 אוקיי, שפן פנים אכמד מדהים ושובבים שלי. לא כתב. אני כתוביל, שהצלויה של פרופסטי נאסיסט יפה של פרופסטי נאסיסט. הוא לא תאסס את זה? עם פרופסטי נאסיסט ובכל נאסיסט? יא ילדו? הוא לא אוהב? מה חשב של סייקופת? סייקופטי, אנטישושל פרסונלטי-דיסודור, זה פתעה של פתעה. יש איזה קצת דאות על זה. יש סייקופטי מאוד קורלטי, בין סיביר, סטרקטרל, ופונקצי, דיסטרבנסי בבירי ובאלטמת החלטה סייקופטי. סייקופטים, כשלאות, לא יש שם פתעה שהם ילדים. האם אנחנו יכולים לסייקופטים? כשאנחנו יכולים לסייקופטים ובאלטמתים לסייקופטים? יש שם פתעה של פתעה? עכשיו, אני חלטתי עם שם סייקופטי ובאלטמתי אז תלמיד לך, ובסייקופטי ובאלטמתי ובאלטמתי לסייקופטי ובאלטמתי לסייקופטי פתעה ובאלטמתי ובאלטמתי ובאלטמתי אבל עכשיו, מה אני רוצה להפוך הוא סביב או שבו יש איזה שם? יש איזה אילוזיון? או באלטי? כשאני אוכל ואני סתבקנין ואני אמצע של מליגנות סביב נורסיסים ולמה שזה יגיד את זה אני פרופסור סייקולוגי מה אתה יכול לעשות? יש לא שם נחשי היתה את זה את כל אולי כי הם היחדים ובשרוי ובכן, ובאלטמתי ובסייקופטי תלמיד את זה וזה אולי שאני הרבה פעולה לגבי שקוט, דגלוס, ג'ייקופסון או מה שאתה חכה לגבי נורסיסים ואני אמצע את זה ואני אמצע את זה אני אמצע את השאלה יש איזה אילוזיון ואני אמצע את אילוזיון ובשרוי שזה יגיד ביום לא ביום אבל ביום כמו אני אז שקוט עשו לי מה זה אילוזיון ואני אמרתי אילוזיון הוא פחות יגיד לא פחות יגיד פחות יגיד הם שבאלטים אחד של הכל הכל הכל, אם לא הכל הכל הכל הכל הכל הוא פחות אחרי הוא פחות וביום, שזה פחות יגיד פחות יגיד הוא פחות יגיד כי הוא פחות לך שזה יגיד only agents with free will can be held morally responsible ביום אני אמצע את זה אם שלא יש פחות יגיד everything you do is not your choice אם שלא יש פחות יגיד you are determined you're predetermined אם שלא יש פחות יגיד I can't hold you responsible for what you're doing אם שלא יש פחות יגיד I can't blame you you can't feel guilty and I should never punish you for anything you do because it's not your fault you have no free will but if you do have free will you are what we call a morally responsible agent you have agency you're deserving of praise or punishment depending on your choices so free will comprises three conditions three elements number one the ability to choose the ability to act otherwise not the way you did but otherwise this ability to survey the terrain and then pick up an option and then act on it this is the first condition for free will the second element in free will is having control over one's choices and actions when you're intoxicated when you're mentally ill or severely mentally ill for example when you are schizophrenic there is a question there is even a legal defense and the insanity defense not guilty by reason of insanity and so you need to have full control over your choices and actions in order to qualify as an agent with free will and then the last element is that the choice or act that you have adopted are rationally motivated if you act irrationally then there's an open question as to whether you have free will because theoretically at least free will is intended to maximize the good your good, your interest other people's interest free will drives all of us inexorably towards maximizing the total good in the world when we make choices that enhance evil and increase it it is very doubtful whether we have free will but we say why people can choose evil people do act in evil ways yes but history shows that these actions are usually self-defeating and self-destructive and so there is a question of who would freely choose to self-destruct or self-defeat wait a minute you say what about people who commit suicides they make choices they take actions and these actions are intended to obliterate and negate them and destroy them and vitiate them aren't these people endowed with free choice again it's an open question suicide is motivated by very powerful internal processes do these people have control over these processes we are not sure actually it seems that they don't because 9 out of 10 people who have attempted suicide and failed are very happy that they have failed that is not a strong indication of free will but be the case as it may these are the three elements the ability to choose or act otherwise than you have done having control over your choices and actions and that the choices are rationally motivated majority of cases this would lead to an increase in the total good in the world but not always the very concept of free will is founded on convenient delusions delusions like time or like causation time and causation are short hands they are language elements they don't really exist out there we know in physics for example there's no such thing as time and causation as many philosophers hum, mill, others many philosophers have said clearly causation is simply a mistake it's when event B follows event A all the time we tend to think that event A had caused event B at any rate time and causation are convenient delusions because they make sense and order of the world we'll come to it a bit later free choice is founded on these two assumptions because free choice implies that you make a choice A and it is followed by action B so it implies causation and it implies an error of time which progresses from the past always to the future there is a strange thing there is a concept called teleology teleology is when we attribute purposeful actions to objects, to animals and so on in science teleology is a no no word it's forbidden you're not allowed to attribute purpose to events so for example you should never say B collects pollen from flowers in order to make honey in order to make honey the purpose this is teleology what you can say scientifically is B collects pollen from flowers and then B makes honey that's a scientific description of what happens but the minute you say B does A in order to do B B that's not scientific and it's strictly forbidden and it is known as teleology there is one exception though teleology