BOGUS: Any presentation that starts off with a lie, that expects the audience to just accept as a premise can go nowhere but down. At the 1:45 second mark of the video, the presenter floats the LIE that Ed could not have warned Tom when he clearly could have. He says it was not an option when it clearly was. BOGUS, I see no reason to proceed any further, THANK YOU for saving my precious time so I may use my free will further in exposing your duplicitous use of yours. MORE HERE: goo.gl / GN4D
Number of connection in the human brain: ~1,000 Trillion
It is simply impossible for your brain to be determined by your DNA. Moreover, if it were, then identical twins would have identical brains, identical personalities, identical decisions and identical lives, by your hypothesis. I think it's fair to say you are mistaken.
@SisyphusRedeemeWell how many muscle fibres are there in the body? Does this mean it is impossible for them to be defined by DNA. Remember, DNA is just a blueprint. It's like saying that it is impossible for all the cookies at the Keebler Elf factory to be defined by one cookie-cutter. And if it is not DNA then what exactly.
Identicle twins are only identicle up until the moment the zygote splits, then their DNA goes thru slight mutatations.
First off, muscle fibers are nearly identical with each other, whereas neurons are as unique as snowflakes. If they were just cut from the same 'cookie cutter' they couldn't perform their multitudinous functions. But more importantly, the actions of your muscle fibers are not determined by DNA, either, they're determined by your brain.
@SisyphusRedeemed Neurons may differ in shape but not in function, their job is to conduct electrical impulses. I should know I did a three page answer on a mi-term exam describing how an electrical impulse is conducted down an axon.
Yes muscles are controlled by the motor cortex, but what is responsible for wiring the motor cortex? Yep...DNA.
If you wanna talk, fine...but don't treat me like a kid who has never heard of an action potential before.
@HedgehogRebellion Hey, not trying to be condescending, but claiming that the brain is 'defined' by DNA is simply false. To stick with your metaphor, the cookie isn't defined by it's cutter, the cutter just gives it it's start: it has to go through the oven, the frosting, the decoration, etc. It's sounding like you agree with me here, perhaps. But if so, your initial implication that we have no free will because of our DNA was misleading, at best.
@SisyphusRedeemed I dont think it is misleading language to say that DNA defines the brain structures just becasue there are other factors that play into it's development, and THE REASON I say that is bcuz whatever other factors are involved in shaping it, in or extra uterine, still act on a structure whose root code was in the DNA of the zygote prior to first mitosis. If the SAME FACTORS were acting on different DNA then a non-identiclly wired brain would result.
@HedgehogRebellion It seems like we're on the same page, we just have different feelings about the implications of the term 'defines.' To my ear, saying 'X define Y' seems to imply that nothing outside of X has any say on what Y is. So saying 'DNA defines the brain' seems to imply that all facts about the brain reduce to facts about DNA. I'm guessing now that's not what you meant to say.
@HedgehogRebellion But if all you meant to say was 'DNA lays the foundation for the brain' (or something like that) then... well, so what? How does this help us illuminate the free will/determinism problem? What was the point of your initial statement?
@SisyphusRedeemed Imagine the movement of a billard ball on a table. IF you plot it's straight line then you know where it will be in another minute. NOW if something hits it you have to consider how the force knocked it off its trajectory to calculate a future position.
My position is that the brain we have at the moment of out birth is like the ball, and all the events of our lives that shape the filters thru which we view the world are like the balls that hit it.But that's it! Determinism!
But there is no evidence that the world we live in is deterministic, and ample evidence that it isn't. There's quantum indeterminacy, for one, but there are also many stochastic processes on the macro level as well, including the development of the human brain. This Newtonian/Laplacean vision of determinism simply has no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does mean Newtonian determinism is false.
@SisyphusRedeemed My problem with stochastics is that just because we got a result that was not predictable by knowledge of the initial condition, that may make it random in the sense that our model simply didnt have enough input...but does not make it random in that NOTHING CAUSED it. How can this be?
As far as quantuim physics goes my understanding has always been that "Logic breaks down at the sub-atomic level". Electron-spin and other phenomenau do not seem to apply to the macro.
@HedgehogRebellion In a way I find indeterministic arguments self-refuting, becasue if the universe is truly indeterministic then how could I ever determine that it was indeterminate.Which leaves 2 possibilities:
1) The universe is at least for our concerns deterministic
2) Its indeterminate so what do we really know anyway.
I would argue that an indeterminate universe is the best proof of all that everything boils down to luck
@HedgehogRebellion ".but does not make it random in that NOTHING CAUSED it."
Well, a free-will proponent would say 'of course something caused it--your free will caused it!' But that's not my angle. I'd say you're right, it doesn't necessarily mean nothing caused it, but it doesn't have to. What it DOES mean is that we have no scientific basis for determinism. The argument boils down to "How can this be?", an argument from incredulity.
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, this has been one of the more satisfying exchanges Ive had, but I think weve hit pavement here. My position remains that luck is the fundamental force in our lives. It covers both bases:
1) If the universe is deterministic, then the unyielding progression of events defines us
2) If the universe is deterministic, then all is luck.
Thanks man, you are a veryt intelligent guy, and Ive really enjoyed this.
@SisyphusRedeemed "stochastic processes on the macro level" are deterministic, only difficult to model and sensitive to initial conditions. Chaotic systems appear to be random, but are actually fully deterministic (see the Wikipedia article on chaos theory for more information). To my knowledge, quantum physics is the only scientific domain which is not deterministic.
@gamecraziness2 Classical physics is a simplification of quantum mechanics at the macro level. So if one believes that QM is non-deterministic then logically one should also conclude that classical physics is also non-deterministic.Similarly, classical physics is a simplification of relativistic physics. No one would ever think of arguing that one was deterministic while the other is not, since they are ultimately equivalent.
Let's say x+1=y, right? We know that two things are needed to define y, the input and the equation...but we also know that it is ONLY two things, right?
So it is always BOTH...and it is EXCLUSIVELY both.
HERE is my main argument:
Brain you start off with + Life experiences(widely defined) = Person who makes the decision.
As with the equation...it's always both, and (as far as I can tell) nothing else.
It's 'defined' by several factors: starting with DNA, but also important are inter-uterine conditions, nutrition and diet, education, sleep, disease, stress, etc. Look up neurogenesis, neural development and neuro-plasticity to learn more about how the brain is formed. Suffice to say, this isn't a controversial topic: it is scientific fact that the brain is not defined by DNA.
@SisyphusRedeemed "Starting with DNA": and every other factor, including life experiences that are stored as memories, that comes into play LATER ON acts on a structure that is already blueprinted by your DNA.
If I put make a tray of cookies and I later put sprinkles on them then that is all fine and dandy, but the cookie cutter is still the basic template.
@SisyphusRedeemed emergent order, it is entirely possible for simple things to produce more complex things, atoms for example. It is a fallacy to say that the whole necessarily has to have the same properties as it's constituent parts, there are many examples in nature where this is not the case.
@egokick "it is entirely possible for simple things to produce more complex things,"
Missed my point. Of course DNA 'produces' the brain, in that DNA contains the instructions for the basic cellular growth of the brain. But just as your fingerprints are not defined by DNA (identical twins don't have identical fingerprints) but rather by the stochastic process of cell growth, the brain isn't defined by DNA. If it were, we could clone personalities, memories, etc., from a skin cell.
I really like St. Thomas Aquinas' answer to the whole problem. I think he makes sense of how God can allow free will being an all powerful God, while at the same time know every option we can take and the consequences of each of them. Sort of Compatibilist...sort of not, Aquinas being the philosopher that is always both and neither on every issue it seems (except natural law).
You seem to imply that control increases moral responsibility for an action; how so? Even if one has control, one's actions are still determined deterministically.
@gamecraziness2 "You seem to imply that control increases moral responsibility for an action; how so? Even if one has control, one's actions are still determined deterministically."
I was just wondering if you could give me an example of what you mean by this?
I enjoyed your presentation. I've been beating my head against these terms for a while, and it's not making sense to me. I felt that we have determined variables and the free will to choose, but we're not always conscious of which is which, or whether we have any.
The fact that people react differently to a situation, e.g. witnessing a person having a heart attack, when they are aware of the 'bystander effect' suggests that our level of control is down to how much we think about how we think.
Didn't the Templeton Foundation (Alfred Mele's backers that you cited) get into a bit of strife of being a sheep in wolf's clothing a while back? Backing science with a religious agenda - making their research, somewhat ironically, pre-determined.
@COEXISTential I've heard several people make accusations of that sort about Templeton. I have no first hand experience with them myself, but I've talked to/heard from about four people who have and they all say they've been hands off and open.
Two neuroscientists walking along a road find a severely beaten man lying broken and bleeding in the gutter. The first neuroscientist turns to the other and says, "The man who did this needs our help."
@Charlesdance yep , I was confused by that also .seems like he's exchanged free will for the word control ,don't answer the question though .for me it's simple free will is illusionary in actuality it does not exist .
