selection" is a Sufficient Cause of determined evolution. Your hypothesis fails.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione dude you dont seem to understand that determinism is not just physics or dna. determinism is learning, conditioning, lots of thing. free will just doesnt work in a scientific framework unless u redefine it choosing to be burned is determined by the perception that its worth the risk for the rewards . read philosophical argments on free will. youre not even using proper reesoning coz u seem to be foreign so i dont know wt the fuck you are saying. dick. u know 0
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm Heidelberg's Theory of Uncertainty blows your premise of Determinism away , You can construct any design you wish, a checker board or target you made up. You can throw stones all day long, but you cannot determine where all the stones will fall. except you can say if the stones were inside the Universe, they will remain so. And that is conditioned upon not knowing if a hole in the fabric of the Universe, may permit a stone to be eternally lost to the rest of it.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione I meant Heisenberg, not Heidelberg. Heidelberg is the place of a great German University. sorry.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione dude uncertainty principle is a description not a thesis on indeterminissm. there are many different interpretations from indeterminism to hidden variables to epistemics. secondly quantum indeterminism occurs on a microscopinc level. correspondence theory means everything statistically averages out to a determinism in macroscopy ... like stones. just extremely complex cariables. 4th i read ur ther posts, indeterminism doesnt mean free will, it is meaningless
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione if free choice was indeterministic they wouldnt be choices because choices are inherently deterministic based on motivation etc. and last of all... stop polluting this place with your scheid inarticulate bullshit and read some books and learn how to evaluate a proper argument. tbh no matter our feelings and subjective personal perceptions on free will. the world is easier to explain without it. redefine it in anyway u like but our actions are determined
qoakzm2qoakzm 2 months ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm so you think my exercise of free will is to you "Bullshit" ? That only proves my point, you have no idea how I formulate my thoughts , because if you were ever right, I would not express concepts that disagree with you, but the fact is, I do. I did not have to respond to you, so I flipped a coin and I lost.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione dude i dont even know what your point is and no, i dont because you have very special thoughts . very very special thoughts. dude im talking about logic. you cant use empiricism against logic - u have to find my logic unsound or my premise false. you cant just say " you dont know how i formulate my thoughts ". if you're wondering, flipping a coin isnt free will either, and why wouldnt u express concepts. thats irrelevant. you dont use logic.
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
@CarmineFragione do you accept determinism
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm Some portion of reality is predetermined, because everything came out of the Big Bang. but Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is upheld in Physics because within a range of possible results, anything is likely. So, between two Maxims or Vectors creating an Absolute Border of Reality , but within the Range of Numerical Possibilities, within this selection of options, we human being have FREE WILL, but not ANARCHY, and that is what they complain about.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
@CarmineFragione your confusing determinism and predeterminism. and uncertainty doesnt make free will. it makes something random. randomness is not free will because if uncertainty principle affected our behaviour hypothetically we cdnt predict it. if we cd predict it, there is a deerminism which is linked to the outside world. free will is incoherent. it cannot exist
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
@qoakzm2qoakzm OK...sorry. Im a determinist too, but im not sure I understand your splitting of determinism and predeterminism.
If the universe is a deterministic system, then what happens tommorow is predetermined even though we do not understand what it will be, do you follow?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion ha i cant remembver what i was saying but youre right. i still split predeterminism and determinism though coz if this world was indeterministic truly then there could be deterministic processes ( or close enough, e.g classical mechanics ) without the whole world being deterministic i guess... but i relly cant remember what i was saying
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
@CarmineFragione and i didnt reply to ur excercise of free will. youre presupposing youre own free will in an argument. you cant do that. jesus christ. i dont even think your opinion is bullshit. its the way you justify it.
