 You finished 30 minutes before. Thank you, it was wonderful. I'm one of the few people here that I'm sure I arranged it in my life, right? But I want to come back to the concept of free will. The whole philosophy, the whole system is based on that. If we discover that free will doesn't exist, right? The whole tower falls. Yes. And you mentioned Sam Harris earlier as well. Sam what? Sam Harris. Yes. And I'm sure you know that he's not a huge fan of the concept of free will. And I'm not looking at the illusion of free will. You know the whole book about that. And the whole field of neuroscience today is working actively and making progress about the fact that we start to understand brain better and better. And for now, until now, the evidence seems to suggest that free will is really hard to locate. Yes. And so again, I'm a huge fan of Anne Ryan and her philosophy. But if it appears that free will is indeed... Then who cares? Then this discussion is meaningless. Then why am I here? Then it doesn't... Nothing I say matters. I mean to me, the idea we don't have free will is so bizarre. It's so ridiculous. And with all due respect to the scientific information, we're still at the very, very beginning of understanding how the mind works. To make declaratory statements based on research that suggests that they see something happen before you raise your arm or all this stuff that I read about is absurd. It's ridiculous. We're at the beginning of the science. There's still 100 years before we fully understand how the mind works at least. Neuroscientists that I talk to who are familiar with philosophy say that the science has almost nothing to say about free will. Not anything I could do off the hand. If you send me an email, I could ask around. I'm not an expert. But to me, it's ridiculous. Science will never tell us that we don't have free will. Let me make that clear. Science will never tell us that we don't have free will. Any more than science can tell us that reality doesn't exist. That's the level at which free will is at. It depends on how difficult concepts are. It's a difficult concept. I invented to find free will as the ability. It's the choice to focus your mind, to be in focus, to initiate contact with the world. Or to not. Focus or not to focus. It's not about whether it's my hand right now or not. It's primarily about the issue of are you in focus or are you not? Are you activating your mind or are you not activating your mind? And you, something is activating that mind that is not, what do you call it? Billion ball causality related. And she defined causality different than David Hume defined causality. She defined causality as the thing acting based upon its nature. Not the thing acting because something else acted on it. And the nature of consciousness, of human consciousness is to have free will. It acts based on its nature. And you cannot undo a philosophical concept like that with science. Science ultimately will tell us how it all works once free will is there. But it won't explain, it won't explain a way, it cannot explain a way free will. Any way, any different than science can explain a way reality. Science will never explain a way the existence of this glass. No, we accept that. But because I see it. That's why it can't, because I see it. It's right here, I see it. There's no question. You can see your free will. There's nothing special about your senses that your introspection doesn't have. I know, you know quantum physics has not made me change my mind about this glass. No science that you come up with will make you question the existence because I see it of my free will. I know that I'm choosing to be here in the sense of to be engaged. And I know that. And that's knowledge, the same kind of knowledge that's seeing this glass is. It's the same philosophical, epistemologically. Those are the same types of knowledge. The problem with science, the scientist today, not the problem with science, is that they have a corrupt philosophical understanding of these concepts. And therefore undermining, you know, the science, the philosophy is undermining the real science. What they're discovering is not correlated with what they think they're discovering philosophically. It's the same problem I think they have with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an observable reality. What's going on there is real. But how you interpret it, that's a question of philosophy of science. How you interpret the results, the neurological results is a question for philosophy of science. And the question of whether you have free will is not a scientific question. It is an observational question. It's an axiomatic question. It's something you observe directly, just like this glass. It's the best I can do. Not my expertise, you know, I'm not in epistemology. But I think that's what I would say. Thank you.