@Charlesdance I don't get it either because it wasn't properly explained.What I did get is that for two and half thousand years,the greatest minds have got it wrong;they should have been talking about 'control' rather than 'will'.My brain has remembered the word 'hubris'.
YOU directly power your emotions by HOW MUCH you think. How much you think is directed by none other than you. If you think about something-it changes. If you have something changing you can consider it. Sometimes we aren't strong enough.
No matter how you try, you can't get away from that responsibility. You can't blame it on anything other than yourself.
If you could, no one would ever be punished because nothing would ever be anyone's fault. It'd just be a lack of free will. That's an excuse.
@weswill2008 Ironically, how much you think is dictated by genes and environment interacting with each other. "sometimes we aren't strong enough" because we aren't, we don't choose to be weak. Well, the whole punishment thing is in debate by people who don't believe in free will, i.e. sam harris, but what's wrong with no one deserving punishment or reward? It's a human construct.
@weswill2008 But why do people decide to control their emotions with these techniques? They acquire the learned techniques or the attitude of wanting to change from the environment, and they have no control over the environment. Also, you can change other people, without their 'consent'. If I drive someone insane with torture to the point where they murder someone, or a kid grows up in a cult, goes to war, has a traumatic experience, it's obvious that will have an affect on them.
@SisyphusRedeemed I understand that you didn't. It was directed at people who have/may bring it up. Rather than ask them one by one, I decided to just make a general post open to anyone to comment on.
This lecture is on the right track, new ways of thinking about free will and accountability have to be developed. What bothers me though is the definition of "in-control" and "out of-control" brain seems to boil down to observable physical deficiencies. There is a more deeper level that we should be looking at: conciouss brain/mind and the subconciouss brain/mind.
It would seem to me that only the part of WILL that is in conciouss mind should be subjected to accountability...
If quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic, I still don't see how that helps the free will (the ability to do otherwise) argument. Quantum mechanics introduces randomness. By definition, free will is necessarily deliberate. So how does probability help the free will argument at all? I happen to favor the psychological determinism argument.
How on earth does determinism preclude control? The steering mechanism of my car controls the direction of the car's wheels. It does that even if determinism is true. And likewise for every other 'control' mechanism, including ourselves.
If scientists discover that determinism is true, then we have simply discovered that free will and determinism are compatible. That's my view.
There is no doubt that experiences in our lives make subconscious preferences like choosing left or right, but what I want to know is how that supports the argument. If a doctor tells you to push a button for the sake of a test you push the button because of his instructions right? If this is true then besides having a preference as pushing left or right, wouldn't any free will to choose whether to push the button or not be relinquished from the start?
is actually under control of some agent which we identify as our self, where determinism provides a counter claim. These viewpoints may not describe the mechanics of control, but instead speaks on the term "control" itself. I suppose in that way, free will and determinism dont provide any meaningful explanation of the physical processes of "control", but instead what provides the control, both of which, I feel, provide a meaningful explanation. Sorry if it was a bit of a ramble (little prep time
Sorry if this comment doesn't quite make sense, as I am a bit uncertain if I am grasping your position that determinism does not give anything meaningful to what it means to be human, in that it fails in the immediate fact that we have control (and this could be said to be the same for free will). I feel that the term "control" was proposed to be a better description is outside of what free will and determinism describes. One states that the control we experience (the ability to repress impulse)
I guess my one big confusion is what you mean by the difference between us and our brains. How I've understood it is that our brains on a most basic level determine who we are. I don't quite get the notion that our brains and US are two separate entities.
@FrankLightheart Well the term 'self' is a highly ambiguous one. There is a sense in which is is our brain, a sense in which it's only part of our brain, a sense in which it is our whole body, a sense in which it's something the brain 'does', a sense in which it is our collection of social relationships... I was speaking loosely (never a wise thing for a philosopher) without mind to which sense I meant. It could be clarified, but I don't think too much hinges on it.
Actually, at the most basic level (without going into QM) it is the thoughts that determine who we are (look at work of Bruce Lipton). That brings in the concepts of the conciouss and sub-conciouss mind to this discussion.
Free WILL must reside in the concious mind, the creative mind (ie the neocortex). That is the part of the brain associated with imagination and problem solving. Now the problem comes in when we look at the role of subconcious mind ...
... subconsious has all the programs that are run on automatic and are always run in the present (see work of Bruce Lipton or anyone familiar with psychology). By definition these programs don't enter into your concious awareness. The problem is the programs in your subconcious can be both good and bad. An enviromental trigger can activate a program in your subconciouss. ...
This than has the effect of recruiting blood supply from the rest of the brain (ie neocortex) for the the older structures of the brain thereby interfering with the ability of the conciouss brain to analyze and remedy the situation.
So we should then label this type of behaviour as coming from and "out of control" brain because the control mechanisms have been impaired. Any thoughts?
I believe that we have limited free will, at least to the extent we are capable of applying it. QM states give the brain the possibilities (ie consciousness), thoughts/perceptions are selections from those states. The selection is done by WILL. However what is this WILL, here I am going with WILL as described by Evan Harris Walker in his book The Physics Of Consciousness. WILL is something that is non-local and is shared by everyone at all times. ...
so in reality we alone as individuals are not responsible for all the thoughts that we have, because they could have been part of a thought that was transfered to you in a non-local way. We are however as indivduals responsible for controling those thoughts and actions.
So the question should be under which circumstances can we control the thoughts in our head?
How would you explain what it means to be "in control" without resorting to the language of free will and determinism? I agree that we have to be in control of our actions before we can be accountable for them, but my account of what it means to be in control is compatibilistic. I think that to be in control of your actions means that your actions are determined by your own motives. The greater hand your motives have in bringing about your behavior, the more control you have over your actions.
I contest the commentary on addiction. I feel that addiction is a matter of many deliberate choices made to arrive at the addiction. I contest that addiction is a matter of choice rather than a sub level of determination. I would like to further hear your take on this subject.
We should abandon the notion of free will and determinism and instead focus on results. We should try to understand how people behave and how our actions affect the behaviour of others.
Punishments and other corrective services should be based on what achieves the best outcome in terms of benefit to individuals and society.
Considering that there is uncertainty in a single particle's position (it literally could be ANYWHERE), then for a brain, with 100,000,000,000 cells which are composed of an incredible amount of molecules which are in turn composed of atoms which are in turn composed of nuclides- which are composed of fundamental particles- and electrons, your action can never be determined, hence free will.
I'd agree. I'm by no means a scientist, but it would seem to me that even if a particle has some attributes which are not deterministic or even random, that does not give us free will in the sense that we usually mean. The particle may be free in some sense, but our will would still be determined by forces external to our conciousness, those forces would just be random. BTW, you are awesome. Keep up the good work.
@SisyphusRedeemed Indeed, random chance is not quite the same as free will, and it's still unknown at best if any one brain function is the result of a single atom, or something such that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes relevant.
@SisyphusRedeemed That I would say is true, but also I would say what we describe as uncertainty is only a lack of understanding of all and/or a complete ignorance of part of the physical influences on a particle.
@pocoapoco2 "I would say what we describe as uncertainty is only a lack of understanding"
This kind of 'hidden variable' theory has been challenged and largely rejected by current physics. Bell's inequality theorem, in particular, seems to rule it out.
@saiyanmage Explain to me what the process of free will is again please? I find it very strange that there is a argument for free will in the first place. Is not arguing for free will an oxymoron? You are explaining a cause for free will...HELLO! (sarcastic tone) Are particles literally stationed anywhere at any time? is this a FIXED aspect of how the universe functions? I disagree with saying this is a linguistic problem. I think it is a very basic small t truth. We are determined.
@chadpratch or at least I presume we are. It does sound nicer to have the magical powers of Free Will though. Also Morality is a social and human construct... It has nothing to do with this debate. Blame has nothing to do with how the universe functions.
Not only have you managed to completely ignore what I said, you applied your determinist logic to Heisenberg's logic.
As I have said before, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle throws certainty out of the window. I don't expect someone like you to understand what that actually means.
I suggest taking some courses in basic quantum physics before coming back here.
"I don't expect someone like you to understand what that actually means" This is a very interesting point you make. You have a expectation of my stupidity. You also have made a presumption that I have no knowledge of Heisenberg. You would be correct but I do have some knowledge of BF Skinner. You are making predictions and assumptions on my stupidity. You will "expect" a stupid rebuttal from me based on your knowledge of what I previously posted. Try countering an argument, it will set you free
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can never be sure of a particle's exact position and momentum.
-The brain has about 100 billion brain cells, give or take a few billion.
-All these cells are composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of a nucleus, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are composed of the fundamental particles, and then you have electrons outside of the nucleus.
Dont use God to prove there is no Freewill,your actually going to be trapping yourself into a corner. He said God knew he'd sin on Tuesday so its Gods fault. GOD is sovereign,how do i know? Because people Sin and do Wrong,yet God doesnt do what God SHOULD do,and that is destroy them. God knew you would Sin tuesday,but YOU sinned tuesday God DIDNT. Yet what you DID do is what the Bible says "store up wrath" on Judgement Day
One acts "incongruent" with their "nature", if their nature is indeed to be a scumbag, by realizing the incentives and consequences that our society provides for following and disobeying the laws, of course. Although the "consequences" of "choices" are constantly being written in the flow of time, your consciousness can percieve all of this, including multiple "possible futures", as "one whole picture", from the present. Note: All this = not even 2 cents. I have no degree.
