This is a very interesting way to describe free will, but how does Sean Carroll reconcile "assigning responsibility to people who make choices" with "the wave function of the universe evolving according to the laws of physics"? Isn't this like saying that the position and the velocity of air molecules in the room are fully determined, but the room temperature could be anything?
He doesn’t believe in free will. He just refuses to say that and instead ops out by saying it’s a perfectly fine way to describe the macro phenomenon of the experience. Very charlatan
I think it's more like saying "the position and velocity of the air molecules in the room are fully determined, and that there's a useful shorthand for the bulk properties which we call 'temperature' and if the useful shorthand we call 'free will' for the state of the molecules in your brain states that you don't like that temperature, you ought to change the thermostat."
I didn't think Sean's position was really adventurous. How does he reconcile the experience of free will with the idea that there's nothing outside of physics to act on a situation? I do think he was suggesting free will is an illusion. I don't find the position very interesting.
Disagree. What you have is an interviewer constantly interrupting the guest and doing as much talking. Rather hear Sean express his opinion and justify it. Listeners can make up their own mind. Remember Sean Carroll is a superb communicator
@@PetraKann I agree and appreciate Sean like you do. But usually Sean has plenty of time to express himself. He made so many illuminating vlogs and courses. What I liked here is that someone I appreciate also was pushing him a bit so he could go further sharing his view. In my case, this interview helped me to better appreciate both men and their way of thinking.
@@mauricelevasseur9987 I understand that it can be useful - i like back and forth discussions as well. What I dont like is Sean saying something and mentioning a concept and the interviewer interrupting him and trying to define the concept for him (as if to show the audience that he knows something). I think it took something away from the interview and made it less informative. It also breaks the thought processes and continuity of the guest when he is interrupted like this. It reminds me of a dinner table discussion where one person wants to be heard more than the other. As we know Sean Carroll is also very polite and patient - I don't recall him ever raising his voice in annoyance let alone be aggressive in the past. Overall it was a lost opportunity by the Interviewer. If this interview was over 1 hour long I could possibly tolerate some of this childishness, but when only 8 or so minutes is uploaded, it gave me the impression that it was more about the interviewer than what Sean Carroll thinks about this complex subject., I still watched until the end.......Cheers
Yeah but they didn't answer the question. Describing "free will" as "emergent" from the laws of physics is fine, but DO WE HAVE A CHOICE? That is, can we act in ways that are not predetermined merely by the arrangement of matter and energy in the universe? The laws of physics can go either way on that, and nobody knows the answer. One can be a materialist and still believe in a degree of free will. It would simply mean that matter and energy are arranged in living beings so that they can choose among options.
Except that Kuhn NEVER defines free-will in any video he makes about the subject. Kuhn is just stringing his viewers along with unanswerable questions about undefined concepts. Closer to another pay-cheque.
@@con.troller4183 You from a probabilistic position claim something? Ridiculous. You don't have clue what you are saying. Free will is defined as not being contingent on the matter, time, and space and being unique to the existing sentient. No one will be proving you 2+2=4 here by 1+1+1+1=4, go to bed. Only what you are close to is your inevitable meaningless end.
@@con.troller4183 You speak "zombie" from your untannable and proven to be the wrong position so you contradict yourself. And Jesus isn't a zombie - you don't even know what that means and define it in an atheistic world. By definition you will give me I can say you are a zombie - since there is nothing like "you" - yo are just a clump of atoms that randomly happens to be together floating in space without purpose. By your miserably pathetic wrong definition "you" change faster than plank second when the ability of neurotransmitters to communicate between 2 neurons is on the level of nanoseconds so Octillions times faster. You r visibly speaking from incompetence and have no idea what you(domino of meaningless atoms) talking about. "No one will be proving you 2+2=4 here by 1+1+1+1=4, go to bed" doesn't mean "2+2=4 cannot be prove" - learn to read in elementary school.
@@stephengee4182 I think the term free will is problematic because as humans the best can have is optimal agency. We don't have an infinity of choices so we cannot be totally free. We can make choices within the constraints of our nature. To call those choices free is a stretch, IMHO.
People often use the term "emergent" without considering what the word means. A property - such as consciousness and free will - can only "emerge" in the material universe if it is already in some sense present, just as the form of a crystal emerges from the underlying molecular structure of the substance. The mole emerges from the molehill only if it's already in there! Sean's position is essentially a form of compatibilism whereby we sort of don't have free will, but also we sort of do - a "quagmire of evasion" as compatibilism has been described. Robert is right to say that Sean is really denying free will, but there is a huge difficulty here - for if we are seriously saying that all our thoughts are determined by the mindless forces of the material universe, then we cannot know any of them to be true or false, since we could not have thought otherwise. This means we cannot know our denial of free will to be true or false either. Put another way, if determinism is true we can never know it be true, since all our thoughts are determined - including determinism! The denial of free will is the denial of reason, and therefore ultimately of the science Sean so rightly values. I'm afraid we do have to give serious consideration (as so many great scientists, including Schrodinger, have done) to the concept of consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality, not as an incidental by-product of mindless material forces.
You are rightly pointing out an absurdity inherent in the doctrine of determinism, but that is not the only one. Determinism posits that there is only one way for the universe to unfold given the initial conditions at the big bang. This means that everything that was to happen was already there in those initial conditions, just waiting for the laws of physics to reveal them. This would have to include all works of literature like Shakespeare's plays, which results in books, songs and plays that have no author, unless you count the differential equations of quantum mechanics. How ridiculous to imagine creative works being created by no one.
I couldn't agree more. We might add that denial of free will is psychologically impossible for us - if we truly thought that we were not the authors of our own thoughts and decisions, we would be totally paralysed (though that paralysis would also be determined!). Somewhere on RU-vid you can find Daniel Dennett arguing, apparently seriously, that of course we don't have free will, but we mustn't tell the general public, otherwise they would ignore moral rules - an example of the irrational positions determinism entails.
Beautiful exploration. "...it's not an illusion anymore than temperature is illusion. An illusion is something you think is there, that's not there." "They don't find it useful to use free-will language." I love thinking about how somehow the 'big bang' birthed two people discussing free-will and whether 'it' exists or not.
