True, but he might not have went on to do what he does if nobody ever congratulated him.. granted if they did, they had no choice but to congratulate him. Either way, congratulations on a successful channel Stephen. I hope you keep on doing what you do :)
Congratulations for not congratulating. Congratulating someone is a neutral act, I am not sure what that implies for not doing it when it does arise in the mind but subjectively I would describe it as something like: inviting disrespect or unfinished contention. Maybe one cannot choose what comes up into the mind, but one can choose what does or doesn't go out. Thought is Devine observation, Devine ordering is concept building, Concept prevention or timing is a choice of implications in the Devine observations: (Devine) {observation} (Devine) {though} (Devine) [creation] (Devine) [intervention] (Devine) {timing} (Devine) [Recreation] (•) (sequence) {•} {given} [•] [optional]
Good conversation - per another commenter, one of best discussions in series. Not because they arrived at anything, but because Koch is refreshingly humble: he is clear about what he knows and doesn't know.
"Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined." Baruch Spinoza (1677)
The brain never thinks, it is the soul, you, the soul that is reading this, the brain is controlled by the soul, and does what the soul orders. What are these two yakking about?
@NikTheFix because for a materialist the "non-physical" is the realm of Santa Claus. For a spiritual person the non-physical is here always. The driving force. For example its 3000 years we have not an idea what dreams are , and yet they exist, for each of us , every night.
@NikTheFix A way to start thinking of the interaction is the physical as a simulation and the non-physical as part of the simulator - this need not be true, but is a tool for thought about it.
Even with that strong accent hes still easy to understand and his fascination in neural consciousness is so infectious. Chris always delivers an excellent mix of sound physical neural knowledge plus our eerie mental awareness. What a blast of lifetime learning all this for humanity as AI advances, to no doubt confirm there is more to existence than 5% matter.
They keep citing this dubious timing chain in the brain experiment in which we our supposed reflex machines not actually choosing our body motions (and therefore anything else). And just because all actions are influenced, doesn't mean we have no choice. Free doesn't mean unaffected by being in the universe.
@@marco_mate5181 Not necessarily. It's caused, not linearly, but by a feedback loop, consisting of both conscious and subconscious thoughts, interacting, leading to an action. So the conscience influences the subconscious and free will can exist.
@@BritishBeachcomber no because at first it all starts eith the subconscious, and your conscious thoughts are created entirely by your subconscious part. The conscious part does literally nothing but perceivd sensations and thoughts. We can understand why free will can't logically exists by simply thinking about the decision making process. In order to make a decision you need two things: 1) information 2) criteria to elaborate. The criteria are subconscious, and the information is not under your control, because it comes from the environment, everytihing else is the result of the long process of cause and effect that lead you to more information and action. But is all determined by the subconscious.
I kind of sort of get it now about free will after spending much time trying to understand it. It really is a neat thing to think about and I can see both the for and against the subject of free will. I can feel better about it now and also realize there are still discoveries to be made moving forward in both science and philosophy!!!
What does free will mean? It is inherently connected to choice. If more than one possibilities are given, YOU decide FREELY, which one you'll go for. If you're forced, it's not a choice anymore (not yours, that is). If there's only one possibility, it's not a choice either. If you CAN decide, how do you choose, your decision will be based on your current state. By that, I mean everything that might affect the decision. Anything that you consider. And a gazillion things influence your current state. Knowlegde, prior experience, memories, mood, emotions, needs, how tired you are, what others suggested, etc., you name it. And you'll choose the one possibility that suits your state the most. You'll choose what seems to be the best option. Some of these factors might be irrational (like, you choose not to complete your work today, cause you're sleepy... so next day will suck, and finishing would've been better for you), many others are subconscious. You tell yourself during diet that just one more cake is okay because you've worked out enough today... in reality, you just can't refuse the cake, so you justify eating it. So the best option in this case is to eat the cake, but tell yourself a lie. But if you always choose the best option... is it really free will?
As scientists, if they find an anomaly, they should investigate, not just go on like it never happened. They see that their conception of having a conscious thought is not necessarily the same as what their "brain" is doing, so maybe the separation that they are maintaining between what they consciously think and what their brain is doing is a faulty conception. If you stop being a narcissist and seeing everything from your own internal perspective, you might see that you are a unified organism with one brain, so everything that goes on inside of your brain is you, even if it is not available for conscious inspection at every moment. This is why a Freudian Slip is so significant. In that moment, you consciously become aware of some feeling or attitude that you were avoiding bringing into consciousness, but you immediately realize that it is exactly how you really feel. As a scientist, this should spark curiosity about how your mind works, not a stubborn insistence that your conscious mentation is somehow special and separate from your brain.
since acquiring the p.t.s.d., my body responded well before my consciousness clues in, like sometimes it is only after my mouth yelled it , that my ears hear that voice do i catch myself, no thought processed or decision made, like a bi-pass reflex overrides
@@williamesselman3102 yes, breathing exercises, biofeedback, got me out of the perpetual anxiety, but sudden unexpected sights or sounds trigger a unwanted response, but i can catch it much sooner and best of all laugh it off
Why does metaphysical support free will other than through blunt assertion? What IS the metaphysical nature of the 'free' will? How does it work? What is its source? And why is it free...free from what? Just free from the physical? Is that the only way in which decisions might be influenced? If our 'will' is somehow emplaced into or added to the brain, what says IT is free from the influences of the thing or process that 'emplaced' it?