Keep in mind, also, that we are assuming determinism + a scumbag who would be enjoying the liberties of 1st world societies. Combine determinism + militaristic, despotic and corrupt society? Whaddya get? Well, termination of anyone who is already known to be determined to be a scumbag, or worse, embrace of scumbaggery, and termination of determined decent people!
But ontologicaly speaking your thought is insufficient, because without free will, control is just a situation in brain we call that way, not a possibility of decision.
I agree with you practicaly, because I think the new dichotomy leads to better judgements for now, we create the "in control" - maybe he had a choice, let's pass the judgement as if he had free will, "out of control" - let's be utilitarian, there is no need for him to pay.
This line of thought I think is also the foundation of the judgements you cast while using the new vocabulary, so the problem stays - and we need the vocabulary for it. The old one.
I think we use your vocabulary already in practice, but it cannot enter any profound moral philosophy, because it dodges the question it arises from.
(sorry for the long post, but this made me thinking)
It seems to me you are setting aside the moral consequences of the old dichotomy free will x determinism. Utilitarian morality arises from determinism, while free will grants us the right for vengeance. If its your choice what you do, you should pay for your actions. If you cannot choose, we should do our best to make our society better place keeping everyone from doing that, but you shouldn't pay for it - you had no choice.
When you look at your reflection in your "mind's eye", or think about yourself/ consciousness, is this truly "how you are RIGHT NOW"? Is the "true present" still nothing but a fleeting dream due to the reaction time of the synapses and neurons?
@QuadniverousBeast I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. What do you mean by 'this' when you say 'is this truly "how you are RIGHT NOW"?' I never said the 'true present was nothing but a fleeting dream due to the reaction time of the synapses and neurons,' so I don't know where you got that from. Can you clarify your point?
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, that seems to be the burning question regarding determinism vs free will. Call it wishful thinking, but I kind of want to believe that there IS free will, and that "active consciousness" can be considered a PRACTICAL respresentation of the true present. Determinism is no excuse to be an absolute moral scumbag, and those who DO use it as an excuse, well then, negate this against them, the cops were also already "determined" to bust your excuse-using ass.
@QuadniverousBeast But the question is HOW DO you blame the scumbag for acting according to his nature, a nature that he himself did not ask for? This does not mean that we do not incarcerate him, but ...correct me if I am wrong...it seems you are trying to have it both ways. Determinism does not allow us to blame the roof for falling on our heads, so how do we EXPECT the scumbag to act against his nature? How DOES one act incongruent with their nature?
@SisyphusRedeemed So what you are saying is that you are a compatibilist. Watch your own video man you are a compatibilist. If there is this "free won't" then it too is just mechanical brain function. I watched the entire video and I can summarize it like this. "As long as your brain is functioning normally then free will and determinism are compatible." So why did you impugn compatibilism initially then adopt a compatibilist stance?
@AEVautomatic No, I'm not a compatiblist. That gives credence to BOTH free will and determinism; I want to give credence to neither. 'Free will' is nonsense, but so is 'determinism.' They are both useless, uninformative, vacuous terms that explain nothing about human behavior and tell us nothing about why people do what they do. I don't subscribe to 'free won't', that's Libet's model.
@SisyphusRedeemed "They are both useless, uninformative, vacuous terms that explain nothing about human behavior and tell us nothing about why people do what they do."
Actually, compatibilism provides you with the foundation needed to do just that. The compatibilist free will narrows down just the type of actions that we would like to assign people responsibility for, and without determinism there is no causal explanation for anything.
@SisyphusRedeemed It's true that they don't, by themselves, tell us why people do what they do, except that determinism implies a causal chain of some sort, but they don't claim to either. Compatibilism simply claims to be able to sort out how and why we assign responsibility in a world where nobody ever could have done otherwise. In that respect they are not vacuous.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but isn't saying that it makes sense that "Fred" has control where "Ed" does not doing the same thing as the terms "free will" and "determinism"? It seems the question just becomes a matter of "what is control", when you could ask the same thing about the other terms.
I agree with you. I think we need something that describes human action. I'm just curious if you have a further defense of this notion of "control".
@insidetrip101 I actually do have more to say about control, and I've been meaning to do a follow up video for some time expanding on this idea, but I've just been too busy to actually make it. Hopefully I'll find the time at some point, but for now, all I have is a promissory note.
@QuadniverousBeast He thinks we are magically in controll of the synapses and neurons despite the fact that consiousness is neurons and synapses!!! consioussness is always one step behind, its the expression of the process not a determiner of it... any neurologist will tell you this. It cannot be a determiner for that would mean your consiousness somehow caused the activity when your brain started... since your consiousness is the brain(just see brain damage) this is not possible
Cont'd...furthermore, it seems to me that if determinism is true then we merely 'appear' to have moral obligations, but do not actually have any.
If determinism is true, then anything I action I perform, no matter how 'controlled' is one that could not have refrained from performing in the exact circumstances in which I found myself.
But I could not have had any obligation not to act in that way, no matter what act I perform. For 'ought' implies 'can'. Thus everything is permitted.
@Clear404 "If determinism is true, then anything I action I perform, no matter how 'controlled' is one that could not have refrained from performing in the exact circumstances in which I found myself."
It's not controlled at all if it's determined. But since we have concrete, empirical examples of control (and the lack thereof) we can conclude that determinism is incompatible with our current best understanding of science.
@SisyphusRedeemed Pure speculation. Just because some of our choices are made at the very moment of conception(unlike the usual 7 seconds before) it does not follow that therefore free will or randomness is evident. This could be just as determined(and probably is) as the subconsciouss choices.
" we have concrete, empirical examples of control (and the lack thereof) we can conclude that determinism is incompatible with our current best understanding of science."
Everything ends up in speculation which is why philosophy is a waiste of time. Philosophers can only be judged rethorically. Unlike science were someone like Einstein can be vindicated or refuted regardless of how he articulates it.
@massownage1 You seem to think that there is a hard and fast distinction between science and philosophy. There isn't. They are extensions of each other. Much of Einstein's work is in the philosophy of physics, as is Hawking's work, and as Dawkins' is in the philosophy of biology.
Take a look at my quote again:
" we have concrete, empirical examples of control"
Concrete, empirical, not rhetorical. I'm trying, as a philosopher, to craft a scientifically testable set of ideas here.
@SisyphusRedeemed hey I am a student of philosophy but we have to be honest and bruise our own egos. I dont think the last word has been said on determinism since we dont know if free will is in action when its not subconsciously produced choices. A strong case for determinism is precognition: there are some(very few) able to see future events(specific ones, with correct dates), This is not possible if the future is not yet written, unless they guessed all of it(I dont like those odds).
@SisyphusRedeemed Btw just a quick note on quantum physics, this is not problematic for determinism according to Lawrence Krauss since the wave function is deterministic. He is indeed also a determinist.
Surely even the most hard-nosed incompatibilist is going to agree that we can distinguish between those who have control and those who do not (and degrees of control etc) even if determinism is true.
So, erm, I don't really see how the free will problem has been 'disolved'. For the free will problem is essentially one to do with the sort of control needed for moral responsibility. It isn't about just any kind of control. It is about what kind of control can make us truly 'blameworthy'.
@Clear404 "even the most hard-nosed incompatibilist is going to agree that we can distinguish between those who have control and those who do not"
An incompatiblist might, but not a determinist. If determinism were true, then Isaac Newton is the only one in control. There is no difference between 'choosing' to murder in cold blood and being blown off a building and falling on someone. Neither have any kind of 'control' in the scientific sense I'm using the term.
@Clear404 "the free will problem is essentially one to do with the sort of control needed for moral responsibility."
I disagree. The free will hypothesis is essentially a metaphysical issue, not an issue of moral psychology. It has implications for moral psychology, but that's a side issue, not the core issue. As van Inwagen's definition suggests, it's about the counterfactual nature of whether we could have done otherwise.
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't think that's right at all - it is a debate that belongs primarily in moral philosophy. It is one's position on the compatibility of the type of control needed for moral responsibility that earns you the title 'compatibilist' or 'incompatibilist'. Someoen who thought that our decision making processes are indeterministic but that this makes not one dot of difference to whether we should be deemed deserving of praise or blame, would be described as a compatibilist....
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...after all, incompatibilists don't deny that we have control over what we do. They don't deny that we have alternative possibiltilies in the compatibilsit sense of the phrase. They just don't think any of that kind of control will make one fully morally responsible. Something - moral responsibility - is incompatible with determinism becasue it requires a sort of control that requires indeterminism.
Remove the moral responsibility issue and what, exactly, is anyone.