is prohibited in all sciences but it mysteriously permeates foundationally philosophy and more specifically the field of ethics we do say that people have purpose, direction goal they choose A in order to do B they do B in order to continue with C in order teleology is the cornerstone actually of free will is the foundation stone of ethics and so the whole edifice is on shaky grounds because what have you either the teleology is acceptable or it is not you can't have it both ways you can't have the teleological cake and eat it but this is precisely what we are doing because free will implies purpose, directiveness intentionality going towards a goal accomplishing something premeditated and so there are many ways and so both the external world and our internal world serve as constraints they constrain us for example you cannot jump 10 meters up in the air why can't you jump 10 meters up in the air because a small thing called gravity gravity constrains you you cannot live to be 300 years old because biology constrains you there are many things you cannot do because you are constrained by the external world but what we often neglect is to realize that we are also constrained by our internal world not only by the external world we are constrained by our upbringing we are constrained by our childhood trauma we are constrained by our character and temperament and personality we are constrained by internal processes which we can self-regulate or which are dysregulated we are constrained by our attachment style so many things constrain us from the inside one could even say that we are as constrained from the inside as we are from the outside and so we inhabit these two systems external and internal and we are limited by them we are hampered by them they are impediments to our full potential we cannot choose and we cannot act contrary to nature but we also cannot choose and we cannot act contrary to our individual nature what we call change is merely a transition between different constrained systems when we move from one system to another we affect change when we move from earth to space we can jump 10 meters up in the air that is change but we are still constrained we are still constrained by the new environment we move from one set of constraints to another so on the face of it ostensibly free will is a myth there's no such thing the number of constraints external and internal is so enormous that it's very dubious or doubtful that you can make any choice or take any action which is unconstrained but the word free in free will implies a lack of any constraint because the minute you're constrained even by one constraint you're not free the minute you're limited even by one limit you're not free the minute there's a boundary which you cannot cross even if it's only one boundary you're not free so it's very questionable whether there weren't free in free will is applicable this is called determinism determinism based on laws is merely optical and this is the approach philosophy known as compatibilism so determinism in these cases optical for two reasons first of all there are always other options one of the arguments in the philosophy of free will is that if I put a gun to your head I take away your free will is of course explicitly untrue if someone puts a gun to your head you are still possessed of free will you can choose to die actually in Judaism one is instructed to choose death over certain transgressions someone puts a gun to your head tells you to commit incest with your daughter you should choose to die according to Judaism there's always a choice it's wrong to say as many have in philosophy that there are situations where there's no choice there's always a choice and if there's always a choice then nomological determinism is very doubtful allow me to plug in my laptop I forgot to plug it into the battery you see no free will okay Shushanim again so this is the first argument against nomological determinism that we always faced with the monopoly of choices but much more importantly there's another argument in hyper super duper complex systems such as the human body human mind the universe societies human societies and civilizations in very very complex systems the number of probable pathways is so enormous that for all practical reasons for all practical purposes we can never ever specify all these pathways or even most of these pathways I repeat this very complex sentence because it's crucial we live in complex systems we inhabit as human beings complex systems we have our bodies which are exceedingly complex we have our minds which are even more complex we live in societies and civilizations on a planet in the universe and all these are super complex systems in super complex systems the number of possible pathways the number of possible evolutions or developments is so gigantic so humongous that we can never ever make an exhaustive list of all these pathways or even most of these pathways we can never get it fully right this is girdle's theorem of incompleteness chaos theory quantum mechanics we are beginning to realize the limitations of our ability to describe the world let alone comprehend it so these systems as far as we are concerned appear to be either random or subject to free will if these systems are random there is a school of philosophy called libertarianism and it says that we actually do have free will because the world is random it's not predetermined and so we act in it as free will agents this is a serious mistake we'll come to it a bit later I think that a good definition of free will will be that it is the conscious conscious introspective experience of the degrees of freedom in systems such as our brains or society I'm going to repeat this again free will must be conscious must be introspective because