Why do you pin this discussion to origins in the Big Bang event, arguably something preceded the Big Bang. Wouldn't this discussion, therefor, have its origin in the beginning of beginnings, as would all things? One could as easily categorize the Big Bang as an emergent event, and so on and so on. We have no known way of arriving at a beginning, at the origin of origins, so to speak. In such a model ALL THINGS should be categorized as emergent, I would say.
@@arbez101 Not sure why you're framing this as a 'pinning'? A positing, a jestful musing - yes. Of course the 'big bang' is simply a theory, and I used quotes therein to indicate tongue and cheek. My orientation is that the language we use to communicate as well as the language of scientific discovery, expressing of facts and truth, even the process of reasoning all have limitation...and have emerged from some prior intelligence. I don't know, don't need to know, and rely on an experiential coexistence of epistemology and ontology. I can see how making a taxonomy of emergence might support some level of epistemology, and it brings to mind the thinking of Joseph Chilton Pearce, specifically in his Strange Loops and Gestures of Creation.
@@arbez101 It is generally accepted that the BB is where this iteration of space-time began so its use here is totally proper. For some reason you feel the need to append a prior existence on this question but it is unwarranted and irrelevant.
Sean Carroll is possibly the most lucid human ever, which he combines with infinite patience and excitement in his teaching. And props to Robert Lawrence Kuhn for his deep ability to elicit such conversations!
Going by that analogy. Temparature can be explained as the macroscopic effect of microscopic phenomenon ( motion of particles and statistical mechanics ). Now can we do the same for Free Will? Have anybody taken that approach..
So he's basically giving a descriptivist outline of free will, as a behavioral feature of human beings that justifies some utility in assigning responsibilities to individuals in a social context. He was right in saying that it's a bad idea to ask a good physicist about free will, since it will almost be heretical for them to talk about free-will when they start from a materialist logical premise (which rejects the possibility of there being an immaterial cause). But a good philosopher will never cede totally to any one class of theories to dogmatically reject other potential theories that can inform our daily life practices. This is why it's not totally pointless (for a common man) to even talk about free will as a fundamental feature of reality. Or at the least, scientists can engage with arguments related to reverse-causality (i.e., the emergent whole being able to affect the constituent parts) to account for domain adequacy of different sciences. Example: Changes in mental state can affect bodily processes(wherein this change can be produced by self-reflection and the desire to reorient oneself in life). Without this possibility, psychology and other related disciplines will have no real basis to justify it's internal practical logic.
We usually think of entities as beeing the cause of the existence of properties, but if you think the other way around, as properties beeing the cause for the existence of entities, maybe that makes sense... it's like asking, is there electronegativity of an electron in itself or does the interaction of the perceived duo (electron-electron, electron-proton) makes it a discrete property of the perceived individual particle?
@@fredkrause4509 Yes, Relationality is necessary and sufficient to explain emergence and evolution, and therefore scientific epistemology need not explicitly address or prioritize the 'entity' that pre-exists the properties that emerge out of relations. However, this is merely one of the questions that has an explanatory capacity, I believe..I also respect metaphysicians who ask why are there electrons and protons and why do these particles interact in the first place, which entails the real properties that we perceive through experiments.. relational ontology, I suspect, has it's limitation on that front since it secretly denies its own implicit preconditions (sometimes by eternalizing microcosmic 'particles' or 'energy' or whatever). I want to get a better explanation for this impasse, and I still don't have one.
Have we all a free will ,I belive that is a good Question but ,it is better to Put it on or to more Questions. What for the People of this World Not Important is, that is the Inferiority complexes. The Inferiority complexes can we Put on this Question ,then is it the low Self esteem and the Inferiority complexes and the Mony what the People Forward moves or drive and is it here not more the Reason, or the Sense, or the free will. What does the People Around the World so ,for a Dopamin or a Seratonin Kick and what moves the People more, is it the Consciousness or is it more the Inferiority complexes and the Subconscious. The People make it Visible what the Mass so Move, at taht is not so much the Free will ,how the most People that Belive. I belive the Human has a free will, but we work not so good with the Free will. We have lose a Part from the Controll About us and we work more with or for the Subconscious as with and for the awarness in this Time . Subconscious is an Important Topic and the most People Put that not on the Topic ,or the Questions ,to the Consciousness ,or the Free will. My Englisch is not the best, but I hope it is ok so, and the most People Understand my Message. The Subconscious makes the Mass more Problems and Inferiority complexes ,as the most People that can or will see . De can Put many Topics in That Topic or this Proplem and that has a deeper ground. The Kapitalism makes it Visible what the People so Move . I belive Not so Right ,that this the Free will is ,that here moves the Mass. To the Question have we a Free will is the Question Important what the Human Urges so with us Make or with the Life als us . Move I my Boss or is taht more The Human Urges. The People make it Visible that the most People the Human Urges drive or move als not the Reason or the Sense. The most People have with the Psychologic Material not so much to do ,that makes the Job from the Psychologist Visible for us all. The Psychologist works with the Right Logik and the Right Methods but not so much the Folk. That makes a Big Problem Visible and the Inferiority complexes to. This Topic is in Line to the Topic with the Klima Problem or the Kapitalism or the Greed . That is a Topic ,what we can put on many Problems here . Waht the Human so Need for his Crippled self Esteem,that is not so good for the World . What Need the Materialism is taht the Life and more the Subconscious or is it more the Consciousness als the Free will. I belive the most Humans can not so Right say what they so need, or what they so will ,the most People works more with or for the Subconscious and the Next Seratonin Kick and not so much with the Right Logik and the Consciousness.
@@Baba-fy1jc I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but what you're saying sounds similar to a psychoanalytic insight (Lacanian one, maybe). Namely, that self-perception of a lack is what drives our actions forward (towards an object of desire). And this makes the question of free-will much more specific as our behaviors and actions are not merely driven by material/biological structures, but also by socio-economic structures and our conscious-unconscious/psychological structures. I find a quote by Hegel quite insightful regarding the question of freedom, which ofcourse has been used by Marx and Engels too: "Freedom is the recognition of necessity". We always have the choice to analyze (collectively as a scientific community, or by self reflection) the structures that mediate our behaviors and tendencies, in order to correct or reorient them. This is precisely the essence of free will, and it is to be found in the gaps between knowledge and practice. Hope that makes sense
If "free will," the ability for humans to make choices, is determined by the underlying details, then how can we be held responsible when the underlying details, controlled entirely by physics, caused the choice to be made? To get to the bottom of the "free will" question, we need to know: (1) The neural circuits (networks) that cause a choice to be made, (2) The mechanism, that we refer to as "me," that actually "makes a choice," (3) The answer to, "Are emergent phenomena free from those processes that cause it? (4) Answer, "Can the "me" circuits override the deterministic neural chain of events? That's a start.