Physicalism is itself a metaphysical stance. It excludes free will (just as it excludes consciousness) because of a metaphysical principle that is embodied in the methodology of the theoretical sciences, namely, that every physical phenomenon is the result of a causal process. Physics doesn't tell us free will doesn't exist, just as it doesn't tell us consciousness doesn't exist. Rather, it offers a theoretical model of the world, in which free will (and consciousness) is _a priori_ impossible. The real issue is not with physics, but with the belief that (to quote Don Lincoln) "physics is everything", that the theoretical model in question adequately and uniquely reflects the ultimate reality about the world in its entirety. This is just a belief, a kind of religious sentiment, if you will. Science doesn't tell us that it offers a correct complete and closed description of the world, and in fact, we can evidently see that it doesn't (my consciousness attests to that for me, and yours for you). Some people, nevertheless choose to believe that it does offer such a description. You may call them "physicalists", in one sense of the word. Their belief in physicalism, in this sense, is no more scientific than any other metaphysical or religious belief.
yes but no one will ever know what this "build up" in the brain was ...if the effective decision , the "getting ready for transmission !!" or a simple tension to have to make a decision in the next seconds .
@@francesco5581 I thought we actually do know this, depending on the decision we have different readings, so it's not just an intent but a decision that I determined uncounciously.
@@privettoli One should have the papers of the experiment , the percentages , the data and maybe an experiment made with less trivial connections. I remember Hameroff criticizing it for that . Here is not a "choice" between two or more things, is just something related to a movement and you chose the time (also the time span very small). Put in front of them food and they register before they chose the food they will get (also asking them to change even at the last second) .That would be a good experiment.
I don't think it's the same here, heh (please provide good evidence that it is and I'll reconsider). All too often I see people invoking various, mysterious aspects of quantum mechanics as proof for this or that without being anywhere near specific enough to warrant a desired claim. From what I've found based on "Delayed choice experiment", there are enough people in-the-know who disagree with the "retrocausation" conclusion, which for me means I will refuse to believe in retrocausality (especially that which somehow exists within the brain) until the consensus overwhelmingly supports it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser#Consensus:_no_retrocausality en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Quantum_physics www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ Peace.
@@IIllytch321nonadinfinitum yeah, but the only observable experimental findings that exists in the universe all point to Consciousness collapsing the wave function. Everything else is a hypothesis. You are either going to accept the experimental findings or deny them.
I am a Buddhist. The brain never thinks, it is the soul, you, the soul that is reading this, the brain is controlled by the soul, and does what the soul orders. What are these two yakking about?
The human has a will, whether or not free; therefore is a moral (or immoral) agent; therefore can be held responsible. And should be held responsible, since that is an important way of influencing the will.
On empirical level you can only recognize determination! Or it would be no recognition, like Schopenhauer explained. Nobody ever seen freedom! You can only have or be in freedom! It's proven in the moment we can think it, spoken with Kant. Freedom is never "in abstracto"!
Best yet. So many more rabbit holes to go down. Two questions: 1. Can the 50% probability or even if we could predict with 100% accuracy the randomness of quantum mechanics and events that involve biology be free will itself? 2. If this set of rules, quantum, biological or otherwise within our universe and within the known knowledge of the universe we have and knowledge of things we don’t know, can free will on a biological level just be the fact the a beaver over thousands of generations can develop a method to use the environment to build a shelter and not just use its own biology to survive? 3. Maybe we are measuring it wrong on a personal individualistic level and it should be approached from a different angle maybe like DNA and genetics and mutations over time. Is that biological free will? There are some things that do raise my eyebrows like turtles separated by millions of years who are not genetically related going back millions of years. So it seems a at least two separate biological species adapted into an organism that looks pretty much identical but do not share any common DNA. I guess that means DNA and biology also don’t have free will and it’s own biology is determined by the environment regardless of the genetic code used to bring that species into existence. Such a good rabbit hole.
Koch has vastly changed his mind since this, at least 10 years old, interview. That's a problem. Closer to Truth should indicate the dates of interviews.
I think it depends on whether conciousness is an emergent phenomenon or a pervasive fundamental phenomenon (i.e. maybe our brain is just a receiver, like TV antennas) that's outside the bounds of regular physics laws.
The brain never thinks, it is the soul, you, the soul that is reading this, the brain is controlled by the soul, and does what the soul orders. What are these two yakking about?
"there is no free will ..." Well, actually the illusion is that the conscious mind is in control. There is free will but it is the subconscious mind that is doing the free willing and not your conscious mind.
What Cristoff said about QM being indeterministic Is wrong. Everett developed a deterministic solution to Schrodinger's wave function, that some say it leads to MWI of QM.
You are absolutely right. I think he is keeping it simple though, as ultimately, whether or not QM is ontologically deterministic or not has no influence on the existence of free will. So I think he just wants to mention it quickly because he knows otherwise the comment section would be filled with people saying "but what about QM!" XD
Neuroscientist Aaron Schurger also disproved the results or expanded upon the interpretations. The RP is present even when you don't move. His videos are here on RU-vid. I highly recommend them.
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism. They ask different questions. Our will is determined. That is a question of causality. But whether it is free or not is a question of “goodness”. Freedom is a question of teleology , ie if our will is aimed at what is ACTUALLY good. That is why a materialist can never find “free will” in a purely materialist universe.