you observe yourself in this process so free will is a conscious introspective experience because you experience your free will but experience of what experience of the complexity of these systems experience of the degrees of freedom in these systems such as the brain or society free will reflects the fact that our ability to know the world is limited by our own finitude and mortality our descriptions of reality including psychological reality will always be subject to uncertainty indeterminacy and apparent randomness and this is a frightening realization because what I'm telling you is that we can never get the world right we can never understand reality fully there will always be darkness dark matter, dark energy black holes the world is becoming darker by the minute at least according to physics and it is terrifying because understanding the world comprehending it allows you to predict it and prediction or predictability is the foundation of survival so it's a terrifying realization and it produces anxiety existentially call it angst it implies that there is an external locus of control if you don't understand the world fully your life is determined from the outside by forces and processes which in principle even you can never fathom and this creates a sense of profound helplessness and hopelessness so we defend against this helplessness and lack of autonomy and agency by deceiving ourselves into believing that we are somehow exempt from the laws of nature that we can alter the ineluctable cause of events that we have superhuman powers so to speak that we are marvel comics superheroes because a stone a bee an elephant a comet, a black hole a white dwarf everyone and everything in the universe are subject are subject to laws which are deterministic and unfold inexorably even if we are incapable of fully grasping these laws even if in principle we can never map out the territory we can never make an exhaustive list of all the possibilities we still know that they are out there that the universe is a machine and that if we at some point would be able to gain total knowledge of this machine we would be able to predict it perfectly including predict every one of its components humans also so to say that humans are the only exception to this rule that humans somehow are not determined from the outside that they are not subject to the laws of nature that they are not machines to say this is of course self deceiving encounter factual but we need this deception we need this lie we need this confabulation because otherwise we will feel totally diminished we will feel gun eliminated we will feel cogs in a machine we would feel that our lives are of no importance we will feel exempt from moral responsibility we will feel that everything is determined predestined to use a religious term and so this would destroy everything everything we've ever built as human beings we can't afford this and so we light ourselves we say yes maybe we can't know the universe perfectly maybe we will never attain perfect knowledge of the world but we know everything there is to know about ourselves so we know for sure that we have free will it's a useful bit of self deception and it should be perpetuated for two reasons are we into our inability to secure only information about reality free will feels real you ask anyone that will tell you of course I have free will I make choices I determine the course of my life in small matters the second reason that we should perpetuate the myth the legend urban legend of free will is that the concept of free will guarantees the acceptance of moral responsibilities and their reactions to moral responsibility just desert blame and restorative justice we can't survive without this so we can't survive without a construct of free will it is the belief in the freedom to choose the belief in the freedom to do otherwise regardless of whether such liberty is nearly an illusion that's not the question right now the belief that it is not an illusion is the foundation of human civilization it's core free will is an article of faith it is not a fact it is not a hypothesis it's not a theory it has no truth value it's not true or false it has no ontological status only an epistemological status it is faith it's a form of religion and so Jacobson asked me at some point what forms of free will if it exists at all would fit the modern scientific discourse the answer is none there is no form of free will that fits the modern scientific discourse modern science is dichotomous some of it is deterministic in other words some scientists and some disciplines believe that there are laws of nature which unfold they cannot be stopped they are inexorable and they lead always from A to B this is the nomological approach it's determinism in other fields like I mentioned quantum mechanics believing probability or randomness but in both approaches whether you are a determinist and whether you are a probabilist whichever attitude you have towards reality whether you believe that reality is essentially random and order comes out of randomness or whether you believe that order is dictated by laws which are hardwired built into the fabric of reality never mind what your attitude is in both approaches there is no place for free will and this is called the intelligibility problem free will has no place free will has no place in modern science period no form of modern science no branch of modern science no discipline in modern science accommodates or can accommodate in principle free will if the universe is preordained and predestined for example by God then of course individual agency is counterfactual cannot exist if on the other hand events are random there can be no will there can be no choice there can be no action actually because choice will action