Sean's latest book is on the foundations of quantum mechanics: Something Deeply Hidden. There he admits that those foundations are not only mysterious, but many physicists are encouraged, nay, almost forced, to not dig there. We don't know where the ground is. The wave function that's supposed to model it all has imaginary parts (complex numbers are very useful, but they are not real! :-) And gravity is not accounted for. Our subjective experience, our deepest reality, is beyond what physics can explain, so far. That's why we need good philosophers like Socrates, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant and more...
Nope. We just need to accept the fact ... that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Abstract & Physical Functions .. that have clear & obvious purpose, properties, form, processes & DESIGN. Religion is a natural phenomena where most believe in a soul/spirit & a supernatural entity that made everything ... because Man has known for thousands of years that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & Laws and anything with clear & obvious DESIGN, function & purpose. We know for a fact that nature & natural processes over any period of time, ... will never ever make & operate a simple mechanical or electrical machine. The simplest machines include wheel, lever, wedge, nail, screw, hammer, nut, bolt ....... and have no moving parts but are a single solid object. These simple physical Functions can never been made & operated by Nature & natural processes. And the three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). We don't need more philosophers telling us how to think. We need to be objective, rational, logical, reasonable & ethical and accept what the facts are clearly telling us about the origin of the Universe & Life. Man is a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a NATURE .... made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a NATURE. The Universe never had a Natural origin 13.7 billion years ago. This is complete nonsense & contradicts the facts from the Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems in our Universe. All thermodynamic Systems .... are Functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING system(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist & to FUNCTION. Everything is a Function from the quantum to the cosmic level ... and science is simply reverse engineering Natural Functions to learn how they work. A religion is an organized FIRM BELIEF in an unnatural origin of the Universe. Abiogenesis & evolution .. are unnatural belief ... that Nature & natural processes can make & operate a living machine. They are religions ... and that simply replaced "the gods" with the nonsense from "the Man." Where is a rock solid evidence proving nature & natural processes can make & operate an abstract or physical Function? There is no evidence, because all Functions require INFORMATION in the form of design, properties, form, purpose ... to exist & to function. The Laws of Physics are only possible because everything in the Universe .. has purpose, form, design, PROPERTIES, & function. Wake up and stop being numbnuts.
@@abelincoln8885 Everything you just postulated was philosophical - except it was bad philosophy, by virtue of you engaging in a performative contradiction.
@@vauchomarx6733 lol. Gtfo numbnut. There is nothing remotely philosophical about: 1. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes abstract & physical Functions with purpose, form design & properties. 2. All thermodynamic systems are Functions with set purpose, form, design & properties ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System(s) that must provide the matter, energy, time, space, & Laws of nature to exist & to function. These are statements of fact ... as is the Universe & Life are natural thermodynamic systems. Facts like these are not open to philosophical interpretation. Man has free will & a Nature ... to think & do good or evil. OMG. Yet another rock solid fact unless you believe murders, rape, slavery, racist, bestiality, pedophilia, stealing, lying, corruption, greed, gluttony, etc are NOT evil. Well do you? lol. Man is a NATURAL intelligence with free will & a Nature ..... made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with free will & a Nature. This is actually a fact of science, that is being ignored ... because Man has free will & a nature to think & do whatever he wants with actual facts of science. C'mon. Disprove any of the facts I have stated shows the unnatural origin of the Universe or Life. Good luck.
@@Robinson8491 Yes! I think he will make a great philosopher by the time he is as old as Socrates was when he drank the hemlock instead of running away to exile.
I'm confused why anyone would think this is a good interview after 2 minutes of watching. The first 2 minutes were good, everything after was just Sean not explaining free will from a physicists pov by parroting the same (sociological / philosophy of language?) point over and over again as if Robert didn't get it the first time.
The view being discussed here is known as "compatiblism" or "soft determinism". It's basically the view that we don't have to abandon the language of agency if we discover we're deterministic. Just as the thing we referred to as "the Earth" when we thought it was flat we continued to refer to as "the Earth" when we discovered it was round, and the things we referred to as "stars" when we thought they were little points of light we continued to refer to as "stars" when we discovered they were giant balls of gas, so to the things we referred to as "acts of free will", "choices", and so on, when we thought they were indeterministic we can continue to refer to as such if we discover they're deterministic. Our understandings of them may have changed, but we're still referring to the same things.
The real question is; do the parts control the whole or does the whole control the parts. If you put two atoms in close enough proximity, at a high enough energy level, then they will interact in a set way based on the laws of quantum mechanics. You can only do these calculations after the fact since the circumstances that bring the atoms together is the result of higher level functions that are not controlled by the particle interaction. The atoms are passive objects and will react to whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Particles don't determine anything.
The " whole" being? Self-evidently imaginary-exists only as an idea, and cannot be directly immediately personally experience (as directly immediately personally sprain pain) qua "the whole" obviously because it's imaginary - effectively it's a universal all universals are imaginary are they not? - Imaginary being defined as that which cannot be directly immediately personally experienced as it is imagined or qua what is imagined - the whole is no more than idea and if that is not an example of imaginary, what is? if the dreamer and idler Kuhn wants to examine anything he could try are all universals necessarily imaginary?
@@vhawk1951kl Are you saying that an organism that you can see and smell is imaginary? A person has pretty well defined boundaries and self-contained systems, so it is a convenient categorization, no? Or are you talking about something more nebulous?
@@caricue I define imaginary as follows: X is imaginary if it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain) are qua or *as* X- or if it is no more than an idea or exists only as an image or idea product of and in, the associative apparatus of aa creature with an associative apparatus. asking if ideas are imaginary is identical to asking if imaginary things are imaginary or blue things are blue. How else would you define imaginary? You can't? - No surprises there. Look at the etymology of the word it means no more than being no more than an image- the clue is written on the tin as we say in England. Almost inescapably or inevitably all universals are imaginary because they cannot be directly immediately personally experienced qua universals. asking if ideas are imaginary is identical to asking if imaginary things are imaginary or blue things are blue.