Robert , thank you for making these kind of topics public. I, myself, have a great appreciation for this particular subject. I find that I now have to contemplate this deeply in consideration of my model of consciousness. For example , how does counterintuitness fit here or maby I have decided to not do something only to find that I change my mind at the last second. Hmmm😮
To believe in free will requires a religious belief. It's not science. You won't find anything in classical physics or quantum mechanics that allows for such a thing as free will. You can choose to believe it exists if that pleases you, just as you can choose to believe in God, it just isn't science. Anyone who thinks it is science should go out and prove it - you could have your name in the history books! I struggled for years to explain how it could be that we have sentience but no free will. In fact, I grew up convinced that free will was the whole point of sentience. Then I also grew up thinking that the degree of sentient experience/consciousness we have was dependent on our level of intelligence. I eventually realized that sentience and intelligence are quite separate. I also learned that our brain lies to us all the time. It constructs a narrative that is mostly false but this keeps us happy that we're in control. It tells us that we made decisions even when we weren't even involved in the process - our brain often "involves us" after the fact then gives us the credit for it. I finally came to realize that the universe is most probably deterministic. Even if it isn't, if the apparent randomness in quantum mechanics really is random (I don't believe it is), that still doesn't allow for free will. And yes, I've heard all the arguments for it - they all sound kooky and have no basis in science or math. Call it philosophy, call it a jam doughnut, whatever you call it, it ain't science. So, I was still left trying to figure out what heck this sentience/consciousness/awareness (basically the ability to have an experience) existed for if not to allow us to have free will. Eventually, one possibility occurred to me: We train artificial neural networks by creating a reward system. As humans, we experience a reward/punishment system. This works through various physical sensations and emotions. For this to work, there needs to be an agent that can have these experiences.
Well, it is very difficult for free will to survive in our physical system now. If the brain is closed system then how does free will work? And the who does or doing the control over the neural activities and also what does understanding mean if let say I moved my hand or not deciding not to move my hand, so in order for me to be able to deciding between move my hand or not it requires some form of understanding and we have no idea to how that happened to began with let alone talking about intentionality involved in choosing between moving my hand or not.
Define Free Will first. What is often called free will is a shorthand for a set of assumptions. So, no we don't have free will as in the ability to do whatever we want, when we want, but we are free to calculate the best choice of options bounded by our priors.
Does the example of moving one's hand translate to "all" actions included that we define as conscious? Are the words spoken by Christof prepared by random actions of a materialistic subconscious group of neurons before reaching his main consciousness and executive functions? ..if so, is conscious consciousness merely lagging in the same way my cursor lags on a computer screen when I move my mouse? Then - what guides the action taken by the unseen decision maker? We are observers of a personal story/narrative written by someone hiding behind the curtain. We try our best to make sense of it. (disclaimer: Pure speculation and armchair philosophy)
When you look closely at it, it's really hard to define free will. "I could have chosen otherwise." Upon examination, this always seems to mean, I could have chosen differently if.... . What does the choosing? I don't believe the materialist account of existence is a completely true account of existence. But I am not confident I can adequately define free will, either.
JDC, I think Kuhn and his guest are making all kinds of silly presumptions that lead them to accept determinism and to see themselves from an internal perspective rather than a more realistic view that comes from the outside. In terms of defining free will, I think this is also an error of perspective. The ancients saw lightning and gave it a name. We see the same phenomenon now and recognize it as lightning. We don't start with a definition of this natural phenomena and try to fit it to whatever definition that we may think appropriate. The ancients used the name free will to describe a particular natural phenomena that we can identify today in human behavior. Changing the definition or not won't make the lightning into something else, and free will is still something that us humans see and experience every day regardless of how it is defined.
@@caricue , then the answer is simply “I have free will because I experience it” but that I kind of boring and also we know that what we experience is often not what is. So why take this thing at face value? Working with definitions can be an integral part of the discovery process. If you want to understand the animal kingdom it will be easier if you classify the beings as vertebrates, mammals, and so on and not just “animals”. Same with will, figuring out how it can be free and how it can be unfree is a step on the way.
@@mockupguy3577 All that you said is sensible and I find the subject endlessly fascinating, but I keep running into these fanatics that call themselves "determinists" who don't have any interest in the boundaries or limits of choice, or have any desire to explore the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind or how the state of the body or various hormone levels can influence our ability to freely choose. All they want to do is figure out any way to negate that we even have the ability to choose, grabbing onto any sliver of influence and insisting that it is a control. Our genes, our environment and everything that makes us human is used as a wedge to separate us from the reality that we have a brain and a perceptual system specifically to allow us to act and respond to whatever is going on around us in a way that brings us closer to our intentions and goals. I'm all for definitions, but don't define free will as a magical ability to choose anything, even the impossible, with total knowledge of all inputs and possible consequences, and then say that it doesn't exist because you defined it as something that couldn't possibly exist. I take it as a given, just like lightning, since I can see it with my own eyes, so what does a definition add to this picture? You might want to describe it, or explore it, but first define lightning, then we'll talk.