qoakzm2qoakzm 1 month ago
If one reads the story "Lord of the Flies" they would learn what really causes us to have thoughts about ourselves and that is it not nature, but nurture that controls our feelings and thoughts. The children lost to an island by themselves, grows into cruelty and chaos , because their culture was plateaued shortly after being toddlers, and separated from Society. This is a proof of Free Will, that people cannot be human without being attached to a long time system of cultural growth.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
People often find themselves growing up thinking they are intrinsically different ,but cannot locate the cause. One cause is biological construction, say a person is born with both sexual organs and might have been incomplete in developing as zygotes. That is a natural cause one has a different identity. Others cannot remember what nurturing events affected them that brought them to ideas about themselves. Often parents will not admit, they will deny any misdeeds, so the truth is never known
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
John Locke held a priori assertion we are born with a blank mind. There are impulses and nervous conditions but no ideas about what they mean or what they might mean . People who find themselves later in life with haunting ideas and feelings about themselves, if they are homosexual or pathological , they cannot believe they learned this , they will believe they were born that way by Nature, they cannot remember the early life conditions which afflicted them with pain, so they are confused
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
Pain and Pleasure, has no thought to it, It is chemistry, without attachment to meaning that is then assignable to thoughts. The person must attach ideas and beliefs and priori to the sensations and arrive at a conclusion what the signals of pain and pleasure mean. People born in total isolation, with no human contact, do not naturally arrive at social behaviors because of innate DNA design. Nurture determines how we craft our pain and pleasure signals into the art of social life.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
Pain and Pleasure is persuasive control mechanisms but not absolute and does not dictate forever the Free Will. People can train to withstand enormous amounts of pain that would kill an ordinary person. People can train to withstand all manner of pleasure and abstain from natural impulses of any sort. The few remaining forces that the Free Will cannot overrule is breathing or eating, drinking. So impulsive behavior is no excuse to say we have no Free Will, on matters of Moral Certainty.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
There are involuntary actions of the human body, breathing, respiration, digestion, nervous behaviors, pain compliance, etc. If that means one is not entirely free in the abstract sense to be or do whatever one wills, that makes sense. But in the parameters of the design, there is freedom to choose between the limited resources, to go right or left of any obstacle, and "follow the yellow brick road" And there are other decisions, but yes the Universe is a big bubble and is One.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
Free Will exists and Intellectual Effete Snobs know it does, but they say it is not for Slaves. You decide.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@CarmineFragione
Free will and conciousness is no more than thoughts about your thoughts. No soul no concious mind. But we don't need to feel bad because we have a filter that processes our thoughts every time we think. We can "live" that illusion, as real, it is and will always be very real from our perspective, why botter!
DrErkencho 2 months ago
@DrErkencho you are just dumb. you only equate materialism with reality. Cell division is about the single original cell ,due to being alive, undergoing cell division , making a duality out of a singularity and the result is two cells, where neither is the former or latter, neither is new, what is new is the numerology, that what is one system is now two, and that verbal behavior is not caused by materialism, but an outside force that is contradicting the limitations of matter.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
@DrErkencho Maybe you don't understand what the meaning of "Free " is . Maybe you idea of free is your own conundrum, Free to me means privacy of my own mind to seek the pleasure at my own will, and not be dominated by other people. Social pressure to conform, is Orwellian at some point, the desire to be alone and at peace with yourself, no matter what you think you are, is the meaning of being "Free" So, your disagreement may hinge on conflicting definitions.
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
things without reason canot exist?
who sad that? your brain?
its a paradox,coz what is the reason of the big bang? and on and on,u get nowhere
kanibals100 2 months ago
another way of looking at it, is we don't have the free will to realize our way out of a delusion..if the culmination of thoughts that lead to the opening of a new door of perception don't ever arise in someones mind, they will continue to act of a delusion..we don't have free will over what may or may not delude us, so, the proceeding feelings and actions which are based on those delusions, are therefore not controlled by an agent of free will.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
this is why i think consciousness is a curse..take Jeffery Dahmer. He was aware of his actions, but, he couldn't seem to stop the mechanics that lead to his uncontrollable desire for control..there's only one option in such a case..and that's to get external help..but, if one happens to not have the necessary culmination of thoughts that would lead to getting help, then they won't. one cannot choose to have the necessary realizations or epiphanies that drive them to overcome fears or behaviors.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
now dont get me wrong im not saying that electrons are consciousness or smart but maybe they can chose freely without any reasons.
kanibals100 3 months ago
@kanibals100 Things without reason cannot exist. It is simple logic and undeniable. Therefore we can't have free will because in the end every reason of our behaviour would boil down to something outside our brain, which would mean that only our environment affects our decisions.