@@vhawk1951kl I don't think I questioned the definition of imaginary, only its application to people. Are you saying that a whole person is an imaginary thing?
@@caricue possibly yes but that would depend on what you mean by "whole" if you are going to query imaginary, you yourself need to define it, and also" whole person" because one definition of healthy is whole, and oddly enough holy also means whole or healthy. Person comes from the Greek persona meaning mask; are yo discussing masks. Words are like shadows, as soon as you try to examine them, the runaway from you as you approach them. Most of what goes on in the associative or dreaming apparatus of men is shadow-chasing for screamingly obvious reasons.
~ The Singularity Is Still Here ~ Does the universe have free will? If the universe is alive and conscious through us and its other creatures, whether here or on other planets-- and all entangled in realtime, far faster than light-- are those conversations, in a very real sense, conversations of the universe with and within itself? If the universe has free will, then do we if we are the universe? What is a thought, a dream? Where do they go? How can they be quantified? What can determinism mean in the fundamental context of infinity and realtime entanglement across distances that may not actually be distant at all, but in the same place, within a singularity?
I would define free will as consciousness affecting matter and energy through the mind having some minimal control over thought patterns and body movements. Driving cross country is a prime example of cognition's ability to control the movement of matter and energy in a non random way.
We seem to keep encountering this fatal assumption on the topic of free will, namely, that the question only applies to humans. It doesn't. Either all creatures, including humans, have free will, or none of them do. What most distinguishes human animals from nonhuman animals relates to horizon of options, and this is a question of shades of grey, not either/or. Humans have rich symbolism in language and culture, and this enables us to get into the minds of others, to apprehend possibilities across an extended horizon of options. A frog in a pond, a cow in the field, or a fish in the sea, by contrast, has a much reduced horizon of options, in comparison. But the question of free will applies to them, too, because they must also "know how to be", they must also make the choices that make sense of their worlds. Why does this matter? Because the mind-body problem applies to them, too. Bodies wires neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains - all brain-bodies, not just human. We carry much baggage from the human exceptionalism of our anthropocentric, Judeo-Christian traditions.
Agree 100% To me, the definition of life is the ability to make choices. I don't see any contradiction between materialism and the ability of living organisms to make a limited range of choices.
So consciousness is like a "side effect" of physical processes? Big bang leads to this this leads to that billions of years go by and as a part of those physical processes human consciousness arises? That is such a difficult thing to accept
We are wave functions of the universe evolving according to the laws of physics (ultimate verdict) AND we are responsible for our decisions. Am I the only person who finds that inconsistent given the probabilistic nature of QM?
Is it just me or did Carroll simply did not want to say we don't have "free will"? Maybe because his physical laws are in conflict with with his experience as a human being?
It sounds like his version of free will is that it is still very real, but we are bounded by the laws of physics which I would argue is logically consistent. It doesn’t seem logical that you can break the laws of physics using your free will.
@@markwilson2421 I remember him saying that the question of free will is entirely seperate from the question of whether or not physics is deterministic or not: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rohgVwQ57uM.htmlsi=N29kcmtMQDvsjU9z I may not entirely agree with his reasoning, but that's besides the point. But then again, this all depends on what his definition of free will is.
This entire discussion is a category mistake. Freedom is a capacity of animate, self-moving creatures; it has absolutely nothing to do with whether our physics is deterministic, and I find it crazy that people fail to understand this. The question is whether we can do otherwise, not whether quantum phenomena is deterministic. Seriously.... No one says that you can "overcome" the laws of physics. The laws of physics certainly *constrain* what you can do (as indeed the rules of chess constrain what you can play). But they do not *determine* what you will do, let alone force you to do anything. You are free to do what you want as long as it is consistent with physical laws (and remember, physical "laws" are no more than descriptions of what tends to occur; they can't make anything happen).
That's the reason quantum physics forbids metaphysics decision like if deterministic or indeterministic interpretations are true, or if realistic or antirealistic interpretation is true, science can never answer metaphysical questions, that's the reason nature forbids decision, that's the true lesson of quantum physics!
If the universe is deterministic, there is only one exact way you can act, because every interaction of the particles you and your environment are made of has ONE outcome. If the wave function is indeterministic, then "your" decision is still a result of random factors beyond your control.
I think it is you (with all due respect) who is confused with respect to the categorical discourse. Free will in science doesn't question whether you are governed by the laws of physics or whether you can break them. It rather discusses the nature and functionality of the brain and whether consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. The position of mainstream science is that functional complexity in the brain leads to emergent consciousness and the illusion of free will. This makes the human experience totally deterministic and results in serious implications for social accountability. That was the logical conclusion Sean Carroll was trying to evade.
I usually like Sean Carroll for his honesty in supplying answers in physics for the questions the science community has little understanding of, but in this instance (at least for me) he comes as a little bit arrogant. I somehow agree with some aspects of his viewpoint in the matter and I wish he could have humoerd Khun and elaborated more instead of condescending.
(1:58) *SC: **_"I think free will is emergent."_* ... Sean is correct! In the early universe there was a balanced mixture of predictability and unpredictability (structure and chaos, respectively). Predictability fostered complex structure and unpredictability fostered the annihilation of said structure. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, predictability and unpredictability were made manifest in self-aware humans via logic and emotion. Just like the early universe, we are prone to creating complex structure and destroying this structure with the only difference being that we can evaluate and judge what we've done. There is no subatomic particle from 13 billion years ago that is dictating the choices you make today ... _so choose wisely!_
On the seeing: "SC: "I think free will is emergent." ..., One supposes that if X cannot mumbo, X might as well jumbo. In point of fact free will is estrimildenfar- Emergent my arse
The Life-Desire, is the MOTOR of the Eternal Life. In direct extension, We have the 'Will', (Life-side) and 'Gravity', (Stuff-side) 'Free Will', is speculation, the Will, is Eternal, going in Circuits, from minimum-performance to maximum-performance, from Development-circuit to higher circuits, and so on. So, 'Will', is Not physical, but the Stuff-side, ('effect of Gravity') is. At the core.