@@caricue , lightning: a sudden electrical discharge in the atmosphere. You speak of the ancients, so another definition could be “Sparks from Thor’s hammer.” We can then as ourselves. Does lightning exist? We can possibly both agree that we can see flashes in thunderstorms. But the answer to the question might differ depending on the definition, Thor, or static electricity. But the flashes will be there just the same. Defining something in a weird way and then saying it does not exists does not change any fact and possibly does not improve understanding either. I don’t think that’s what anybody (or at least not many) is trying to do with free will, that would be silly. “So we have disproven free will by giving it an impossible definition. But can we make any choices we want?”
@@mockupguy3577 Haha, I was being a little facetious about the definition of lightning since it is easy enough to Google. My point is that the definition is simply a description of the phenomena. There is not doubt or discussion as to whether it exists or not. There is also a definition of free will obviously: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate You can see that this is a lot more than a description of a phenomena. It has the seeds of its negation right in the definition. Like I said, I don't see value in pretending like we don't both know exactly what we are talking about, the same as Aristotle or Augustine would know since we see it and experience it every day. It's possible that you are not a secret determinist trying to set me up with the "definition game", knowing that whoever wrote this definition had an obvious agenda, but I know better than to give an inch to anyone who pretends to be open minded and wanting a "discussion". Let me ask you, "Are you now, or have you ever been a Determinist?" 🤣
Not until we are self-realized in supernal consciousness do we have free will. Until you know yourself you won't have free will unless it is Freed Will, freed from the influence of any Conscieness other than your SELF, with Supreme Will to effortlessly do anything without anxiety of making choices in Choiceless Awareness.
Would a Deterministic Universe bolster Einstein’s Block Theory of the Universe? If every event has been predetermined then our belief in free will is just an illusion. What Christof is suggesting that our unconscious mind knows what we will do before our conscious does then maybe our brain is just following a predetermined plan? I sometimes wonder if our lives are like a film being played out. A movie film consists of a two dimensional space of 24 images every second. The film running through the projector gives us a sense of motion (Time). What if we are experiencing a 3 dimensional film and our brain functions as the projector and we experience a sense of consciousness? Would our lives be like a rollercoaster ride? From the moment of our birth until the time of our death we are simply along for the ride and have this false sense we are in control of our destinies when in fact we have none?
I believe the block theory of time is possible. I don't believe that what we have is necessarily precognition, I don't believe our brains have access to information they're not supposed to have on a linear scale. However it's possible that the future has already happened and the reason why the universe is determined is because everything has already happened and is happening simultaneously. Whether or not the block universe is true or not, I do believe that the universe is necessarily fatalistic. Whether that fate has already happened, or it hasn't happened yet but one inevitable fate will transpire because of it being the only conclusion to a series of coincidences. I view life like a story. I'm not the one who is authoring it, I'm the one who is reading it.
Starts out with an unsubstantiated metaphysical premise: "we believe" this universe is closed. His "belief" has no logical standing in relation to truth. The hypothesized multiverses bring this belief into question. It is an open question of whether universes could communicate. In some forms of the multiverse, communicability seems probable, in other forms less likely, but it's far too early to know.. Then there are the various dualisms and pluralisms, including spiritual universes, as other forms of non-closure. Then there's the hypothesis of extra unseen dimensions, a basis for string theory. For all we know it could include spiritual as well as physical dimensions. Then there's consciousness, which he only at the end seems to realize that it could create a problem. Even if it's just an emergent property of matter, it raises the possibility that it too expresses in an unseen dimension. Then there's the relation of consciousness to self-reference and quantum, a murky question. The Penrose hypothesis - that quantum collapse in microtubules is where consciousness resides - means microtubules are a locality where the physical may connect with something meta-physical.
Great questions and insights. What if we contemplate the quantum physics involved in how one’s consciousness (free will of self) travels through the multiverse and compare that to Christ’s teaching that even if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his thoughts, he has committed adultery. Let’s say the husband looks at a woman not his wife with the intention of lust, and this woman recognizes the look of lustful intent and returns her own look of desire. Is it possible that in that quantum moment the future with the husband’s wife suddenly becomes destabilized and what would have been a life lived together to death in this universe now becomes part of another universe of the multiverse, while the drama about to ensue with the adulterous relationship now materializes in the near future of the universe the husband is headed into? In other words, is the most important thing about how our consciousness (and self) travels through the quantum flux of the multiverse our intent, our Free Will, in how we engage with the opportunities confronting us? Furthermore, is it even possible that one day humans will inhabit the universe in which scenarios similar to the one described above can and will be tested and proven true scientifically?
I'm not going across all the made points, however, I do feel like emphasizing the point that the premise of "The universe is a closed system, in which causal events A~B are inescapable (deterministic)" is not an "unsubstantiated metaphysical premise". Surely you can see the difference between this premise and the hypothesis of the multiverse, it being that the multiverse hypothesis at this point in time still stands as a hardly falsifiable set of ideas. Whereas the universe being a closed system is clearly visible even in daily life. Again, I'm not trying to denounce any ideas in regards to the universe or spirituality as I'm neither a physicist or a guru. It seems that starting from what we know and then trying to ask the right questions is the way to go, otherwise we still lurk in mystery.