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...remove the moral responsibility issue and what is anyone disagreeing about? Whether determinism is actually true or not? No, that's not what divides a compatibilist and an incompatibilist. Whether we have alternative possibilities if determinism is true? No. It is beyond dispute that we have conditional alternative possibilities if determinism is true. Every incompatiblist will allow that. And it is also beyond dispute that we lack 'unconditional' ones if D is T
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd: Perhaps you will say that the disagreement is over which conception of 'alternative possibility' best answers to our experience of decision making. Hardly. And anyway, that seems of trivial importance. For instance, let's say I (as many incompatibilists would) agree that our experience of decision making does not in some way include an experience of indeterminism. So, i simply agree that there is no introspective evidence for indeterminism. Yet....
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...yet I hold that we are not morally responsible if determinism is true. So, experientially I agree that there would be no difference between making a decision if determinism is true, and making a decision is indeterminism is true. Yet I hold that we are not morally resopnsible if determinism is true, becasue I will not have exercised the right kind of control over my decision. Well, then I bet you my house I'll be described as an incompatibilist.
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...I have rambled: but in my view 'determinist' is not a position in the free will debate. Determinist, surely, is just the view that determinism is true. You can be an incompatibilist determinist or a compatibilist determinist (or some sort of nihilist about free will). But compatibilism, incompatibilism, and - not sure there's a term for it - but nihilist will do - are the master positions in the free will debate, and moral responsibility determines membershipseems2me
@ 20:00. Every decision is a thoroughly mechanical process. The outcome of the decision-making process determined. And this is not a problem for free will.
The neurology in that brain over there is making wrong decisions; we had better do something about it.
The neurology in this brain right here has made some wrong decisions; this brain had better do something about that.
When is free will? In the planning (self-programming) made much longer than 6 seconds ago.
I fail to see how rewording solves anything here. Determinism was an intuitive but wrong idea, free will was an intuitive but wrong idea as well. No need to compromise, just to educate. And sure - the legal system will have to adopt.
Right now I think that we maybe should consider reinventing some sort of dualism, instead of packing everything in one big box. It seems, as if that what I perceive as "me" is by necessity in concordance with what my brain does (I am neither slave nor commander of my brain).
I don't mind a metaphysical 'mind/soul', as long as we don't attribute it with magical powers, or infer guilt or responsibility in an absolute sense.
Great talk which helps me structure what I have been thinking about. I liked the idea of a committee rather than the executive. In future talks pershaps you can dvelve more deeply into "cultural" factors (acquired over time) and social psychology (copy cat actions in short-term). Exercise of control is governed by a system of rewards and punishments and how far a person acts reckless is again influenced by predetermined causes. Thanks again for a brilliant presentation.
Think of it more as: a mind in control, and a mind disengaged. Is a man who has had his pre frontal cortex suppressed or damaged in control of his actions? Arguably no. His brain is damaged and abnormal and as such so will his decision making be abnormal and damaged. Free will need not apply. Provided a brain is the seat of consciousness, then we must state that a brain is the engine that drives control.
This lecture seems to steer towards the idea that 'controlling' your actions is something close to free will. Isn't conscious control just another predetermined mechanism of the brain? If our consciousness is a product of our brain, which is a physical system that submits to natural law, then by definition it should be in theory predictable and deterministic.
@apatheticwretch I plan on a follow up video differentiating 'control' from 'free will' more clearly. But in short: (a) there are no 'natural laws' in the sense that are required for your argument to work. The universe is simply not deterministic. (b) This does not mean we have 'free will', however. (C) Your use of 'in theory' is a massive hand-waving, unscientific speculation. Science as it actually exists today suggests nothing of the kind.
@SisyphusRedeemed My understanding is that the mechanisms in our body are a cascade of chemical reactions that are not random, but will happen exactly the same way given the same conditions. That's what I meant by 'natural laws' and predictability. By deterministic 'in theory' I meant we may not have the depth of knowledge or the means to calculate these things right now, but IF all particles behave predictably and there is no randomness, then there is only one outcome, which can be determined.
@apatheticwretch "IF all particles behave predictably and there is no randomness, then there is only one outcome, which can be determined."
But the antecedent is false. There is randomness, quite a lot of it in fact. Nature is not deterministic, it's stochastic. And not just on the quantum level, either: stochastic processes pervade nature on many levels, up to and including human behavior. That's why there are no 'laws of nature' in the strict sense.
@apatheticwretch I plan to be talking about this sort of thing on DPRJones' BlogTV charity event for MSF. I'll be one with DPR and HonestDiscussoner tomorrow (Sunday 9/18) at 7 PM EST. Check it out.
I find your lecture quite interesting. By the looks of it, I'm guessing you're a neuroscientist/behavioral scientist. I'm a college student(majoring in psychology). It kinda caught me what you said about science being able to figure out completely about brain and behaviour. I'm interested in experimental psychology; so, in a postgraduate- or employee-demand basis, would it be time-wasting to study psychology? (your opinion)
@SwitchStrings I'm actually a professor of philosophy with an interest in philosophy of science and neurophilosophy. I'm not as attuned to the job market in psych, but my impression is that, like philosophy, it's competitive, but if you love it, are willing to work hard, are reasonably smart and talented, and get into a good grad program, and have patience and tenacity, then you should be able to get a job. My 2 cents.
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the quick reply. I'll take your advice. About the video - what you called control: is it not just an illusion?(controlled by hormones, conditioning, perception of reality, cognitive dissonance etc.)
I was thinking about this recently and I think we should throw the term "Free Will" out entirely, it muddies the waters too much
I personally suggests the replacement term "Recursive Will" because the question is whether we are having a conversation or is this just noise?
Free Will should be only used colloquially or aphoristically.
rmeddy1 2 days ago
I found this completely on accident, but I'm so glad I did.
leahterry64 3 days ago
@leahterry64 Glad you liked it, thanks for saying so.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 days ago
BOGUS: Any presentation that starts off with a lie, that expects the audience to just accept as a premise can go nowhere but down. At the 1:45 second mark of the video, the presenter floats the LIE that Ed could not have warned Tom when he clearly could have. He says it was not an option when it clearly was. BOGUS, I see no reason to proceed any further, THANK YOU for saving my precious time so I may use my free will further in exposing your duplicitous use of yours. MORE HERE: goo.gl / GN4D
roboeco 6 days ago
@roboeco Obvious troll is obvious.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 days ago
@roboeco Obvious troll is obvious.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 days ago
Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.
Fyodor Dostoevsky. That's the quote I think you were going for. (:
HKfuntime 2 weeks ago
we have free will.. I mean... God said it... :)
sniped101 3 weeks ago
Our decisions make our lives.
Our personality makes our decisions.
Our brain holds our persoanlity.
Your DNA defines your brain..YES YOU...you reading this right now!
Welcome to reality..Population: You
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion "Your DNA defines your brain."
Number of base pairs in human DNA: ~3 Billion
Number of connection in the human brain: ~1,000 Trillion
It is simply impossible for your brain to be determined by your DNA. Moreover, if it were, then identical twins would have identical brains, identical personalities, identical decisions and identical lives, by your hypothesis. I think it's fair to say you are mistaken.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemeWell how many muscle fibres are there in the body? Does this mean it is impossible for them to be defined by DNA. Remember, DNA is just a blueprint. It's like saying that it is impossible for all the cookies at the Keebler Elf factory to be defined by one cookie-cutter. And if it is not DNA then what exactly.
Identicle twins are only identicle up until the moment the zygote splits, then their DNA goes thru slight mutatations.
I dont want 2 sound rude but Im not impressed.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion "how many muscle fibres are there in the body?"
First off, muscle fibers are nearly identical with each other, whereas neurons are as unique as snowflakes. If they were just cut from the same 'cookie cutter' they couldn't perform their multitudinous functions. But more importantly, the actions of your muscle fibers are not determined by DNA, either, they're determined by your brain.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Neurons may differ in shape but not in function, their job is to conduct electrical impulses. I should know I did a three page answer on a mi-term exam describing how an electrical impulse is conducted down an axon.
Yes muscles are controlled by the motor cortex, but what is responsible for wiring the motor cortex? Yep...DNA.
If you wanna talk, fine...but don't treat me like a kid who has never heard of an action potential before.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Hey, not trying to be condescending, but claiming that the brain is 'defined' by DNA is simply false. To stick with your metaphor, the cookie isn't defined by it's cutter, the cutter just gives it it's start: it has to go through the oven, the frosting, the decoration, etc. It's sounding like you agree with me here, perhaps. But if so, your initial implication that we have no free will because of our DNA was misleading, at best.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I dont think it is misleading language to say that DNA defines the brain structures just becasue there are other factors that play into it's development, and THE REASON I say that is bcuz whatever other factors are involved in shaping it, in or extra uterine, still act on a structure whose root code was in the DNA of the zygote prior to first mitosis. If the SAME FACTORS were acting on different DNA then a non-identiclly wired brain would result.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion It seems like we're on the same page, we just have different feelings about the implications of the term 'defines.' To my ear, saying 'X define Y' seems to imply that nothing outside of X has any say on what Y is. So saying 'DNA defines the brain' seems to imply that all facts about the brain reduce to facts about DNA. I'm guessing now that's not what you meant to say.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion But if all you meant to say was 'DNA lays the foundation for the brain' (or something like that) then... well, so what? How does this help us illuminate the free will/determinism problem? What was the point of your initial statement?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Imagine the movement of a billard ball on a table. IF you plot it's straight line then you know where it will be in another minute. NOW if something hits it you have to consider how the force knocked it off its trajectory to calculate a future position.