~ An Emergent Property of Superset Free Will & Infinity? ~ What if the universe, itself, was alive and had free will by virtue of itself being free and could transfer its 'wave-function' free will to us? Where do the laws of physics come from anyway? Who or what grants the universe, gravity, for example, or does the universe grant itself, gravity, and all the rest of what it needs to operate? Often in debates like this, philosophers and scientists talk about predictions, but has it not already been proven that predictability is impossible? Uncertainty Principle? Heisenberg? So if we live in a universe that is based upon uncertainty, what does this suggest about free will? If the universe is in a sense, or in more than one sense, infinite, how can we fathom all that goes into our behavior, then, and could the universe's infinite nature render us essentially free-willed? IOW perhaps, what does it mean to behave according to infinite variables that go into who we are and how we act? Sean Carroll mentions here and elsewhere, almost as a locus, base or underscore of his premise, that 'free will' is emergent, with the keyword being emergent. He said this twice or more times in this video if recalled. So is gravity and all other laws of physics emergent too? What does he mean by emergent and can it be construed as a kind of free will? IOW, is free will an emergent property of infinity?
Sean offers a great explanation, and way of thinking about free will. If you believe in the type of free will where consciousness is more fundamental than the fundamental particles and forces of physics, that is no different then religion. There is no scientific evidence to support that other than your own intuition.
Subjective experience IS unlike any other known phenomena. Sean does not offer any insight on the topic of subjective experience. In other word: A SUBJECT (You, me, Sean, all subjects) that experiences AND wills. We can't pretend we understand the will by saying we somewhat understand the behavior of particles but have no clue what particles are.
@@jackarmstrong5645 Great point. The mind, or consciousness, or awareness of our thoughts and feelings and sensations, is our subjective experience. Sean did mention that our bodies are all part of the one universal wave function that evolves as per Schrodinger's equation. Similarly, and by analogy, our will might as well be the part of the one universal will. Just a possibility to consider. 🙏🏻
@@BulentBasaran Saying a subject has any connection to this other human concept called "wave function" is a subjective choice. Not something demonstrated.
I'm trying to decide whether his answer is profound or meaningless. I'm leaning towards the latter. I can see how consciousness can be an "emergent property," but not so much free will. You either have it or you don't. If the universe is totally deterministic, then I don't see how free will can come in. I also don't like how he brushed off the question about the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Just because there's an equation that describes the system, that doesn't mean it's deterministic (at least not in the sense of the term that is relevant here) when the equation is statistical in nature. Quantum mechanics tells us that knowing the state of the system in the present doesn't allow us to predict the state in the future -- at the micro level anyway -- and who knows if that may have implications for free will.
@@ShyguyMM Probably. OTOH he compares free will to temperature. Temperature actually exists, it isn't just an illusion. This wasn't a very deep discussion. I would like to see a physicist actually take on the compatibilist position, ie that the laws of physics do not exclude the possibility that living beings can exercise a degree of choice.
@@ShyguyMM The fact that temperature is an average of energy doesn't make it less real, and I don't care what individual atoms think about it. The fact that events can be reduced to physical properties does not prevent some amazing events from occurring. Free will might be one of them.
Science can in principal only recognize determined and finite things, but never the Living entity and so not freedom. Freedom is only in execution, spoken with Kant and Kierkegaard, but never "in abstracto"!
1. If there is uncertainty, then one cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will. 2. There is uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) 3. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
Can't this same argument be applied to any other philosophical topic? Just switch out free will with objective morality or dualism and it'd still follow.
Wow! Sean Carrol explains free will even in a deterministic universe. To paraphrase, it's a perfectly fine way of describing what we're doing, what we are. He is basically dismissing the question. I was hoping for a harder line. Ofcourse we, the thing experiencing something, are deciding on things and our experience of free will is setting things in motion. Saying it's "fine" means he agrees we have free will. That's my take. It might just be hard to know when or to what degree those choices had some inescapable inertia towards. Om the other hand, just as with individual instances of nuclear decay, there could be literally nothing else moving some of our choices before we experience making them.
If free will is just an illusion, that doesn't change anything for us, because we are inside this illusion. We can't see into the future. Therefore, for us, free will "exists". We have the illusion that we can make our own choices. So, relax... and enjoy your illusion of free will. You are still responsible for your actions.
.....I finally see the problem physicists have with free will, they assume that this free will or ability to choose to do or not do a thing would violate particle physics ability to extrapolate what is supposed to happen with particles; (you do A, and B happens). "If a particle interaction happened yesterday at that point, then today it should be at this point, then at any tomorrow it should be at the prescribed point, its mathematics." but formula or computer can extrapolate with so many variables, its madness to even attempt. (if so the lottery would be void.) PEACE.
Sean Carroll was just being wishy-washy. He was saying that he believes that choices are, in principle, all ultimately explainable in terms of the laws of physics. But at the same time, he was saying that free will exists. The problem was that he didn't properly explain what he meant by the term "free will", which is a necessary prerequisite to arguing that it refers to something real. The interviewer was perfectly sensibly trying to pin Sean Carroll down into saying something less wishy-washy. He had only limited success, but he did the right thing by trying.
@@ShyguyMM Yes, I think you are pretty much right. I don't know if he is saying that free will "does not have any objective reality", but he does seem to be saying that whatever he is talking about is not the same as what what people usually mean when they use that term. Although, to be honest, I am not sure that there is such a thing as "what people usually mean when they use that term". I think that most people, if not all, don't really have a clear idea of what they mean when they use the term.
How do we accept this logic ? That is we are determined to determined! If we have no free will why do atheists and most of biologists trying to establish their philosophy because as per this law theistic peoples also have no free will so how do atheists teach their philosophy? If their is no free will then what's about morality? If their is no morality then how can we say what is good or bad ?
@@chayanbosu3293 There are a lot of debates out there on this. But in short, atheist believes we each have our own subjective morality and what we collectively agree on is objective morality. Regarding free will, an absolute powerful God can rewind time and replay events right? If that happens and we do not choose a different path, then do we have free will? If that happens and we can choose a different path, but God can do this an infinite amount of times, then do we have fee will?