UNNAM3D82 3 months ago
some Mathematicians say that if people got free will then the electrons must be at least not dereministic.
you can tsay that electron got free will of its own to,and we cant tell if its true or not.
what is randomness? is the electron still didnet chose where exectly to be?
i mean if randomness really exsit,that means that there can be actions without any reason.
and it correct,then you can call humans free coz in the same circumstances we can behave otherwise no one can determen your actions.
kanibals100 3 months ago
let me talk about the problem of consciousness and free will from adiffrent angle:
the people who talk about dualism and they say that todays reasherches show that dualisim is inncorrect they are probbly right.
but this is not the problem,the case is much simpler who sad that dualism has to be to make afree will?
look at this from this engle,monistic vew of the world also can have afree will.
i will write the continu in the next part.
kanibals100 3 months ago
Comment removed
jbeta 3 months ago
@MisterBusta 06:40 - this part I have particular issue with. How can you know whether or not the computer is "experiencing" the chess game? For that matter, how can you KNOW that any other human experiences things in the way that you do? The only thing you know is that you experience things - and it is so important to hammer home that what you experience IS the experience of being a computational, cross-referencing, input-receiving, output-generating machine.
hmspinaforethisisspa 3 months ago
@MisterBusta Dude you said it yourself in your own video - you answer your question without accepting it and then proceed to say that it cannot be answered by the current paradigm - consciousness IS superfluous, accidental, nonessential.
hmspinaforethisisspa 3 months ago
@MisterBusta - Cons. is a phenom of happenstance; it truly does emerge from the complexity of the physical brain and its actions. Hi-level cons. implies freewill and both are emergent from the cooperative, complex actions of neurons much in the way that flocking birds create something new, beyond themselves, if only fleeting. If somehow held together in a very long-lasting, flexible bubble, explain why a HUGE, INTRICATELY connected, 100 billion member flock as an entity would not be conscious?
BigMTBrain 3 months ago
@MisterBusta - (part 2) - In regards to our flock, what I mean by "INTRICATELY connected" is that each bird would be able to signal and receive feedback from a large neighborhood and even many distant birds, say 50,000 simultaneously. When looking upon the birds from a higher level and imagining what each of them individually perceives along with their judgments, we get kind of a simultaneous multi-perspective holographic view. It is this higher-level holographic awareness that is consciousness.
BigMTBrain 3 months ago
@MisterBusta - (part 3) - OK, so what is doing the higher-level viewing, you might ask? In the human brain that would be the frontal lobes; they would integrate signals from hierarchies of neurons from different regions of the brain into one or many holographic views and make judgments on them, sending feedback and results back to the supplying and new regions that will further act upon the assessments. At least that's one scenario of how things might be working. High-level complexity is enough.
BigMTBrain 3 months ago
@BigMTBrain - (part 4) - One way to know that consciousness and freewill are seated purely in the physical brain is to ask, when you close your eyes, where do you feel the center of your conscious *self*? Generally, just a little ways behind the eyes in the center, not the back or either sides of the brain. Consciousness and so-called freewill are emerging from processing there at whatever brain component exists there. If the brain were to freeze its motions, consciousness and freewill vanish.
BigMTBrain 3 months ago
Humans do not exist.
littlerevolutionary 3 months ago
How do you define consciousness then? Are you sure that the chess program isn't consciously aware of what it's function is? It has a preprogrammed "desire" to win and it makes choices. How do you make the distinction between that and consciousnes?
Second... What is your position on this? Are you religious or just a deist/panthiest? If you're arguing from a (let's say) Christian perspective, you've got a long road ahead. I'd really appreciate an answer to this, cheers!
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
I enjoyed this video, the hard problem of consciousness is fascinating and it's nice to see people like Dawkins and Ramachandran acknowledge it. To me it absolutely must be that consciousness was designed by evolution, but the question I'd like you to answer is what precisely would satisfy you as an explanation for a something that it is like to be? it seems impossible, but I believe that everything can be explained, does Penrose's quantum decoherence in the microtubules feel more satisfactory?
petemh 3 months ago
I am looking into this as well. I am a materialist in the general sense. However, your observations on free will, consciousness and evolution are exactly the subject of my studies into this area. But, I think you are missing that consciouness COULD be nothing more than a byproduct of evolution. Many have argued that consciousness is sort of an echo of the complex tasks of the brain, of which we have not come close to modeling.
infinityand0 4 months ago
Conciousness is necessary to understand and intuit the concious minds of others, an evolved competitive invention. An unconscious machine would likely be autistic, disabled. It would lack social skills.