@@vytautaskleiza1448 Sorry, wrong on both counts. We're both agnostic on the question, at least in theory, not committed to either view. So, can we make progress here? "the universe being a closed system is clearly visible even in daily life." - not true at all. The universe having lots of causality within it is all we see in daily life. We see no proofs or evidence of closure. In my interaction with you I have seen zero evidence that you are purely physical and lack a non-material spirit, much less fully caused by physics. Nor in any other interaction of mine with anything, or for that matter anything, not even with brute material things. It's simply my assumption that the latter lack spirits. It's like saying, "We assume internal causality, we investigate internal causality, that's all the causality we've found" - circular reasoning. Tautological. But is there other causality? We don't know. What we do know is that we don't know the complete causality of any single event at all. And maybe never can. Much less know already the cause of everything. Multiverse is unobservable, unverifiable? There are already tests being discussed to find evidence of impact of other universes on ours. And the whole idea of taking multiverses seriously is only a few decades old. Spirits are unverifiable? Maybe, but millions of people claim to have verified them. Most of their reports are in turn intrinsically unverfiable by the rest of us, and many tainted by the vicious circle reasoning that you have to believe in them to see them. But there are lots of other untainted reports too. The reports on life after medically declared death have been repeated enough times, similar enough, and independent enough of prior beliefs, to be subject to experiment, without positive results as far as I've seen but others claim there have been positive results. There has also unfortunately been too much commitment to belief on either side, pro and con, interfering with scientific progress on this or even much progress in fairly reporting results to the digesting public such as myself.
@@susanmaddison5947 very good points Susan, it is the scientist and atheist/agnostics that are closer to the higher truths and higher worlds than that of religious people. Consciousness is evolutionary and the world is a becoming. Space-Time is a means for this “end”. Which may sound contradicting to the mind as I am about to say this, but there is no end since there was never no beginning, Space-Time is eternal and infinite. We are eternal and infinite. One does not go to the other side; one has always been on the side of death. But for the battler of the Truth. The game becomes clear.
The question they should have asked (but didn't) is: what produces the readiness potential. What physically happened in the brain that preceded (and produced) the readiness-potential buildup. And then, of course, what preceded that activity. Etc. A second question involves the neural correlates of the feeling of free will. What is happening in the brain when one feels like one is exercising free will? In other words, assuming free will is an illusion, what neural activity produces that illusion?
I think it's the conscious awareness of the outside world and the time between when we decide to do something and when we do it. We aren't usually aware of these 'quicker than our consciousness' decisions because of how slowly our nerve transmit neural signals and the way we deliberate. That makes our consciousness seem to able to 'keep up.' EG, I'm sitting here posting and I can also be thinking about a nice snack or cup of coffee. So I deliberate/ponder some possible decisions between key strokes and think I'm making a decision. But at the actual moment where I actually stir our of my recliner, the actual neural activity that stimulates the specific actions involved/the actual muscle movement happens a split second before my body moves to carry out that decisions. But it'd been thinking of it, so it can be...or can feel like it was a conscious decision.
Thank you for this very good conversation. But i suspect the following evolutionary reason for free will: To control activities with high accuracy and vital details from being obscured by interference, the brain of an animal or a human being will normally suppress noise and random events. Sometimes, however, a controlled addition of random parts in the behavior is quite advantageous. For example, when a hare has to flee from a pursuer. In this case it is important not to hit the hoes regularly, but as randomly as possible. In general, this will be the case with any kind of escape. The decisions where to move an animal should be made quickly and the movement pattern should not be guessed by the pursuer. Also, in fights and confrontations within the species, surprising maneuvers are certainly advantageous. The important thing here is that chance is used in a measured way and is under the control of the brain. Animals that can use chance in such situations, are certainly at an advantage, and this ability will therefore evolve and be optimized in the course of time. This requires random impulses in the brain of the animal, which act in corresponding strength. Such impulses can possibly be generated in such a way that in some cells, special protein complexes pick up random quantum physical events and amplify them amplify them strongly, so that the barrier against which otherwise suppresses coincidences. It would be a kind of sensory cell that contains a quantum mechanical system that oscillates irregularly between different states. These randomly generated pulses are observed, amplified and thus used for decisions or actions. For example, it changes the direction in which rabbits run. This internal random generator is used deterministically, i.e. beginning and end of the interrogation of a random impulse are deterministically fixed, they are used for example in escape mode etc., but otherwise not used. A person could use this inner randomness generator, when he realizes that he is in a decision situation, in which he evaluates several alternatives quite similarly, to come to a decision quickly. For example, if I can order a pizza or spaghetti and I like both equally, I query my random number generator as usual, i.e. deterministically. Before that, I connect the possible results with one of the alternatives and then, based on the random result, I decide for the alternative, which was coupled before with this result. If an animal or a human being would have this possibility and would in suitable situations could integrate coincidence, this would certainly be a great advantage. This random mechanism would then also allow free will decisions. If the alternatives, which stand to the selection are very different, one chooses deterministically the best one. If the alternatives hardly differ in the evaluation, one saves unnecessary decision expenditure and falls back on his inner random generator. Thus we have a free will and can also use it purposefully exactly where it brings us advantages. We can decide when we want to decide freely. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Great points! Both for serious and not so serious reasons (BTW, you would expect Dr. Kuhn to start asking the first question after so many episodes on the subject... )
If there are quantum processes going on the brain, shouldn't we see that vast numbers of neurons act so fast simultaneously that something beyond chemistry or electricity seems to link them??
Another comment -- Koch's analysis of free will (and its apparent absence...) has a few unstated assumptions... First - "self" is defined as and limited to reportable consciousness (i.e. the agent of free will to the degree it exists is the reportable conscious self). Second - related to the first, it is assumed that we are comprised of a single conscious entity -- again, back to that agent that may have free will: there is only one of them, and it is limited to the field of conscious reportability, per the first assumption. Neither of those assumptions, while "common sense" as we currently view our "self", are proven scientifically. I believe they are both incorrect.