It is not only quantum mechanics which tells us that there is no free will. Biology and neurosciences also state that there is NO free will. Your “free” will is the result of many factors, such as your upbringing, your family, your friend, what your background is, your education, etc. when you are confronted with a situation, your brain will look back into your memory bank of past responses and behaviors, and will come up with an answer to that situation, WITHOUT YOU KNOWING IT. You will be aware of it a few seconds later. So it wasn’t you who responded willingly to the situation. It was the millions of other previous events which decided what was good for you. I guess this is pretty much due to evolution to keep us safe to survive. Not your fault. Now, morality is a very subjective issue. What is moral for you, may be immoral for someone else, and you can’t bring up some made up authority such as a god, because there are many. Which god is real? Tell me. The Christian god or the Muslim god, or any other gods that have been and still are worshipped? Who told you that the god you believe in is the real one? A book? Your parents? A preacher or Imam? Ask for evidence. Morality is what society decides is good or bad for them, not religion. And whatever is written in those books, the Torah, the Christian Bible, the Qur’an or any other one, were plagiarized from myths from previous civilizations or conquerors. It wasn’t any god. Or do you have evidence if the contrary? If so, present it.
I feel as though the charge of silliness could equally apply to people who refuse to clearly state that free will is an illusion. Is it not akin to someone who's arguing we should maintain the language surrounding a flat earth because when I look out at the horizon I don't see curvature? Why not just abandon outmoded ways of thinking about the world and adopt ones that map on more accurately?
Is your assertion that there is no free will a result of free will? You might not allow yourself to choose based on what you believe and that doesn’t stop others from choosing differently.
Let's just assume we have "free will". That free will is going to operate via some mechanism, some operation. Magic, laws of physics, whatever, it doesn't matter. Just because we can describe those mechanisms and build models and make predictions doesn't negate the "free-ness" of the choice. We just understand why you made the choice, who's likely to make the choice, etc.
I love listening to Sean Carroll, my favourite - that said I have found that we differ (odd because I am wholly unqualified to hold or defend a contrary notion to his) on certain conclusions - but still I wish he was less “certain / strident” on some subjects rather than relying so strictly to the literal interpretations of the math. Makes me feel this might be his (only) blind spot. But then again, I’m a comparative chimp :)
I like him going fanatic for many worlds, makes you take notice and consider it. And it can solve problems, so good job. Especially because it sounds silly but the logic is so coherent. You don't want to look at it, but according to Sean you have to. I appreciate that, it keeps you sharp even when you don't agree
I think Sean was a bit forcefully distorting facts and reconciling things here: “temperature” as an emergent phenomenon pertaining to a macroscopic system has nothing to it that is in ostensible contrast to the physical qualities of the constituent parts; a.k.a., momentum, energy, etc. of atoms and molecules and so on… Whereas “free will” clearly stands in the face of either classical determinism of Newtonian mechanics or quantum indeterminacy of Schrödinger’s wave function. Personally, as a BIG nobody who’s still perfectly entitled to their own naïve opinions/beliefs, I think it’s incredibly arrogant of us to so firmly believe that the laws of physics-as yet understood-or the neurological underpinnings of the brain activity-as Robert Sapolsky would suggest-are solely appropriate to refute or rather explain our sense of consciousness or the feeling of free will, that which we all possess.
I have a feeling of consciousness, but this video was about free will, not consciousness. I don't have a "feeling of free will". I don't even know what that phrase means. What, a feeling that we are not obeying the laws of physics? You can't feel the laws of physics. The idea doesn't even make sense.
@@scambammer6102 Then allow me to elaborate: a particle’s motion and its trajectory or a wave’s mode of vibration and its form of propagation, for instance, are fully determined once the forces/hamiltonian acting on the system are set (along with initial and/or boundary conditions); the past and the future are both predestined as far as the constituent parts (in this case a particle or a wave) of any macroscopic system are concerned. They are, individually OR collectively, unable to alter their own behavior or fate, if you will, whatsoever (assuming they had the consciousness to think of that). Yet, free will refers to an entity’s-such as ourselves’-ability to decide what to do next, in other words, to shape the future as per its/our own desires. This is clearly in sharp contrast to the reality that the constituent parts are experiencing. One might wish to call that sense of being in control an “illusion” or an artifact of the human mind, etc., but I should assume it’s obvious that this would be a philosophical and NOT a scientific stance on the subject matter. Also, regarding free will as an emergent phenomenon is no small claim! You cannot lightly call something you haven’t quite figured out as “emergent” and push it under the rug! There simply is NO such consensus among physicists that that is the case.
@@aminzahedim.7548 " it’s obvious that this would be a philosophical and NOT a scientific stance on the subject matter." It's not obvious to me. The fact we don't yet know how waves and particles produce minds that can alter the future doesn't mean they don't. We have nowhere near sufficient knowledge to rule out that possibility.
@@aminzahedim.7548 Perhaps what Sean Carroll is talking about is better referred to as just plain "will", since the "free" part seems to be misleading people into thinking he means "free from having to obey the laws of physics", or some such thing. You can see "will" as an emergent phenomenon, in that it is a way of describing behaviour in terms of wants and goals, but is ultimately explicable in terms of interactions of subatomic particles, or the wavefunction of the universe, or whatever. An easy way to see what it means for "will" to be built up from the interactions of lower-level elements is in looking at a computer program. I don't think anybody would dispute that a computer running a program can be described in terms of the laws of physics. And yet the program can be sophisticated enough to model a world populated with characters that seem to want to do things. Every time you play a computer game in which some non-playable character seems to want to attack you, you are witnessing a "will" that is built up from interactions of electrons in circuits, and so on.
Sean is just confusing most people here. Why not stop using the term free will if you don't mean "the ability to initiate an uncaused action" or something like it? While we feel we are freely in control of our actions, this turns out not to be the case since in both a random or a determined universe, one cannot spontaneously insert one's will freely into the spacetime manifold. To do so would be to have the power to bend the future to one's will. A part of you would need to exist outside the universe and reach in and affect it. What's wrong with simply stating this fact instead of redefining the issue away?
why do you write as as the only choice I have? In fact you did do that when you ask when you suggest that the only choice "we" have, because when you use the term "we", you indicate the user of the term which is yourself sunshine and you have no immediate interlocutor and given that you have no immediate interlocutor, you were effectively saying "I"o. Only you can know whether or not *you* have a choice - you can know absolutely nothing of the experience of others by way of direct immediate personal experience which is what knowledge or no means, does it not? There is a Chan Buddhist saying: "the unenlightened man has no choice for he is a slave. The man on the way to enlightenment has a choice. The enlightened man has no choice; he does what is necessary".