An unconscious machine cannot lie nor suspect subterfuge, for example. Conciousness was centrally evolved to understand other's minds, though experiencing its own conciousness and in turn creating simulations of other's minds and experiences, thus predicting behaviour.
Diamonddavej 4 months ago
To answer about astral: The observations indicate that OBEs/astral and complex somatosensory illusions can be artificially induced by electrical stimulation of the cortex. The association of these phenomena and their anatomical selectivity suggest that they have a common origin in body-related processing, an idea that is supported by the restriction of these visual experiences to the patient's own body
janko1212 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
Im glad you liked it. Speaking about consciousness: the proof you are looking for wont be available for few more years for sure...but 99% of neuroscientist today reject the concept of dualism as they have enough evidence to be pretty sure what they are talking about. Anyway i watched few more interesting videos regarding consciousness and i think u might like them as well.
/watch?v=ZFjY1fAcESs
/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w&feature=related
/watch?v=Q_25uUpippE
/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k
janko1212 4 months ago
@janko1212 Absolutely fantastic. Thank you.
petemh 3 months ago
@petemh
Ur welcome!
janko1212 3 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
if you want a proof of what im talking about and you want to open your mind i have a perfect documentary just for you... /watch?v=6HfuVrQhykE
enjoy!!
janko1212 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
U cannot study pshyhology and at the same time believe in mumbo-jumbo like afterlife, astral projection and all that crap. Try to learn sth about the brain and how it works and u will see astral projection is an illusion. It sure feels real just it it feels real to mentally sick person who claims he is controlled by aliens...but that doesnt mean it exist. It just an illusion created by the brain. thats it. im objective here but u are biased obviouslly as u wont hear the truth
janko1212 4 months ago
While it is true that if the brain is a complex computer then both consciousness and free will are illusory. Since we are clearly conscious then either the brain is not (just) a computer or there is more than just the brain (the dualist view). I take the former view while the speaker takes the latter. I think dualism is incoherent. The error many materialists make is to believe that the brain is a deterministic system on the grounds that physics curently only allows determinism (or randomness).
slartibartfats 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
Oh so you are talking about astral projection? oh please...thats another mumbo jumbo. you should read more about how the brain works and how astral projection is an illusion created by the brain which happens when parietal lobe is malfunctioning. it can also happen when stimulated in the lab so it can be artificially induced. seriouslly...get some proper scientific education...dont waste time with mumbo-jumbo things...they are waste of time(remember u only have 1 life)
janko1212 4 months ago
and what i hate the most is the pessimism from people like you when saying "...oh this is si big and misterious we will never be able to grasp it..." haha....please stop, THERE IS NO REASON to pressupose anything without evidence !!! only scientific evidence counts...rest is part of your immagination
janko1212 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
i know very well what you are saying...u dont believe in biblical god but u still believe in some "highier" concept which is just as dumb as beleiving in religion. please watch that video i showed you...it explaing nicely why people have the need to believe in some highier power and u will see how wrong you are. anyway ur analogy with cells is not compatible as cells cant think offcourse. there is no need to believe in any sort of highier being without any evidence or logic
janko1212 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
Sure we will be able to grasp it and once we do and science show us the way we will finally reject this stupid concept of god. Dont be a moron...get ur self educated...and you can start with the this video /watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg which explains why people belive in god. Offcourse becouse they are stupid but there are also other reason. watch it and then comment please /watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
janko1212 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad dude listen, the scale of our logic goes that way atom, molecules, cells, oragan.... up and up .... but really everything is just one there is no separate we take on the universe through our 5 senses all held up from energy ,energy is everything but still.. we wont find the answers were looking for in this life not any definite answers anyways just live and love xD
Helden6621 4 months ago
my view: =we are all god (consciousness) inside our bodys that are completely separate from us in the sense that we really don't have a choice in what we do say feel or whatever were on the roller-coaster of this existence just experiencing and that is all this is all about ,free will is the will to be free by connecting mind and body together in love rather than hate.
-athman is brathman.