Does experiencing awareness of one's will somewhat after the brain activity that apparently created it *really* mean it's not free? Does one's finger pulling a trigger somewhat later still *really* mean it wasn't the attached brain's free choice and responsibility? I'm dismayed to hear these possibilities taken seriously. Events require time, even in brains. Are our assumptions about the precise sequence of brain events *really* accurate enough to exonerate brains of responsibility?
Isn’t the primary thing to establish what is “I”? What is he referring to when he says I Christof? If “I” is non physical consciousness influencing physical body, it doesn’t matter there is first brainwave activity, then ego’s reaction and then physical reaction. If one associates “I” with an ego than of course determinism seems plausible.
What Christof is trying to say in a less complex way. Professional musicians mechanically think like that when playing music. They know the notes before playing them. As a receiver, you will say that sounds perfect. The accuracy and feeling are next level.
The brain never thinks, it is the soul, you, the soul that is reading this, the brain is controlled by the soul, and does what the soul orders. What are these two yakking about?
A piece from a new autobiography titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. PS2: For anyone who would like to know more about NAM-MYOHO-RENGE-KYO, I sincerely recommend that you read Tina Turner's brand-new book: HAPPINESS BECOMES YOU Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com
Although brain activity precedes the decision to move the arm, it is not fully clear that the outcome of the brain activity was the movement of the hand. Perhaps the increased electrical activity in the brain created the conditions under which free will could be expressed. Another experiment would be to ask the user to almost move their arm but stop it at the last minute, and then try and measure it their brain pre-loaded electrically before they we about to move their arm
I have a question. So in these studies of brain scans showing that the brain decided before the person decided…. Was this always the case? Or were there instances that the person decided before the brain did? 🤔
Does this not prove that we live in a “time delayed “ world. There is a unit of time expended when sending the signals viewed by the eyes to the brain. And so on for the brain to create reality in and through the mind. What we see and live as reality actually happened milliseconds in the past.
He says that the brain, due to its complexity, “exudes” consciousness. Why cant free will be “exuded” in a similar manner? I think that’s referred to as an ‘emergent’ property. I think that is the path to pursue. Also, don’t dwell on the reflexive state of the mind , the 250ms responses. It’s the longer, deliberative, self-control like aspects of the mind / brain where free will. Instant to instant we are a reflexive machine, but over longer spans of time we can exert, with great effort, deliberative actions and exert self-control that ultimately lead us in one direction / life path versus another.
Is it not just that the subconscious mind makes the decision before the conscious mind is aware of it? It doesn’t mean we don’t have free will, it just means that will is more than just our conscious experience with a deeper subconscious level of decision making.
Absolutely. I think this is the answer (and I am a neuroscientist). You have to have a build-up of neuronal activity first, which can be subconscious. But it's still you.
No it means that your "will" is determined and caused by something that is unconscious, and so not under your control, therefore something your are not responsible for.
@@david.thomas.108 "we" are only responsabile of our consciousness. I cannot control what im not conscious of. My subconscious is a separate thing. It is still part of my being as a living creature. The point is that this still doesn't make us free because we cannot control our subconscious, instead it controlls us.
@@marco_mate5181 not necessarily. For example, when you ride a bike, or drive a car, the learned behaviour becomes automatic or subconscious. However, is that not still "you" and your "will" that is riding the bike or driving the car, causing that to happen?
Time, is just the effect of motion. All motion begin from the Life-Desire, in direct extension of Life-Desire we have the Will, (Life-side), and Gravity, (Stuff-side) With the Will, We do balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup. The key-words in understanding Will, in a Eternal perspective, is, Developing-Circuits, and degrees, the eternal motion from minimum to maximum, in new and higher circuits.
The 'I', is the Only real Steady Point, in existense, behind the Stuff-side, which is a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion. In reality, We do All refer to very the Same I, So, the 'I' is identical with, the Eternal Living Being, with Eternity, and the 'Empty Space', (which is space-less space) The 'I' is name-less in it's own eternal nature, No One have seen the *i*, it is Not possible to see the Living, behind the Being.
If no person can be morally responsible at all, then it also follows that no one can be less morally responsible than any another. So a person innocent of a particular bad deed is no less responsible than the person who actually committed the deed. Why not deliberately punish innocent people, in particular cases where you know it won't be found out, and you see great deterrent value for this particular case?
That is it. There has to be something beyond the material, in order to explain what we experience as free will. Otherwise, the material is purely deterministic and we on the other hand are not.
How does that 'something beyond the material' explain what we experience as free will? We'll leave aside whether we actually have free will (whatever that means...ie what it's free FROM) and assume we do. How would that something 'beyond the material' work? Where did it come from? What was it like before it became our mind(s)? Does IT have any basic immutable properties? IF not how does it work to 'make' decisions for us? If it does have properties which allow it to influence our decisions, why claim it isn't as determined as a physical based brain would seem to be?