My position is that the brain we have at the moment of out birth is like the ball, and all the events of our lives that shape the filters thru which we view the world are like the balls that hit it.But that's it! Determinism!
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion "But that's it! Determinism!"
But there is no evidence that the world we live in is deterministic, and ample evidence that it isn't. There's quantum indeterminacy, for one, but there are also many stochastic processes on the macro level as well, including the development of the human brain. This Newtonian/Laplacean vision of determinism simply has no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does mean Newtonian determinism is false.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed My problem with stochastics is that just because we got a result that was not predictable by knowledge of the initial condition, that may make it random in the sense that our model simply didnt have enough input...but does not make it random in that NOTHING CAUSED it. How can this be?
As far as quantuim physics goes my understanding has always been that "Logic breaks down at the sub-atomic level". Electron-spin and other phenomenau do not seem to apply to the macro.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion In a way I find indeterministic arguments self-refuting, becasue if the universe is truly indeterministic then how could I ever determine that it was indeterminate.Which leaves 2 possibilities:
1) The universe is at least for our concerns deterministic
2) Its indeterminate so what do we really know anyway.
I would argue that an indeterminate universe is the best proof of all that everything boils down to luck
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion ".but does not make it random in that NOTHING CAUSED it."
Well, a free-will proponent would say 'of course something caused it--your free will caused it!' But that's not my angle. I'd say you're right, it doesn't necessarily mean nothing caused it, but it doesn't have to. What it DOES mean is that we have no scientific basis for determinism. The argument boils down to "How can this be?", an argument from incredulity.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, this has been one of the more satisfying exchanges Ive had, but I think weve hit pavement here. My position remains that luck is the fundamental force in our lives. It covers both bases:
1) If the universe is deterministic, then the unyielding progression of events defines us
2) If the universe is deterministic, then all is luck.
Thanks man, you are a veryt intelligent guy, and Ive really enjoyed this.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "stochastic processes on the macro level" are deterministic, only difficult to model and sensitive to initial conditions. Chaotic systems appear to be random, but are actually fully deterministic (see the Wikipedia article on chaos theory for more information). To my knowledge, quantum physics is the only scientific domain which is not deterministic.
gamecraziness2 2 weeks ago
@gamecraziness2 Classical physics is a simplification of quantum mechanics at the macro level. So if one believes that QM is non-deterministic then logically one should also conclude that classical physics is also non-deterministic.Similarly, classical physics is a simplification of relativistic physics. No one would ever think of arguing that one was deterministic while the other is not, since they are ultimately equivalent.
dartplayer170 5 days ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Let me just throw this one out there:
Let's say x+1=y, right? We know that two things are needed to define y, the input and the equation...but we also know that it is ONLY two things, right?
So it is always BOTH...and it is EXCLUSIVELY both.
HERE is my main argument:
Brain you start off with + Life experiences(widely defined) = Person who makes the decision.
As with the equation...it's always both, and (as far as I can tell) nothing else.
Do you see where Im at?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion
"And if it is not DNA then what exactly."
It's 'defined' by several factors: starting with DNA, but also important are inter-uterine conditions, nutrition and diet, education, sleep, disease, stress, etc. Look up neurogenesis, neural development and neuro-plasticity to learn more about how the brain is formed. Suffice to say, this isn't a controversial topic: it is scientific fact that the brain is not defined by DNA.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "Starting with DNA": and every other factor, including life experiences that are stored as memories, that comes into play LATER ON acts on a structure that is already blueprinted by your DNA.
If I put make a tray of cookies and I later put sprinkles on them then that is all fine and dandy, but the cookie cutter is still the basic template.
Life boils down to luck.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed emergent order, it is entirely possible for simple things to produce more complex things, atoms for example. It is a fallacy to say that the whole necessarily has to have the same properties as it's constituent parts, there are many examples in nature where this is not the case.
egokick 1 month ago
@egokick "it is entirely possible for simple things to produce more complex things,"
Missed my point. Of course DNA 'produces' the brain, in that DNA contains the instructions for the basic cellular growth of the brain. But just as your fingerprints are not defined by DNA (identical twins don't have identical fingerprints) but rather by the stochastic process of cell growth, the brain isn't defined by DNA. If it were, we could clone personalities, memories, etc., from a skin cell.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed ah okay, misunderstanding. I agree.
egokick 1 month ago
I really like St. Thomas Aquinas' answer to the whole problem. I think he makes sense of how God can allow free will being an all powerful God, while at the same time know every option we can take and the consequences of each of them. Sort of Compatibilist...sort of not, Aquinas being the philosopher that is always both and neither on every issue it seems (except natural law).
XxzeppelinxX 1 month ago
i just clicked this because it was an hour long
MrHarb50 1 month ago
rodney mckay
Ste1985zz 1 month ago
You seem to imply that control increases moral responsibility for an action; how so? Even if one has control, one's actions are still determined deterministically.
gamecraziness2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamecraziness2 "You seem to imply that control increases moral responsibility for an action; how so? Even if one has control, one's actions are still determined deterministically."
I was just wondering if you could give me an example of what you mean by this?
surshot56 2 weeks ago
I enjoyed your presentation. I've been beating my head against these terms for a while, and it's not making sense to me. I felt that we have determined variables and the free will to choose, but we're not always conscious of which is which, or whether we have any.
The fact that people react differently to a situation, e.g. witnessing a person having a heart attack, when they are aware of the 'bystander effect' suggests that our level of control is down to how much we think about how we think.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
“Nothing is easier than to condemn the evil doer, nothing is harder than to understand him.” is Dostoevsky.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
@COEXISTential Yes, that's the quote, thank you!
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
Didn't the Templeton Foundation (Alfred Mele's backers that you cited) get into a bit of strife of being a sheep in wolf's clothing a while back? Backing science with a religious agenda - making their research, somewhat ironically, pre-determined.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
@COEXISTential I've heard several people make accusations of that sort about Templeton. I have no first hand experience with them myself, but I've talked to/heard from about four people who have and they all say they've been hands off and open.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 month ago
Two neuroscientists walking along a road find a severely beaten man lying broken and bleeding in the gutter. The first neuroscientist turns to the other and says, "The man who did this needs our help."
zarkoff45 1 month ago 14
@zarkoff45 LOL.It was worth getting to this video for that joke which I'll be telling in Australia.Cheers.
henryporter101 1 month ago
so an in-control mind is culpable for its actions ? I'm not so sure about that
sausage4mash 1 month ago
That's an 'illicit' spelling of 'elicit'.
inkstersco 1 month ago
That's an 'illicit' spelling of 'elicit'.
inkstersco 1 month ago
How is 'control' different from 'will'? I don't get it.
Charlesdance 1 month ago
@Charlesdance yep , I was confused by that also .seems like he's exchanged free will for the word control ,don't answer the question though .for me it's simple free will is illusionary in actuality it does not exist .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@Charlesdance I don't get it either because it wasn't properly explained.What I did get is that for two and half thousand years,the greatest minds have got it wrong;they should have been talking about 'control' rather than 'will'.My brain has remembered the word 'hubris'.
henryporter101 1 month ago
YOU directly power your emotions by HOW MUCH you think. How much you think is directed by none other than you. If you think about something-it changes. If you have something changing you can consider it. Sometimes we aren't strong enough.
No matter how you try, you can't get away from that responsibility. You can't blame it on anything other than yourself.
If you could, no one would ever be punished because nothing would ever be anyone's fault. It'd just be a lack of free will. That's an excuse.
weswill2008 1 month ago
@weswill2008 Ironically, how much you think is dictated by genes and environment interacting with each other. "sometimes we aren't strong enough" because we aren't, we don't choose to be weak. Well, the whole punishment thing is in debate by people who don't believe in free will, i.e. sam harris, but what's wrong with no one deserving punishment or reward? It's a human construct.
robokoroboko 1 month ago
Remember your video about being wrong the majority of the time?
I think most of the people are wrong on this thread
Why?
Because they are trying to scientifize something that is based off of emotions
Emotions are directly correlated with chemicals in your brain
Guess what
You control those chemicals.
There are people who have methods of slowing their heart down. There are people who have the ability to count to 10 and stop their anger.
I have the ability to stop masturbating if i feel guilt.
weswill2008 1 month ago
@weswill2008 But why do people decide to control their emotions with these techniques? They acquire the learned techniques or the attitude of wanting to change from the environment, and they have no control over the environment. Also, you can change other people, without their 'consent'. If I drive someone insane with torture to the point where they murder someone, or a kid grows up in a cult, goes to war, has a traumatic experience, it's obvious that will have an affect on them.
robokoroboko 1 month ago
@SisyphusRedeemed No problem. Thank you for the response. FYI, I enjoy your videos.
cbl2988 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I understand that you didn't. It was directed at people who have/may bring it up. Rather than ask them one by one, I decided to just make a general post open to anyone to comment on.
cbl2988 2 months ago
@cbl2988 Ah, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
This lecture is on the right track, new ways of thinking about free will and accountability have to be developed. What bothers me though is the definition of "in-control" and "out of-control" brain seems to boil down to observable physical deficiencies. There is a more deeper level that we should be looking at: conciouss brain/mind and the subconciouss brain/mind.