Helden6621 4 months ago
So a man is religious because he grew up in a religious enviornment however if he thought of the reasons why he was religious he would understand the cause of his religion and therefore have free will by understanding the cause and choosing to let go of it. So free will is not choosing the opposite side (atheism) it's about letting go of attaching yourself to anything. Not having a belief or disbelief in anything and only looking for the truth regardless is the best example of free will.
iAzurisa 4 months ago
If you observe a ball rolling off a table, all the subjective emotions, concepts, thoughts, ideas of the ball are caused by the observation of the ball rolling off the table thus you have no free will. If you take a step back after the observation of the ball and objectify your own thinking of the ball (so you're thinking about thinking about the ball rolling off the table) and you understand the cause and the effects it had on you that is free will.
iAzurisa 4 months ago
@keyboardmousepad
Suicide is our way of telling god:
"you can't fire me, I QUIT!"
Jokes aside, good question. The strongest argument in the nature vs nurture argument I think.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
A thought: we can consciously train ourselves to develop an instinctive reaction.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
Free will may be no more complex than the ability to perceive multiple possibilities of action and to exercise conscious judgment in selecting one action over others.
We have a "self" and this self, whatever it is, it takes decisions. Wether it is in a "hardware" of meat or in sone kind of immaterial soul makes no difference.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
God does not exist. Anyone who believes in god is simply a moron. We live in 21 century and this outdated concept should have been abandoned long time ago.
janko1212 4 months ago
@janko1212
While I don't believe in god myself, I'll have to call bullshit. I'm sure that you, as everyone else in the globe, hold some mistaken belief. This does not authomatically make you a moron.
Dyson, George Ellis, Paul Davies, Cristopher Langann... They are hardly fools.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
@MisterBusta actually you are wrong about how computers "behave". The Computer chess player actually doesn't understand the board. A computer understands chess about as much as the genes that formed your body realized a body plan. All it is is algorithms of events with no construct . The construct is an illusion. So no a computer doesn't even qualify as something with a construct or "self reflecting" of actions.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
I think any explanation for consciousness (regardless of whether or not it's theistic) has to postulate that it's something very different from all physical entities we know about now. There's a long video called "The primacy of consciousness", I think you'll find it interesting; check it out. watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE
hasenj 5 months ago in playlist More videos from MisterBusta
This subject is too complicated for most youtubers.
One could possibly say, consciousness is merely "experiencing" what the brain is doing. The brain "projects" things into consciousness, including decisions. But this leaves out an important aspect of consciousness: we are aware of our own consciousness. That is, the fact that we are conscious also is projected into our consciousness. This must mean that the brain knows about consciousness and its one of the brains inputs.
hasenj 5 months ago in playlist More videos from MisterBusta
@hasenj
More importantly it leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage whatsoever would an inane consciousness bring.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
@ThisOneIsTaken we first have to know more about what it is before we can even begin to ask (or answer) this question
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj
Would you believe I said the same thing about a hundred times :D?
I'm sad to notice that a lot of the debate on these subject is driven by ideology more than by facts.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
This is exactly what I see about atheists, they hold irrational nihilistic views and wonder why they are so unhappy. Self rejection is the word, I don't hold any religious views but I won't deny who I am. Science hasn't advanced this far to explain everything, but atheists always rush to conclusions.
HomuncuIus 5 months ago
Comment removed
HomuncuIus 5 months ago
Excellent video; nevertheless, wouldn’t the fact that we are able to describe and discuss consciousness conclusively prove that consciousness has the ability to influence neurophysiology? (argument stated at 09:45)
senghoff 5 months ago
Open Google search engine and read book .Seeing is Believing: First Time in World by V.K. Sonakia
From his childhood, V.K. Sonakia’s interest has lain in solving the deep mysteries of nature. His research in nature and invention revealed a story which needed to be told.
FIT is powerful and unified science-based tool, which is available in the human body. It generates logic and decodes future manmade and natural disasters as RDX blasts, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
INDIA
vksonakia 5 months ago
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-Boso¬¬¬n-or-God-particle-which-exis¬t¬-¬in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
vk sonakia
unified field scientist
bhopal
INDIA
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
vksonakia 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins: "There is a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
eukaryotebag 5 months ago in playlist More videos from MisterBusta
to take consciousness out of this, is like taking the computer programmer who programmed the computer to do what it does in the first place. yes the brain is a computer of interpreted information, but who determines the will? it has to be that which came before the brain, and the person ( I me) which is wholeness absolute orchestrating this apparent dance we call life.
chicoslimani 5 months ago
This is an excellent video.