imply intentionality they imply order they imply causation they imply choice and premeditation so they imply the opposite of randomness and if the world is random they can't exist but they mean that man converts the random into the structure that man is an agent of increasing order in the universe a negentropic agent agent that fights entropy humans in this view are agents of determinism actually they are the shapers of reality in accordance with the laws of nature they kind of enter reality they are subject to laws of nature but then they use the laws of nature to make choices and decide on courses of action but this is just kicking the can down the road we are still faced with the issue of randomness when humans make decisions and actions the consequence of which is an increase in order they make these choices they embark on certain actions in a random universe so there's still the question how can you have choice and free will and structured action and an increase in order in a random universe it's a problem if the universe is random there can be no negentropic agents or at least no long term negentropic agents local agents and short term agents on the one hand and also if the universe is random the very concept of choice or action or will are counterfactual they can't exist in a random universe if on the other hand the universe is deterministic then what is the role of mankind if mankind just translates the laws of nature into an increase in order this does not doesn't necessarily involve free will and according to the law of passimony which is the law that governs science good science or comes razor if we don't need a certain assumption we should not use it we don't need free will to explain the actions of human beings in a deterministic universe so we should not use free will we don't need God to explain reality in the world so we should not use God every single philosopher I ever heard of grappled with the question of free will and tried to square the circle ultimately I think it is just a question of frame of reference and level of description the same the level of description is crucial because when you transition from one level of description to another there's a total disconnect between the ensuing descriptive text let's give you an example the same substance can be described on a molecular level as two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen it's a formal description it captures a lot of the essence it's valid, it's accurate it's subject to falsification so it's scientific it's a level of description the molecular level but now let's transition to another level of description the human level humans are much more complex than molecules so the level of description human level of description is much more complex than the molecular level of description and when we look at the same substance from the more complex human level of description it becomes water, cold water both descriptions are valid statements both are repeat this both descriptions the molecular description and the human description they are valid statements there is no similarity of this substance and yet they have nothing in common I think free will is this kind of problem it depends crucially on the frame of reference and the level of description from a fine-grained point of view of the entire world when your frame of reference or level of description is the whole universe free will is a confabulation from the point of view of the universe there is no such thing as free will they are only pathetic creatures who believe that they have free will delude themselves into having free will because it's good for social functioning but if we go down if we transition from the cosmic point of view to the human being's perspective if we go down a few levels of description free will becomes a very useful organizing an explanatory principle from a human point of view free will helps us make sense of life and provides one with self-efficacious guidance and as I said before it also feels completely real Scott asked me about my chronon field theory and developed by 8 and Suchard and others and he asked me if in chronon field theory there is free will and I answered by saying that more so than any other theory I'm aware of there is free will in chronon field theory the chronon field theory is all about time as a field of potentiality as some of these potentials materialize they constitute input but input not to any deterministic process as in other theories in physics the minute a potential materializes it feeds into other probable processes or events in other words potentials feed potentials potentials bring about more potentials choice and action easily fit into this view of the universe because our brains are just another such superposition I will not go more deeply into this there videos on my other channel vacuum musings where I describe chronon field theory learn more about it there finally Jacobson begs for mercy he says any final words of anxiety discomfort if not anguish and torture vacuum I do not do comfort but thank you for giving me the opportunity everything whose work I've read has miserably failed in tackling the thorny topic of free will even the most rigorous among these philosophers made fools of themselves in plain view don't go there there is a thin line separating from inanity and overanalyzing from stupidity don't cross this line free will exists the same way Harry Potter exists the same way Sherlock Holmes exists they most definitely exist free will is real it is a force to reckon with it shapes our minds and lives and societies it exerts a huge influence on multiple spheres what more do you need to know what is the meaning of exists of course it exists it exists much more than many other things which are mere objects enough said