@@vhawk1951kl As Einstein had said: "God does not play dice". As much as you or I can choose different experiences, our overall destiny has been already determined. If you are the man on the way to enlightenment than you have more choices, but the final effect had been written into your existence long before. To me that is soul growing. We come to this plane of reality to choose different experiences, but the given to us road is already set as a part of our agreement to incarnate.
I keep hearing theories like "simulation", "holographic", or back to Leibniz' "contingent" universe. Those theories all match up nicely with the i, j, k in quaternions. Quaternion MATHEMATICS a complex number of the form w + xi + yj + zk, where w, x, y, z are real numbers and i, j, k are imaginary units that satisfy certain conditions. RARE/biblical a set of four parts, things or persons.
One of the only problems I can think of in using free will to describe such physical processes as those of the brain is that physical processes appear to follow laws of nature that never appear to change their behaviors. But also, people punish other people using free will as a way to separate an individual's actions from all of the physical processes of the past 3.8 billion years of life that directly lead up to that individual's actions.
Interesting and still, like in all the other discussions I have seen, we don't have an obvious and much less a testable definition of free will. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When talking to physicists it seems, that we are still siting in at the Bohr-Einstein debate of what can we actually say about the world, perhaps seasoned with Bell's inequality and what it says of local reality.
Apparently Kant argues that in addition to the proposition categories, analytic - that is evaluated as either true, or false, by the definitions of it's terms, like "One plus two equals three", with a "One plus two" subject and "equals three" predicate - and synthetic -, that is compared against the world to find it's status, like "This background is white" - and can therefore be used for science - including explanatory, but not assumed God universe existential secured predictive, theory - there is another type of proposition called synthetic apriori, where the subject contains the predicate - like "The Queen", where the synthetic predicate "of England," is connoted by the analytic subject, "The Queen" - , that is undecidable and from this, a part of moral philosophy.
Bob, you argue with Sean in ways you never do with the religous. Do you have some kind of prearrangrments with them that prevents a good back and forth, it's quite obvious in this case. Would like to see you take on the word salad of the theocrats.
If true AI sentient being is possible, then that would then have to be a form of emergence also, meaning it could also ‘die’? Or does that mean consciousness follows configuration? How can one get closer to that question?
Random = not free will. Not random = not free will. The theory of free will definitely gets harder and harder to defend as time goes and as if shows with the passive aggressiveness of Sean.
@@8xnnr Which free will are you referring to? There are at least two flavours. "the passive aggressiveness of Sean" - I bet you say that about anyone who disagrees with you.
so if you don’t want to say we don’t have free will just change the definition of free will, any everyone will agree we have free will 😂 “free will …emergent phenomenon” the illusion of free will is an emergent phenomenon. so is a decision a result of a causal chain or the consciousness as an emergent phenomenon is able to change the course of the physical interactions without being part of the causal chain? he basically answers what I was interested in at 0:49 and that’s it, the rest has little significance He keeps mentioning the analogy between temperature and free will but it doesn’t work with free will. Temperature is a measurable quantity that describes matter while free will is maybe what we feel when we make decisions by his definition or the ability to make decisions which are not the result of a causal chain.
Math integration and derivation answers why we Have free will. That regression to the past event by event is like by integration, have Infinite paths to the consequence. Only the derivative of the actions towards to the future are exactly one path, commanded by the free will (although with environmental constraints) of the self. If someone look his past will be surprised why with millions of selfs and circumstances around ,this and that (good and bad by its definition) happened in his worldline , leading to his state "today". Abusively this is used by film story creators, regressing intrincated paths to the past of characters, to entertain the spectators during 2h cinema or by years of seasons series. This stories are tiring to me, so the best is see biography films, as are the exact choices and circumstances of someone who have done something digne of that film.
do we have 'free will?' the answer, I think, is the one often given to great question - yes and no. no, in the sense that the university is bound to predictable causation, or if you like - all of space/ time exists, and yes. we are organic machines with somewhat (to put it mildly) limited senses to perceive 'reality'. to us we perseve we have 'free will' even though, ultimately, that belief is false.
The most convincing argument against free will I have heard is from Sam Harris. Prior to listening to his argument I never even considered that we don't have free will but he changed my mind. It is somewhat freeing to understand that free will is an illusion because it makes holding grudges and resentments against others much more difficult.
@@wi2rd The understanding that when people do things that you don't like you don't need to take it personally. The 'choices' that others make often have little to do with you and more to do with biochemical and physical chain reactions within them.
@@mozerm You are talking about the cause here, that which makes you experience this 'freeing'. I was asking about the result, the 'freeing', what does 'more freeing' mean in a context where free will is an illusion.
@@movingisliving This is a part of the podcast episode that really made me think about free will. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u45SP7Xv_oU.html I think in your example the argument against free will is what made you decide to get in shape? Where did that thought arise from? He gives some better examples though. One way to summarize is what precedes a thought? If I asked you to name an actor, any actor, you will come up with a name and you will possibly come up with several names and 'choose' one to say BUT where did those names come from? What control did you have over those names arising from your consciousness? Why those names? Why not any of dozens of other names you also know?
That explanation seems like a total copout. "It's a matter of semantics"? If the laws of physics were the only thing that predicts outcome, than raw gold would stay in the ground and not be refined into a "more valuable" object. Human behavior is not based on physics and is the basis of free will. The outcome from a human mind is not predictable based on physical laws. It is an evaluation from a string of qualia, each of different individual value. The outcome is not predictable by an outside observer. Free Will might be emergent but is not only based on physical laws.
Doesn’t chaos prevent us following particle trajectories to predict the future, even in principle? And wouldn’t the simple ability to roll a dice qualify as free will? Edit: I mean to roll a dice within the brain.
He avoided answering. Free will means we can change, at least to some extent, our future. How does deterministic quantum mechs deal with that? His answer seems to be that he doesn't have a problem with undecided futures as a side-effect of deterministic quantum mechs.
i would like to know what happen if someone point a gun to who denies free will... will they say "please please dont shoot !!" ? Also i think their "non free will" have found good ways to make money ...