matprithellodave 6 months ago
I believe that what i truly am is conscious energy experiencing the world through a mechanism that has been programed by my genes and past experiences. Your life is on a trajectory toward an inevitable destination--no choices are involved, no changes are made, no predictions are cast. You dont choose birth,life, and death. Conscious awareness doesn't make decisions, it witnesses the decisions that your brain develops as a functioning organ. It is an illusion that you think you are in control.
justinroseart 6 months ago 2
@justinroseart so basically you're a product of your environment.
cyphi1 6 months ago
@justinroseart if you truly believe this when you might aswell commit suicide. I tried to let my body determine my whole day today without me ever deciding to do anything. What happened ? I sat there all day without moving what so ever then after about 4 hours I decided its not working so I said I am now going to stand up and get a drink before it actually happened then 5 seconds after I told myself to do it I went and did it. Therfore I did not get up and do it automatically and witness it lata
koda215 5 months ago
also why do we not say forget the law lets not jail a person for 20 years who murdered an innocent little girl because it was not his fault it was the fault of having bad genes. Although his mother and father never did anything like this so where did he get the bad genes from ? he chose to do it because he is a sicko simple as.
koda215 5 months ago
You explain the issue well, and yet come to totally illogical conclusions. Pinker is right. You confuse the issue by holding a dualist view of consciousness, as something separate from the physical process.
Consciousness IS the physical process. It is not automatically caused by complexity, or by a number of computations per second. It is a very specific state of existence, enabled by the specific structure of the brain, and evolved over millions of years.
TheHopefulSkeptic 6 months ago
What is free will, does it mean liberated from any causal factors ? How can that possibly be. The only thing that works in this way is god and to say that kind of thinking is discredited is a huge understatement.
tyroy57 7 months ago
@tyroy57
Quantum physics says otherwise
holloj01 6 months ago
@holloj01 fuck Quantum physics
Troinik 6 months ago
consciousness is being we just block out most of it so we consider our bubble to be consciousness but its a bubble in an ocean of consciousness.......
serendipidus 7 months ago
just because a choice is mechanically based doesnt mean its not a choice. consciousness is the word for the brain making its choices and being able to take on board new input to change the choice making apparatus constantly...it does it all the time unconsciously but you have to focus on some part of the road.....its imperitive that you have conscious focus and although that is all chemical doesnt mean its not called free will...thats what we call that process..
serendipidus 7 months ago
The word "choice" here seems key. You are saying that "choice" can not exist in a fully causal system. The brain's mechanisms are the thing that we perceived as making choices in the first place when we initially coined the word "choice". So, whatever is happening in the brain seems to be closer to "choice" than the word itself. The brain is "selecting" things through its own mechanisms. It's what you call it when you have a list of possibilities and at the end, have only one remaining.
cottreau 7 months ago
That doesn't make any sense. Consciousness requires free will? You just said in another video that you could be conscious and be observer of determined events. And even if materialism is in deep trouble how should I take your view seriously from a metaphysical standpoint? No matter if it's material or not anything that occurs needs an explanation or cause or else it just simply is. If my will just simply is, it's not really free. If it's caused by God it's not free either.
RuinSonic 7 months ago
Cmmon dude get urself educated a bit on consciousness. Ur reasoning is wrong here in the video. Not only free will is an illusion, also our subjective experience of initiating a movement is an illusion. Just becouse ur brain see coulours doesnt mean there are any. Its only electromagnetic radiation. So just becouse it seems to you u have free will doesnt mean u really have it. Deepest form of self-betrayal? Hahahaha....dont bring this religious crap into consciousness debate
janko1212 7 months ago
@janko1212 He is preprogrammed to think this, so trying to change him is impossible
JLeeMagnetic 4 months ago in playlist CONSCIOUSNESS
its experience. thats all.
great video though.
jaalul 7 months ago
Yes, it is a problem to explain the subjective experience. On the other hand, there is nothing in this video that really refutes determinism. Just because my consciousness may not be what I experience it to be, it doesn't follow that it is superfluous. It can still be beneficial to have one, even if we ultimately lack free will. And the alternative to materialism is, well, magic.
gluemoae 8 months ago
@gluemoae Why is it 'magic'? I just heard someone say todays supernatural is tomorrows natural. Just because you acknowledge consciousness doesn't mean you have to shave your head and wear orange.
fishybishbash 8 months ago
There is an assumption mad here that I think is questionable. It goes something like this: "On determinism and materialism, our minds cannot alter affect the physical processes in the brain". It only follows that we cannot WILL (whatever is meant by that) changes in in physical processes; there can still be cause and effect between physical events leading to a e.g. thought and other physical events, potentially giving rise to an experience.
gluemoae 8 months ago
Semantics! Check: is your term "consciousness" even valid in the first place? Is it a presupposed concept?
