 Okay, Simon asks, I am an objectivist, but I disagree about free will. Could you speak to the idea of free will, not existing, but consciousness existing created by the brain as an emergent phenomena? But then why should I talk about it? If you have no free will, it's a meaningless idea that you can have reason without free will. Reason needs to be activated. Something needs to activate free reason. Reason is not automatic. People are not just reasonable. People are not just rational. It's not just an automatic function. Reason and rationality. They need to be turned on. Effort. Effort needs to be exerted in order to get them going. That's the free will. The free will is exerting the effort necessary to reason. It's exerting the effort necessary to focus rather than drift. So, consciousness exists, but consciousness, human consciousness, is unique because human consciousness has the capacity to, in a sense, turn itself, not turn itself on, but to utilize the reason that we are capable of, that our brain has made possible to us. But that doesn't happen automatically, is the point. That doesn't just happen. You have to, again, turn it on. You have to choose to use it. That's what free will is. So, I can't talk about a consciousness existed created by brain as an emergent phenomena. That's an animal consciousness. That's what every other animal has. They can reason. They can think. They can be rational. They can't change their mind in a deep sense. They can't turn it off either. They can't turn their consciousness off. A cheetah can decide, I'm not going to think today. Well, not think. I'm not going to do the things necessary for my survival today. I'm just going to laze around and if I dive starvation today, so be it. A cheetah can't do that. A dog can't do that. They can't make that choice. There's something very different between human beings and cheetahs, human beings and dogs. Human beings can make that choice. You can actually say to yourself, I'm not going to engage. I'm not going to think. I'm not going to use my means of survival. I'm going to just veg out here and do nothing for the rest of my life. And if I die, I die. I don't care. I don't care. That's not consciousness doing that. That's a very specific type of consciousness. And it's a characteristic of consciousness. It's a faculty of consciousness. Which is reason. Reason is a faculty of man. And reason is free will. It's ability to say no. Or yes. I mean, more importantly, yes. Yes, I'm going to focus. Yes, I'm going to think. Yes, I'm going to go by facts and reality alone. Yes, I'm going to apply my reason every way into all things. Yes, I am going to survive. And no, I will not die. No, I will not go out of existence. That's what free will is. And that doesn't require magic. It's just a characteristic of our consciousness. That part of its emergent properties or part of whatever we don't know exactly is this ability to control. To control your decision. To say I and have it mean something. So absolutely free will exists. Absolutely it's not magic. We don't understand what it is scientifically. But so what? We don't understand scientifically. A gazillion things that happen in the universe. And we don't declare therefore that they don't exist. Or that they're just imagination. That we're making them up. Just like we don't declare that they, God. We say, I don't know. It exists. But I don't know. I don't completely understand it. I don't completely get it. To say because we don't understand free will from a physics perspective is to say nothing about its existence or nonexistence. Free will exist because you can perceive it. Free will exist because you can introspect it. It requires no more than that. It is an axiomatic concept in that sense. It is. Every attempt to refute it. Every attempt to deny it refutes itself. Who is denying the free will? How do you know? Who is you? What does it even mean? What does it even mean to say I don't believe? Well, what choice do you have if there's no free will? Why are you even talking to me? How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youths? Philosophies based upon religions, theologians, dogmatists. The very first difference. Objectivism tells you that it is not right. It is not proper to men to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally or because you were born to it. You have not chosen it rationally. What objectivism will tell you is that reason. Man's reason is his basic means of survival. That is the most important faculty which he has and he has to guide his life and make his choices by means of his rational faculty. He has to make his own choices but he has to know how to make them. It is immoral for him to act on his emotions, to be guided by the whim of the moment. That objectivism holds as very wrong, very immoral and morality in fact consists of following your reason to the best of your ability. So that rationality is the basic virtue from which all the others proceed.