The problem that Kuhn has with Carrol here, which I share, is that the accepted definition of free will requires human autonomy… being a “law unto oneself” - so it’s not only unhelpful but introduces confusion when he adopts the language and simply redefines the word. It needs a new word in his case. Idk, this just confirmed to me that Sean Carrol is not even striving to entertain philosophical matters & really could care less about the use or application of physics in the real world.
@@scambammer6102 well he seems happy talking at length about physics but seems increasingly disinterested when getting into the related philosophical matters - as if it is of less importance
~ Absolute 'Quantum' Free Will Versus General 'Classical' Unfree Will ~ Absolute free will may exist in part because infinity cannot be resolved. Sure, you have all the so-called laws of physics and whatnot all governing your thoughts and behavior, but they are in the context of infinity, so any attempts at calculations describing someone's unfree will cannot resolve. They can only be described as probabilities. So perhaps we don't have free will in a general or classical sense but we do in an absolute, or quantum, sense."
We did not determine our genetics, our birthplace and what crossed our path to mold us; we are descendants of causality. We might wish to be separate from causality; we might desire its revelations; we might hate it; we are lucky if we revere it; we are it.
Does free will exist? A debate like that about free will would hardly be possible in natural science. The terms are clearly defined there, as are the rules for how the objects behave. While in physics we are dealing with a passive world of objects, in the philosophy of life we are dealing with an active world of subjects. This dramatically increases the indeterminacy and indeterminacy of the object world. While the objects there obey defined laws, here they can only be determined statistically at best. For example, if I hit a billiard ball with a cue, I can theoretically calculate its exact path. When I tell a person to do this or that, I don't know whether he will do it, whether he can do it or whether he will do it. The term determinism, which is often used here and borrowed from physics, has no meaning here. Through their movement as agents, the subjects already change the initial conditions in such a way that the consequences are no longer predictable. A fact that physicists or physicalists do not want to accept. The terms of philosophy are anything but clearly defined. Let's take consciousness. If you look at it as a substance, as a state or as something intangible, is it a property that is detected in the brain or does it extend across the body and environment. The decision about this depends on the epistemological orientation. A discussion is then hardly possible without quickly getting to the fundamental questions and getting caught up there. The confusion is so great that people tend to ontologize concepts. Example of mind-body problem. Body and soul are then seen as two entities, although it is irrelevant whether they are two substances or two other entities. People forget that there is only one thing to argue about, namely the individual. The two perspectives from which one can examine this individual, the physiological or the psychological, are not seen as perspectives, but as objects between which causality is even supposed to exist. In reality, all you can do is establish correlations. Seen this way, the statement that the physical brain determines the mind is wrong from the start. This insight contradicts our deeply dualistic thinking that has accompanied us for centuries. If we recognize that the self-active subject world, i.e. everything living, works differently than the inanimate passive object world of physics, then it would be time to take this fact into account scientifically. Physical rules could then no longer be transferred one-to-one to life, but would have to be transformed. Example: if in the physics of dynamic systems we are talking about attractors, towards which the system approaches as if towards a fixed point, then a transformed concept would have to assume an attractor that itself acts as an agent and thus constantly changes the conditions of the system. Given this, the idea of free will takes on a new, more grounded meaning. Even if the subject of free will still needs to be described precisely, it turns out that the subject of action, the individual, has degrees of freedom that are increasingly present the greater the complexity of the individual and the environment. Spaces of possibility and necessity are constantly opening up, which enable or require decisions. The will, originally as the will to survive, is repeatedly asked to make decisions.
Except that I'm not sure it's accurate to call the quantum wave function deterministic. It depends on which interpretation one prefers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics So if it's not deterministic, things might be stochastically predictable, but not exactly predictable. However, in his recent book Something Deeply Hidden, Sean does say that it's almost certain that the neurological phenomena of thought and choice depend solely on classical Newtonian physics--nothing quantum is going on in the process of thought. The scale of the biological processes involved is far too large for quantum effects to matter. And so thought and choice aren't really linked with quantum effects, and can likely be explained entirely by classical mechanics.
Interesting perspective, particularly that analogy with temperature, but Sean just wasn't going in the direction of explanation that is of interest for the philosopher, as Robert was trying to put the the position, in a way that's more useful.
to be really mean you could break down free-will as a sheer phenomenon of the human mind to use words ( a.k.a.: still just sound waves! that get meaning through reflection ergo posthum) to describe our behavior afterwards but never at the millisecond being done in time and that would only be relevant if we all would go mute forever...
I fully understand every *word* of this conversation. It's making sense of the *sentences* that's impossble. Free will means the human brain is not deterministic. And if cause-effect doesn't determine the future, then what does? Nobody knows and it seems nobody ever will.
You should look up compatibilism. Determinism doesn’t go against free will, in fact it’s necessary. If I decide to go on a walk, there must be some determined set of actions that go with that in order for my will to be played out. If my body did undetermined and random things when I ‘decided’ to go on the walk, then the walk wouldn’t happen and my will would be meaningless and certainly not free.
@@gravitystorm58 you could argue from the other side as well. If actions taken are deterministic, then we're no different from robots. Our fate was decided on the moment of the big bang, and all events followed as a result of that. Similar to the first hit on a pool table and you could calculate where each ball will end up.
Freedom is "insight into necessity" (Hegel) or equivalence with the "holy will" (Kant). Everything can be determined, freedom depends on who is the lawmaker..
@@gravitystorm58 Free will and consciousness are FUNCTIONS of the Mind of an entity. Animals & Man ... are PHYSICAL entities ... with a physical mind(brain), and a consciousness & free will ... of & in a PHYSICAL environment. Of course the physical environment will have an influence on the choices made for the physical body. But free will involves thoughts & actions. And the only way the physical environment influences thoughts from a healthy normal brain .... is if you freely choose to make it so. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a clearly fine tuned brain ... to separated the Mind ( & therefore functions) of Man from that of Animals. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA but it can never think & do 1% of what Humans can & have done. The Mind of Man is more than the brain. Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems prove the Universe & Life have an unnatural origin by an intelligence. The mind of an intelligence ... is unnatural & no-physical ( ie soul/spirit). The Mind of Man is physical ( brain) & non-physical( soul). And again, .... consciousness & free will ... are functions of the MIND of an entity. So the free will of Man .. is both natural & unnatural.