I'm curious: at a first glance, their interpretation of the "raise the hand" experiment doesn't seem right. Separe in two groups: rough sketch of a variation, can't make this too precise right now first group: "IF your hand raises on its own, mark the time when that happens" second group: "at any moment you feel like it, raise your hand and mark the time" I would very confidently guess that the number of hand raises would be very different between groups, and that would be somewhat incompatible with the no free will at all explanation. You could also set a group that doesn't receive instruction to raise the hand, only "sit there and keep track of time" how many would raise their hands? My guess is that the experiment proves that there is feedback between conscious and non conscious brain activity, not that "look! it's not you raising your hand!"
Please someone enlighten me if have some flawed logic as I am no expert. In regards to the clock experiment, is it not a possibility that our brain receives raw stimuli, processes it, decides and executes actions quickly and our subjective experience of consciousness (of us doing all of these things) is like a self rendering that is slightly lagged behind steps above, possibly due to it being a more complicated process with higher overhead inside the brain? In this way, we would still have free will and are making the decisions consciously , but our picture of our "self" is built after.
That's all, you have to believe that there is something out side the system that acts on the physical brain but what that might be. If there is something and how it does it that is a totally different question.
Since you are asking at 9:55, freewill comes from the future and travels backwards in time, Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics. This is theorized to have developed for man to survive early in our progression of life.
The meaning of life is one thing, seek the Divine and get back home to Heaven, while we are alive, not dead. Catholics ant Moslems are death worshippers..........................falun dafa
As a neuroscientist, I think that the "free will" issue is a pseudoproblem. An interesting one, but not a real one. ALL neural activities have have their own "gestation time", so to speak. If we believe that consciousness, thoughts, emotions, are emergent properties of an unimaginably complex network in our brains, as they seem to be, then each one of them takes some time to emerge. So is will. The process that leads to the REALIZATION of the desire to do something, is an uncomplelled process- ie, a free process. That is where free will lies, in the start of the process, despite the fact that a conscious registration of that ongoing process is somewhat delayed. And saying that a neuron fires as a reaction to "something else" does not solve anything because that something else is usually another neuron firing. And not all activity comes as a reaction to external stimuli -the existence of the default mode network is proof of that, if proof were needed. Of course, it's all bound by the laws of Physics, so even without any unexpected results, without even any experiments at all, one could say that we are "not free" because we are "bound" by Physics - unless one believes in metaphysics, as C. Koch dicusses towards the end. But being "bound" by the laws of Physics is just another way of saying that we are part of this world. We are as free as any part can be.
It is interesting that Mr. Koch don't think that consciousness is creating reality freely. Obviously it is not case otherwise we would be free to act in whatever way we wish. But that is more tricky. We have to consider problem of many creators who acts against each other decoherently but that can be harmonized by considering that there is some mechanism putting all decoherency into sync. But such mechanism would in the end reduce reality to by determined by that mechanics alone and so free will would be lost again. So there is another, more logical solution. There is exactly one agent of free will who is most influentaly affecting reality by its free will, ultimatly creating coherent state.
I think mindfulness or awakening is where the free will occurs. Instead of following what emerges (1/2 second after the fact) as if it's real and deliberately chosen, you practice being aware of what emerges, exercising a veto power (questioning what emerges, choosing not to follow it as if it's real). Consider "slow divers" who have trained to ignore the subconscious hypercapnia reaction. They can hold their breath over 10 minutes. They're consciously choosing to ignore the subconscious panic, not follow that emergent emotion as if it's real. To me, that's free will compared to reacting to the panic like it's real.
Christof Koch talks about about 0.2 seconds before a movement the self-aware conscious mind feels like it is deciding to move, then about 0.5 to 0.8 seconds before that the a buildup of potential to make the move begins. I believe the mistake here is in understanding what the self-aware conscious mind is. It is a layer of neurological swarm intelligence complexly interwoven with a layer of DNA & RNA swarm intelligence which is a subset of the whole swarm mind of a human brain/body. Within that specific swarm intelligence that is the self-aware conscious mind, part of it is the self-aware consciousness that we experience as ourselves and part of it is subconscious to the self-aware consciousness that we experience as ourselves even though it is specifically part of our self-aware conscious mind. It is then a major mistake to separate part of your self-aware consciousness from another part of your self-aware consciousness and then say because that part of me is making the decision and not this part me, I am not making the decision and thus do not have free will. The next major mistake in the above arguments is that this decision making is purely 100% deterministic when it is not, it is a blend, a mixture, a balance of determinism and uncertainty. Free will comes with intelligence which comes with the combination of order and chaos such that enough order exists that we can make strong predictions of future events but those events are not certain. That degree of free willed intelligence begins with systems of elementary particles even prior to when they first formed matter, and this incredibly simplistic primitive level of free willed intelligence then learns to become increasingly complex levels of free willed intelligence until we get to present day where we have humans and human civilization. Further, this evolution of complexity of free willed intelligence is going to become vastly more advanced than what human civilization is today. Now, it is (1) really unquestionable we have free will and (2) the arguments against it are not only clearly wrong but are harmful to society because anyone who truly believes there is no free will must by necessity also believe there are no ethical moral values.
I wonder if we will ever get the answer. Is the brain greater than the sum of its parts? If there are more reality than light can prove, if there are more dimensions than the 3 spacial and temporal ones we move through, is it possible that consciousness escapes physical causality? Limited by the brain to a prison amount of freedom. But still some freedom within that outside of classical causal physics? For me the whole " look we saw subconscious lights before conscious lights" to be a almost irrelevant study to the argument of will. There have been researches and thinkers debunking that experiment for some time now
Even if there were, would they be deterministic or indeterministic? I see no alternative options to the two, and neither of them is "freedom" - and if there were alternative options, I don't see a reason to consider any of them "freedom" either.