It would seem to me that only the part of WILL that is in conciouss mind should be subjected to accountability...
InDenial2011 2 months ago
If quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic, I still don't see how that helps the free will (the ability to do otherwise) argument. Quantum mechanics introduces randomness. By definition, free will is necessarily deliberate. So how does probability help the free will argument at all? I happen to favor the psychological determinism argument.
cbl2988 2 months ago
@cbl2988 "If quantum mechanics is probabilistic and not deterministic, I still don't see how that helps the free will "
I never said it did. In fact, I explicitly eschewed such an approach. I want to reject both free will and determinism.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
Comment removed
chadpratch 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How on earth does determinism preclude control? The steering mechanism of my car controls the direction of the car's wheels. It does that even if determinism is true. And likewise for every other 'control' mechanism, including ourselves.
If scientists discover that determinism is true, then we have simply discovered that free will and determinism are compatible. That's my view.
Clear404 2 months ago
check out JACQUE FRESCO
Stillillgal 2 months ago
Could I have some clarification?
There is no doubt that experiences in our lives make subconscious preferences like choosing left or right, but what I want to know is how that supports the argument. If a doctor tells you to push a button for the sake of a test you push the button because of his instructions right? If this is true then besides having a preference as pushing left or right, wouldn't any free will to choose whether to push the button or not be relinquished from the start?
WHYAREGOODNAMESTAKEN 2 months ago
is actually under control of some agent which we identify as our self, where determinism provides a counter claim. These viewpoints may not describe the mechanics of control, but instead speaks on the term "control" itself. I suppose in that way, free will and determinism dont provide any meaningful explanation of the physical processes of "control", but instead what provides the control, both of which, I feel, provide a meaningful explanation. Sorry if it was a bit of a ramble (little prep time
ItsShibboleth 2 months ago
Sorry if this comment doesn't quite make sense, as I am a bit uncertain if I am grasping your position that determinism does not give anything meaningful to what it means to be human, in that it fails in the immediate fact that we have control (and this could be said to be the same for free will). I feel that the term "control" was proposed to be a better description is outside of what free will and determinism describes. One states that the control we experience (the ability to repress impulse)
ItsShibboleth 2 months ago
Very interesting lecture. Very thought-provoking.
I guess my one big confusion is what you mean by the difference between us and our brains. How I've understood it is that our brains on a most basic level determine who we are. I don't quite get the notion that our brains and US are two separate entities.
FrankLightheart 2 months ago
@FrankLightheart Well the term 'self' is a highly ambiguous one. There is a sense in which is is our brain, a sense in which it's only part of our brain, a sense in which it is our whole body, a sense in which it's something the brain 'does', a sense in which it is our collection of social relationships... I was speaking loosely (never a wise thing for a philosopher) without mind to which sense I meant. It could be clarified, but I don't think too much hinges on it.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@FrankLightheart Read some Carl Jung.
GazGuitarz 2 months ago
@GazGuitarz Why? Does he explain the difference between the brain and the mind?
FrankLightheart 2 months ago
@FrankLightheart - no, but he does explain the 'duality' of the mind. I guess you're looking for a biological answer?...sorry no help there.
GazGuitarz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FrankLightheart - no, but he does explain the 'duality' of the mind. I guess you're looking for a biological answer?...sorry no help there.
GazGuitarz 2 months ago
@FrankLightheart
Actually, at the most basic level (without going into QM) it is the thoughts that determine who we are (look at work of Bruce Lipton). That brings in the concepts of the conciouss and sub-conciouss mind to this discussion.
Free WILL must reside in the concious mind, the creative mind (ie the neocortex). That is the part of the brain associated with imagination and problem solving. Now the problem comes in when we look at the role of subconcious mind ...
petermlejnek 2 months ago
Comment removed
petermlejnek 2 months ago
Comment removed
petermlejnek 2 months ago
Comment removed
petermlejnek 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pm: continued from below ...
... subconsious has all the programs that are run on automatic and are always run in the present (see work of Bruce Lipton or anyone familiar with psychology). By definition these programs don't enter into your concious awareness. The problem is the programs in your subconcious can be both good and bad. An enviromental trigger can activate a program in your subconciouss. ...
petermlejnek 2 months ago
pm: cont. from below ...
This than has the effect of recruiting blood supply from the rest of the brain (ie neocortex) for the the older structures of the brain thereby interfering with the ability of the conciouss brain to analyze and remedy the situation.
So we should then label this type of behaviour as coming from and "out of control" brain because the control mechanisms have been impaired. Any thoughts?
petermlejnek 2 months ago
Comment removed
petermlejnek 2 months ago
I believe that we have limited free will, at least to the extent we are capable of applying it. QM states give the brain the possibilities (ie consciousness), thoughts/perceptions are selections from those states. The selection is done by WILL. However what is this WILL, here I am going with WILL as described by Evan Harris Walker in his book The Physics Of Consciousness. WILL is something that is non-local and is shared by everyone at all times. ...
petermlejnek 2 months ago
Comment removed
petermlejnek 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pm: cont. from below...
so in reality we alone as individuals are not responsible for all the thoughts that we have, because they could have been part of a thought that was transfered to you in a non-local way. We are however as indivduals responsible for controling those thoughts and actions.
So the question should be under which circumstances can we control the thoughts in our head?
petermlejnek 2 months ago
How would you explain what it means to be "in control" without resorting to the language of free will and determinism? I agree that we have to be in control of our actions before we can be accountable for them, but my account of what it means to be in control is compatibilistic. I think that to be in control of your actions means that your actions are determined by your own motives. The greater hand your motives have in bringing about your behavior, the more control you have over your actions.
philochristos 2 months ago
I contest the commentary on addiction. I feel that addiction is a matter of many deliberate choices made to arrive at the addiction. I contest that addiction is a matter of choice rather than a sub level of determination. I would like to further hear your take on this subject.
IzzySpeaks 2 months ago
We should abandon the notion of free will and determinism and instead focus on results. We should try to understand how people behave and how our actions affect the behaviour of others.
Punishments and other corrective services should be based on what achieves the best outcome in terms of benefit to individuals and society.
AThagoras 2 months ago
I think there is free will in as much as you can choose to do something based on what ever reasons you have
SchizoCarpetBeater 2 months ago
A white shirt would have worked better :D
JolexDB 2 months ago
My suggestion is:
Considering that there is uncertainty in a single particle's position (it literally could be ANYWHERE), then for a brain, with 100,000,000,000 cells which are composed of an incredible amount of molecules which are in turn composed of atoms which are in turn composed of nuclides- which are composed of fundamental particles- and electrons, your action can never be determined, hence free will.
I'd like your thoughts on this :)
saiyanmage 2 months ago
@saiyanmage "your action can never be determined, hence free will."
That, to me, is a fundamental fallacy. Even if actions are not determined, it does not follow that we have free will.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago 5
@SisyphusRedeemed
I don't understand...
saiyanmage 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I'd agree. I'm by no means a scientist, but it would seem to me that even if a particle has some attributes which are not deterministic or even random, that does not give us free will in the sense that we usually mean. The particle may be free in some sense, but our will would still be determined by forces external to our conciousness, those forces would just be random. BTW, you are awesome. Keep up the good work.
TheVofR 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Yes math patterns are not free will.
AEVautomatic 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Indeed, random chance is not quite the same as free will, and it's still unknown at best if any one brain function is the result of a single atom, or something such that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes relevant.
Spalg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed That I would say is true, but also I would say what we describe as uncertainty is only a lack of understanding of all and/or a complete ignorance of part of the physical influences on a particle.
pocoapoco2 2 months ago
@pocoapoco2 "I would say what we describe as uncertainty is only a lack of understanding"
This kind of 'hidden variable' theory has been challenged and largely rejected by current physics. Bell's inequality theorem, in particular, seems to rule it out.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@saiyanmage Explain to me what the process of free will is again please? I find it very strange that there is a argument for free will in the first place. Is not arguing for free will an oxymoron? You are explaining a cause for free will...HELLO! (sarcastic tone) Are particles literally stationed anywhere at any time? is this a FIXED aspect of how the universe functions? I disagree with saying this is a linguistic problem. I think it is a very basic small t truth. We are determined.
chadpratch 2 months ago
@chadpratch or at least I presume we are. It does sound nicer to have the magical powers of Free Will though. Also Morality is a social and human construct... It has nothing to do with this debate. Blame has nothing to do with how the universe functions.
chadpratch 2 months ago
@chadpratch
Not only have you managed to completely ignore what I said, you applied your determinist logic to Heisenberg's logic.
As I have said before, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle throws certainty out of the window. I don't expect someone like you to understand what that actually means.