Biophily 8 months ago
Semantics! Check the validity of your terms "conscious" and "thinking"
Biophily 8 months ago
What is wrong with saying, on the explanation of consciousness, "we don't know" rather than suggesting some "other"? I suspect the metaphysical explanations of consciousness will eventually go the way of phlogisten and ether.
St00sh13 8 months ago
How do you know the computer isn't "thinking about" and "experiencing" the game?
St00sh13 8 months ago
Pro-tip: consciousness represents a phenomenological work space, accessible to all relevant neurological processes. It is by no means "useless" or redundant. Your depiction of free will, determinism, and the brain also leaves out the very important function of inhibition.
BuBBaGump014 9 months ago
MisterBuster seems to argue that, because consciousness is an abstract byproduct of the brain, it is therefore a "useless" one. In other words, consciousness has no evolutionary function. If that were the case, then neuroplasticity would only be one-directional when, in reality, conscious experience shapes the physical circuitry of the brain. Pain and pleasure, as abstract projections of the brain, appear to reinforce adaptive behaviors, so consciousness has some influence over its "hardware."
KarBytes 9 months ago
We have been here before... Remember the church claiming that the Earth is the center of the universe? We are too darn special for it to be otherwise. You could say the same of the argument that the brain is too darn simple to give rise to consciousness. But regardless, it seems that people on either side who are making positive assertions about this are both wrong. The only prudent thing is to wait and work on completely understanding the brain before making sweeping statements on this or that.
anonymouse27 9 months ago
The conciousness is the final scale pan. It's the part that goes after one of the many predictions that have been made up as an inner image of the outer reality. It's the part that tries to make the picture clear. So you can adapt to the environment it describes. If more predictions/calculations is made, more conciousness you experience. The picture of what's in the reality is more detailed.
gr0gg0 9 months ago
Non of this changes the fact that man is a philosophical animal.
chernobleman 9 months ago
Idiot.
kappapi560 9 months ago
So funny! Using the brain to understand consciousness. This is the oldest spiritual joke on the books. How can you understand the infinite with a limited brain? So funny. Also no clue as to the nature and quality or Will. Like trying to understand Dark Matter. Good luck with that!
3877michael 10 months ago
This is deceiving. I thought this was a Pinker talk.
PapaWilk 10 months ago 2
@PapaWilk I was deceived,too.
MultiJacob17 9 months ago
Maybe we can't see how the brain gives rise to consciousness because consciousness gives rise to the brain?
Just a thought
TheMamgusian 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
freewillvsdeterminism.blogspot.com/
TFrenchy 10 months ago
The biggest problem is that all scientific inquiry is done in the context of consciousness. That is, science presupposes consciousness. Knowledge, truth for that matter is in consciousness only. There is no truth without a conscious knower to behold it, and since truth is that which is the case, there is no reality without consciousness
tatsumakisempyukaku 10 months ago
Matter does not act upon mind and mind does not act upon matter because
they are both aspects of mind-brain. We experience mind and matter with different mechanisms and what we are experiencing is different somewhat analogous to the
2 physical sensory entities of light and sound. Both (light and sound) and (mind and
matter) are real but experienced thru different mechanisms and experiencing different
aspects of our world.
humansaretheworld 10 months ago
Mind and matter are both real. We expience both mind and matter. Mind is
internally experienced whereas matter is externally experienced. The world is
monist but it is composed of mind-matter where mind and matter are each different
ways of experiencing our world. Consciousness of mind and matter are each
different enough to think of them in different terms despite them both being an aspect
of brain-mind. Brain and mind are both different aspects the same phenonmena.
humansaretheworld 10 months ago
I have a rule thumb that goes like this:
Any hypothesis that directly or indirectly infers everlasting lfe is Death Denial.
We have gone from building pyramids and putting our organs in a jar to inter dimensional or universal quantum consciousness.
What next ?
mulheron1 10 months ago