@@ergot1803 well with indeterminism what is the phenomenon bringing concepts to the minds eye? Quantum mechanics? On this channel I have heard PhDs argue no amount of computation will be able to prove consciousness is completely determined. Able to assess information and then predict a person's every thought and action. Idk if that is true but if not that indeterminism is what is left as you said. But if information is not what brings decisions and abstracts to the brain then what is? I agree it may not ever be seen as free from our minds perspective but this is where a person would say their "soul" is that which brings seemingly random happenings into this physical reality of our personhood. But idk
You leave your house to go somewhere, youve forgotten something, something inside is trying to remind you, you cant pinpoint it,then the forgotten gets realized ,who was trying to tell you,to remind you,that your consious forgot that item in question??
A little off topic, but I wonder if the readiness effect in the brain he described is active subconsciously more in some individuals than others, or does it have to be primed consciously? The difference between decisions or being confronted with a choice and merely thinking.
In other words we are in a movie. If there is no free will and with enough mathematical knowledge we should be able to show the state of the universe and every thing in it at any point in time.
Bound to the material, animated by the invisible, like antennae that receive and transmit signals-- perhaps honing in on this signal or that, silencing others or an act of transmitting, is the exercise of free will. Or perhaps our free will is like a rudder, it cannot control the flow of the river (the material-causal reality), but can direct the boat this way and that
Even in a deterministic world we are allowed and doing right by punishing criminals, as those actions of ours follow determinism as well and are not born out of free will.
There is a space between stimulus and response. In that space we have the power to choose our response. Libet expt only covers the space between the response ( Readiness potential ) and our awareness of it. Can anyone explain?
Descartes was correct that we had a free will, but he was wrong about what atoms actually were just as Plato. The reality is that we are great control over what the future would be, and our survival depends upon us gaining greater control over aspects of the universe. The will has a temporal quality, but the important directions which need to be traversed, require consistency of a mutual good will over generations. There we arrive at one of the many limitations civilization places on the free exercise of will, but it also helps us realize that there is a universal good will, and that it's not whether your will is free, but it's how you position yourself in civilization to have your will be deferred to. The collective will is not synonymous with the universal good will. The collective will is likely political. The universal good will would be the act which must take place in order to survive as a species, but people are free, and they are not of equal understanding, and since the will is free, we are not destined to adopt the universal good will. It won't happen because of some random anomaly or because God wants what's best for us, it requires educating people well and engaging with everyone in a way which compels them to chose the universal good will, and until we accomplish this task of recognizing that it's the miserable things people do with their will, our destiny is extinction.
In a specific moment, my free will can be struggling to prevail in my mind to make my true choice. Smokers know that. Some smokers wish at some point in their smoking carrier that they stopped smoking. When they tried some of them failed and never actually did stop smoking. Does this mean they want to smoke? or their free will has been banned from their control center of their mind? There is a famous battle in religious texts called The Psychomachia (Battle of Spirits or Soul War). I think we cultivate our minds to be prepared to take actions on our specific wishes. We choose to program our minds to act in some ways. For me True Will is the act of the sole inside the mind that actually takes action to reorganize the mind to act differently in the future on certain stimuli so their true wished can be carried on.
The test he describes shows something about the brain but it's speculation what that 'something' is. There are many ways this could be interpreted. Not much insight here.
When we hear human brain has the capability to sense and process a multiplex of frequencies,and also as the interviewed scientist mentioning about the pulsating mechanisms of the action of neurons,and senopsises ,they add up and confirm the digital function of the brain as part of its operational proceedure,usualy by definition of digital and logics mathematics,having the capabilities of making comparison and matching operations ,on two or more variables or sets of datas and information,with the eventual output of either an exact firm conclusion to chose one or a more as preferred or most probable as governed by the laws of probabilities of quantum mechanics,or alternatively once the brain function can deduct and conclude a firm undeniable result after the processing of the data inputs,can come up with an exact and output to chose one or the other or one the ma y as the result of its comparison mechanisms and operations. Giving a clue of how can the brain act in a similar way to a digital micro processor of somekind. And also what comes to mind is,that the spectaculated pulses could also be specifying analogue informations by the height of their amplitudes at the same time,which can also explain a simultaneous operation of analogue and digital taking place practicaly at the same time which may also involve an analogue comparison function as well, Explaining the complex multi functions of the brain. And with regard to free will and its relation to brain function and consciousness,if we should conclude of any brain output is only as the result of previous events or memories embeded in the brain ,and hence cant hold any one responsible for his decisions ,and actions,leading to denial of the free will,may be the right way of looking at the subject could be to realise as far the society and general rules of education and acquired knowledge are concerned assumption is made on base of the fed and grasped informations are the correct and according to the laws of society ,and hence any comparison made by the brain function must use and bring the correctly fed datas as the fundamentals,and hence outputs should be made in the direction of best possible interest of the society ,and hence any deviation from the said operation shall be considdred as the missuse of free will and shall have its own consequences.which also complies with say application of a blade which can be used for two completely opposite with different outcomes at the same time.and assumption is made on the basis of information fed into brain is clear about the subject and the result of and use or missuse will be associated and governed by the free will by the decision maker,right,does this explanation make sense?