I suggest taking some courses in basic quantum physics before coming back here.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't expect someone like you to understand what that actually means" This is a very interesting point you make. You have a expectation of my stupidity. You also have made a presumption that I have no knowledge of Heisenberg. You would be correct but I do have some knowledge of BF Skinner. You are making predictions and assumptions on my stupidity. You will "expect" a stupid rebuttal from me based on your knowledge of what I previously posted. Try countering an argument, it will set you free
chadpratch 2 months ago
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can never be sure of a particle's exact position and momentum.
-The brain has about 100 billion brain cells, give or take a few billion.
-All these cells are composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of a nucleus, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are composed of the fundamental particles, and then you have electrons outside of the nucleus.
Continued in next comment.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
I love youtube. You don't get this on the fucking TV...
ಠ‿ಠ
DrSpooglemon 2 months ago
Dont use God to prove there is no Freewill,your actually going to be trapping yourself into a corner. He said God knew he'd sin on Tuesday so its Gods fault. GOD is sovereign,how do i know? Because people Sin and do Wrong,yet God doesnt do what God SHOULD do,and that is destroy them. God knew you would Sin tuesday,but YOU sinned tuesday God DIDNT. Yet what you DID do is what the Bible says "store up wrath" on Judgement Day
TheCh1212 2 months ago
Would love to hear you talk more on explanation. Any chance we could hear that lecture? Thanks for all the great videos on YT.
2cabs2toucan 3 months ago
Do you realize that Shaggy was just a stoner who talked to a dog and always had munchies on him? The whole show was probably just Shaggys delusion...
TheMetalHead102 3 months ago
@TheMetalHead102 Son of Sam!
Nervousification 3 months ago
One acts "incongruent" with their "nature", if their nature is indeed to be a scumbag, by realizing the incentives and consequences that our society provides for following and disobeying the laws, of course. Although the "consequences" of "choices" are constantly being written in the flow of time, your consciousness can percieve all of this, including multiple "possible futures", as "one whole picture", from the present. Note: All this = not even 2 cents. I have no degree.
QuadniverousBeast 3 months ago
Keep in mind, also, that we are assuming determinism + a scumbag who would be enjoying the liberties of 1st world societies. Combine determinism + militaristic, despotic and corrupt society? Whaddya get? Well, termination of anyone who is already known to be determined to be a scumbag, or worse, embrace of scumbaggery, and termination of determined decent people!
QuadniverousBeast 3 months ago
(4)
But ontologicaly speaking your thought is insufficient, because without free will, control is just a situation in brain we call that way, not a possibility of decision.
The old dichotomy will stay.
b26354 3 months ago
(3)
I agree with you practicaly, because I think the new dichotomy leads to better judgements for now, we create the "in control" - maybe he had a choice, let's pass the judgement as if he had free will, "out of control" - let's be utilitarian, there is no need for him to pay.
It is the best we can do I suppose.
b26354 3 months ago
(2)
This line of thought I think is also the foundation of the judgements you cast while using the new vocabulary, so the problem stays - and we need the vocabulary for it. The old one.
I think we use your vocabulary already in practice, but it cannot enter any profound moral philosophy, because it dodges the question it arises from.
b26354 3 months ago
(1)
(sorry for the long post, but this made me thinking)
It seems to me you are setting aside the moral consequences of the old dichotomy free will x determinism. Utilitarian morality arises from determinism, while free will grants us the right for vengeance. If its your choice what you do, you should pay for your actions. If you cannot choose, we should do our best to make our society better place keeping everyone from doing that, but you shouldn't pay for it - you had no choice.
b26354 3 months ago
When you look at your reflection in your "mind's eye", or think about yourself/ consciousness, is this truly "how you are RIGHT NOW"? Is the "true present" still nothing but a fleeting dream due to the reaction time of the synapses and neurons?
QuadniverousBeast 3 months ago
@QuadniverousBeast I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. What do you mean by 'this' when you say 'is this truly "how you are RIGHT NOW"?' I never said the 'true present was nothing but a fleeting dream due to the reaction time of the synapses and neurons,' so I don't know where you got that from. Can you clarify your point?
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
Comment removed
QuadniverousBeast 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Well, that seems to be the burning question regarding determinism vs free will. Call it wishful thinking, but I kind of want to believe that there IS free will, and that "active consciousness" can be considered a PRACTICAL respresentation of the true present. Determinism is no excuse to be an absolute moral scumbag, and those who DO use it as an excuse, well then, negate this against them, the cops were also already "determined" to bust your excuse-using ass.
QuadniverousBeast 3 months ago
@QuadniverousBeast But the question is HOW DO you blame the scumbag for acting according to his nature, a nature that he himself did not ask for? This does not mean that we do not incarcerate him, but ...correct me if I am wrong...it seems you are trying to have it both ways. Determinism does not allow us to blame the roof for falling on our heads, so how do we EXPECT the scumbag to act against his nature? How DOES one act incongruent with their nature?
HedgehogRebellion 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed So what you are saying is that you are a compatibilist. Watch your own video man you are a compatibilist. If there is this "free won't" then it too is just mechanical brain function. I watched the entire video and I can summarize it like this. "As long as your brain is functioning normally then free will and determinism are compatible." So why did you impugn compatibilism initially then adopt a compatibilist stance?
AEVautomatic 3 months ago
@AEVautomatic No, I'm not a compatiblist. That gives credence to BOTH free will and determinism; I want to give credence to neither. 'Free will' is nonsense, but so is 'determinism.' They are both useless, uninformative, vacuous terms that explain nothing about human behavior and tell us nothing about why people do what they do. I don't subscribe to 'free won't', that's Libet's model.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "They are both useless, uninformative, vacuous terms that explain nothing about human behavior and tell us nothing about why people do what they do."
Actually, compatibilism provides you with the foundation needed to do just that. The compatibilist free will narrows down just the type of actions that we would like to assign people responsibility for, and without determinism there is no causal explanation for anything.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed It's true that they don't, by themselves, tell us why people do what they do, except that determinism implies a causal chain of some sort, but they don't claim to either. Compatibilism simply claims to be able to sort out how and why we assign responsibility in a world where nobody ever could have done otherwise. In that respect they are not vacuous.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but isn't saying that it makes sense that "Fred" has control where "Ed" does not doing the same thing as the terms "free will" and "determinism"? It seems the question just becomes a matter of "what is control", when you could ask the same thing about the other terms.
I agree with you. I think we need something that describes human action. I'm just curious if you have a further defense of this notion of "control".
insidetrip101 2 months ago
@insidetrip101 I actually do have more to say about control, and I've been meaning to do a follow up video for some time expanding on this idea, but I've just been too busy to actually make it. Hopefully I'll find the time at some point, but for now, all I have is a promissory note.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@QuadniverousBeast He thinks we are magically in controll of the synapses and neurons despite the fact that consiousness is neurons and synapses!!! consioussness is always one step behind, its the expression of the process not a determiner of it... any neurologist will tell you this. It cannot be a determiner for that would mean your consiousness somehow caused the activity when your brain started... since your consiousness is the brain(just see brain damage) this is not possible
massownage1 3 months ago
@massownage1 Highly controversial research and suspect conclusions(on free will).
Pawelp 3 months ago
Cont'd...furthermore, it seems to me that if determinism is true then we merely 'appear' to have moral obligations, but do not actually have any.
If determinism is true, then anything I action I perform, no matter how 'controlled' is one that could not have refrained from performing in the exact circumstances in which I found myself.
But I could not have had any obligation not to act in that way, no matter what act I perform. For 'ought' implies 'can'. Thus everything is permitted.
Clear404 3 months ago
@Clear404 "If determinism is true, then anything I action I perform, no matter how 'controlled' is one that could not have refrained from performing in the exact circumstances in which I found myself."
It's not controlled at all if it's determined. But since we have concrete, empirical examples of control (and the lack thereof) we can conclude that determinism is incompatible with our current best understanding of science.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Pure speculation. Just because some of our choices are made at the very moment of conception(unlike the usual 7 seconds before) it does not follow that therefore free will or randomness is evident. This could be just as determined(and probably is) as the subconsciouss choices.
massownage1 3 months ago
@massownage1 "This could be just as determined(and probably is) as the subconsciouss choices."
I'll answer you with your own words:
"Pure speculation."
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed it is indeed . You seem to think otherwise:
" we have concrete, empirical examples of control (and the lack thereof) we can conclude that determinism is incompatible with our current best understanding of science."
Everything ends up in speculation which is why philosophy is a waiste of time. Philosophers can only be judged rethorically. Unlike science were someone like Einstein can be vindicated or refuted regardless of how he articulates it.
massownage1 3 months ago
@massownage1 You seem to think that there is a hard and fast distinction between science and philosophy. There isn't. They are extensions of each other. Much of Einstein's work is in the philosophy of physics, as is Hawking's work, and as Dawkins' is in the philosophy of biology.
Take a look at my quote again:
" we have concrete, empirical examples of control"
Concrete, empirical, not rhetorical. I'm trying, as a philosopher, to craft a scientifically testable set of ideas here.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed hey I am a student of philosophy but we have to be honest and bruise our own egos. I dont think the last word has been said on determinism since we dont know if free will is in action when its not subconsciously produced choices. A strong case for determinism is precognition: there are some(very few) able to see future events(specific ones, with correct dates), This is not possible if the future is not yet written, unless they guessed all of it(I dont like those odds).
massownage1 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Btw just a quick note on quantum physics, this is not problematic for determinism according to Lawrence Krauss since the wave function is deterministic. He is indeed also a determinist.
massownage1 3 months ago
Surely even the most hard-nosed incompatibilist is going to agree that we can distinguish between those who have control and those who do not (and degrees of control etc) even if determinism is true.
So, erm, I don't really see how the free will problem has been 'disolved'. For the free will problem is essentially one to do with the sort of control needed for moral responsibility. It isn't about just any kind of control. It is about what kind of control can make us truly 'blameworthy'.
Clear404 3 months ago
@Clear404 "even the most hard-nosed incompatibilist is going to agree that we can distinguish between those who have control and those who do not"
An incompatiblist might, but not a determinist. If determinism were true, then Isaac Newton is the only one in control. There is no difference between 'choosing' to murder in cold blood and being blown off a building and falling on someone. Neither have any kind of 'control' in the scientific sense I'm using the term.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@Clear404 "the free will problem is essentially one to do with the sort of control needed for moral responsibility."
I disagree. The free will hypothesis is essentially a metaphysical issue, not an issue of moral psychology. It has implications for moral psychology, but that's a side issue, not the core issue. As van Inwagen's definition suggests, it's about the counterfactual nature of whether we could have done otherwise.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't think that's right at all - it is a debate that belongs primarily in moral philosophy. It is one's position on the compatibility of the type of control needed for moral responsibility that earns you the title 'compatibilist' or 'incompatibilist'. Someoen who thought that our decision making processes are indeterministic but that this makes not one dot of difference to whether we should be deemed deserving of praise or blame, would be described as a compatibilist....
Clear404 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...after all, incompatibilists don't deny that we have control over what we do. They don't deny that we have alternative possibiltilies in the compatibilsit sense of the phrase. They just don't think any of that kind of control will make one fully morally responsible. Something - moral responsibility - is incompatible with determinism becasue it requires a sort of control that requires indeterminism.
Remove the moral responsibility issue and what, exactly, is anyone.
Clear404 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...remove the moral responsibility issue and what is anyone disagreeing about? Whether determinism is actually true or not? No, that's not what divides a compatibilist and an incompatibilist. Whether we have alternative possibilities if determinism is true? No. It is beyond dispute that we have conditional alternative possibilities if determinism is true. Every incompatiblist will allow that. And it is also beyond dispute that we lack 'unconditional' ones if D is T
Clear404 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd: Perhaps you will say that the disagreement is over which conception of 'alternative possibility' best answers to our experience of decision making. Hardly. And anyway, that seems of trivial importance. For instance, let's say I (as many incompatibilists would) agree that our experience of decision making does not in some way include an experience of indeterminism. So, i simply agree that there is no introspective evidence for indeterminism. Yet....
Clear404 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...yet I hold that we are not morally responsible if determinism is true. So, experientially I agree that there would be no difference between making a decision if determinism is true, and making a decision is indeterminism is true. Yet I hold that we are not morally resopnsible if determinism is true, becasue I will not have exercised the right kind of control over my decision. Well, then I bet you my house I'll be described as an incompatibilist.
Clear404 3 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Cont'd...I have rambled: but in my view 'determinist' is not a position in the free will debate. Determinist, surely, is just the view that determinism is true. You can be an incompatibilist determinist or a compatibilist determinist (or some sort of nihilist about free will). But compatibilism, incompatibilism, and - not sure there's a term for it - but nihilist will do - are the master positions in the free will debate, and moral responsibility determines membershipseems2me
Clear404 3 months ago
@ 20:00. Every decision is a thoroughly mechanical process. The outcome of the decision-making process determined. And this is not a problem for free will.
The neurology in that brain over there is making wrong decisions; we had better do something about it.
The neurology in this brain right here has made some wrong decisions; this brain had better do something about that.
When is free will? In the planning (self-programming) made much longer than 6 seconds ago.
Free Will = Trained Brain
George4943 4 months ago
Philosophy will never make progress in this area because supernaturalism is the only position that allows for free will, get over it.
Naytardo 4 months ago
I fail to see how rewording solves anything here. Determinism was an intuitive but wrong idea, free will was an intuitive but wrong idea as well. No need to compromise, just to educate. And sure - the legal system will have to adopt.
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago
@smarthandsomeguy Your point is not bad, however, you might be underestimating the power of language in scientific and philosophical problems!
merryvinbock 4 months ago
@merryvinbock >"the power of language"
Well, you have a point there, too.
Right now I think that we maybe should consider reinventing some sort of dualism, instead of packing everything in one big box. It seems, as if that what I perceive as "me" is by necessity in concordance with what my brain does (I am neither slave nor commander of my brain).
I don't mind a metaphysical 'mind/soul', as long as we don't attribute it with magical powers, or infer guilt or responsibility in an absolute sense.
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago
VERY interesting! Thank you!
Venaloid 4 months ago
Great talk which helps me structure what I have been thinking about. I liked the idea of a committee rather than the executive. In future talks pershaps you can dvelve more deeply into "cultural" factors (acquired over time) and social psychology (copy cat actions in short-term). Exercise of control is governed by a system of rewards and punishments and how far a person acts reckless is again influenced by predetermined causes. Thanks again for a brilliant presentation.
tgwashdc 5 months ago
Nice points. However if God exists; you can not explain him away or truth away.
vman358 5 months ago
@jffryh
Think of it more as: a mind in control, and a mind disengaged. Is a man who has had his pre frontal cortex suppressed or damaged in control of his actions? Arguably no. His brain is damaged and abnormal and as such so will his decision making be abnormal and damaged. Free will need not apply. Provided a brain is the seat of consciousness, then we must state that a brain is the engine that drives control.
At least this is the gist ofthe lecture I got.
Mostlyharmless1985 5 months ago
2 ?'s:
#1. What would be the difference between a free will and a will that is not free?
#2 difference between a will that is not free and no will at all?
jffryh 5 months ago
What university do you work at?
SineFractal 5 months ago in playlist More videos from SisyphusRedeemed
@SineFractal The University of Southern Indiana
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
This lecture seems to steer towards the idea that 'controlling' your actions is something close to free will. Isn't conscious control just another predetermined mechanism of the brain? If our consciousness is a product of our brain, which is a physical system that submits to natural law, then by definition it should be in theory predictable and deterministic.
apatheticwretch 5 months ago
@apatheticwretch I plan on a follow up video differentiating 'control' from 'free will' more clearly. But in short: (a) there are no 'natural laws' in the sense that are required for your argument to work. The universe is simply not deterministic. (b) This does not mean we have 'free will', however. (C) Your use of 'in theory' is a massive hand-waving, unscientific speculation. Science as it actually exists today suggests nothing of the kind.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed My understanding is that the mechanisms in our body are a cascade of chemical reactions that are not random, but will happen exactly the same way given the same conditions. That's what I meant by 'natural laws' and predictability. By deterministic 'in theory' I meant we may not have the depth of knowledge or the means to calculate these things right now, but IF all particles behave predictably and there is no randomness, then there is only one outcome, which can be determined.
apatheticwretch 5 months ago
@apatheticwretch "IF all particles behave predictably and there is no randomness, then there is only one outcome, which can be determined."
But the antecedent is false. There is randomness, quite a lot of it in fact. Nature is not deterministic, it's stochastic. And not just on the quantum level, either: stochastic processes pervade nature on many levels, up to and including human behavior. That's why there are no 'laws of nature' in the strict sense.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
@apatheticwretch I plan to be talking about this sort of thing on DPRJones' BlogTV charity event for MSF. I'll be one with DPR and HonestDiscussoner tomorrow (Sunday 9/18) at 7 PM EST. Check it out.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
Comment removed
apatheticwretch 5 months ago
I find your lecture quite interesting. By the looks of it, I'm guessing you're a neuroscientist/behavioral scientist. I'm a college student(majoring in psychology). It kinda caught me what you said about science being able to figure out completely about brain and behaviour. I'm interested in experimental psychology; so, in a postgraduate- or employee-demand basis, would it be time-wasting to study psychology? (your opinion)
SwitchStrings 5 months ago
@SwitchStrings I'm actually a professor of philosophy with an interest in philosophy of science and neurophilosophy. I'm not as attuned to the job market in psych, but my impression is that, like philosophy, it's competitive, but if you love it, are willing to work hard, are reasonably smart and talented, and get into a good grad program, and have patience and tenacity, then you should be able to get a job. My 2 cents.
SisyphusRedeemed 5 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the quick reply. I'll take your advice. About the video - what you called control: is it not just an illusion?(controlled by hormones, conditioning, perception of reality, cognitive dissonance etc.)
SwitchStrings 5 months ago