You don't have free will, but don't worry. 

Professor Olivier Costa de Beauregard: QUOTE: Any how k [knowledge] is very small “because N [negentroipy] is very big”; so knowledge is extremely cheap and organization expensive; said otherwise: “cognizance is normal and psychokinesis [6, 7] paranormal”. If k [knowledge] were zero cognizance would be cost-free and free-will an illusion

they need to pay the bills..

Olivier Costa de Beauregard: a hypothesis that was implicit in the theory named “epiphenomenal consciousness”. Interestingly, Born’s wavelike probability scheme associates [8, 9]retarded or advanced causation with statistical pre- or retro-diction."

@Janusha So you must be filled w/ hate since you are from the IQ lower end

Usually like you videos, but this one is quite bad. You fall into the typical trap of doing pseudo-science, everything presented there is self-contradictory. Using multiple logical fallacies with zero rigorousness whatsoever. And you are dodging the true question, which is: do consideration, awareness exist as we intuitively think they do, (see point 6) and below) 0) In summary this video is just explaining determinism or so called hard determinism. Nothing new here, very old idea, explained quite arrogantly I have to say. But the job of explaining this is OK. 1) None of the concept presented here are properly defined (free will, self awareness, determinism, etc.). Overall there is a complete lack of true scientific approach. 2) The causality argument paired with the "big bang" is ignoring the most simple observation one can make: the most fundamental truth is that there is something instead of nothing, and this something is arbitrarily the way it is, and not another way. Also by taking this deterministic approach you are implicitly saying that you have a proper definition of time and causality, events, sequences, and a lot of fundamentally open and very difficult question. What prevents another universe or other stuff to arbitrarily emerge. 3) What you are basically saying is that you don't know how to define free will or that free will is a tautology. Thus here is the question you should answer instead of making this video: given that you can create any universe with any law, what are the requirements for an universe with free will. Or said in another manner: define a system where there is free will. That's the proper approach. Otherwise you are just saying "as far as we know stuff is deterministic". 4) Even if we agree with everything you said, the fact is that we can act. Then if we can act, what prevents us of changing the law of the universe we live in. Basically, can free will be artificially created, similarly to 3) 5) The "little people", the "dumb common people" who get sad and depressed when they contemplate the fact that free will may not exist are right. You are coping with the idea by using your story metaphor, but it doesn't change anything. A purely mechanistic universe is not very welcoming. And you are dodging the true questions, if everything is deterministic/mechanistic then causing harm is not causing harm, it's just moving gears. Then why anything matters. 6) You cannot talk about free will without tackling self awareness. And you dodge the question here, free will is secondary to self awareness if you truly reflect on that point. *Consideration is the concept to define here. Is it possible to consider something or not. That is the true point.* If it's impossible to consider something, then consciousness is an illusion and we live in a purely mechanistic universe where nothing matters. However, the fact is, that you consider morality in your speech. Thus you say that regardless of the nature of the universe, you believe in moral actions, thus you are saying that your mind can arbitrarily understand, apprehend such concepts and define them, give them meaning. 7) All in all you are in this video ignoring many arguments you made in previous videos, like "we don't know", there is so many thing we don't know (dark matter, etc.). Yet you are claiming that no matter what free will can not emerge. Thus the scientific argument is unnecessary, just say that you are not able to define free will or that's it's a tautology. Otherwise you are saying that no matter what we discover about the truth, the nature of the universe, etc. no matter what, it will have no impact on our apprehension of free will. Basically in this video you ignore all your own principles about doubt and you are basically giving up on finding a concept that would resemble the intuitive idea of free will we all have. As I said, free will does not matter. What matter is consideration. You say free will doesn't matter and we can think of it like a story we don't know yet. But truly, if you follow your own arguments, consideration itself doesn't even exist, you cannot comprehend anything, you cannot perceive anything, so the metaphor of the story is meaningless. NOTHING is there to watch your story, there is no concept of seeing, there is just reaction. There is no awareness. You stop halfway though the reasoning and it looks like you try to satisfy your own complacency and condescension.

Hahaha

@@whatewb Someone just said it’s all neurons ( no mind, only brain ) . Another asked me to explain Penrose theory of mind . I told them : “ that is incorrect like someone else just asking me to explain Penrose . You are incorrect as neurons means computationalism and algorithmic. That means no free will . That means you can never form VALId conclusions. You are therefore incorrect . Please comb through the logic in the above paragraph. You need to enroll in a high school and plead a teacher to learn logic . It’s not instinctive . ----------------- Sir Roger Penrose ,The Nobel states it’s Microtubules that connect the cosmos to the brain . I told the other person what I tell you : “ Look into Penrose for that as it’s detailed like using Goedel and then Goldstein’s theories / but some notes : 1. Penrose is better than everyone except me 2. Penrose is wrong . Math is not metaphysics like he assumes and states buying into bunkum called Platonism ( fantasy). Science and math are SUB-SETS of epistemology. Math and science must be interpreted using reason and logic . And reason is used with a mind exercising free will ( found in metaphysics ). Remember : consciousness is the identification of existence. So existence , mind and identity are the triad of metaphysics. 3. Finally Penrose is a physicalist theory of mind . It’s very s*xy ! I spend several years on it . Just because of his reputation and demeanor it’s easy to get seduced ! Very easy. The mind is a separate identity with free will . So ditch the physicalist theory . Ditch the idea you can derive philosophy from math or physics : it’s the wrong way around ! Math and physics dependent upon correct philosophy else you have modern day pure fantasy from multiverse to 2D space projected as 3D in ADS space or inflation or Big Bang etc . All bunkum . Existence exists means it existed and will exist forever . If physics contradicts philosophy then philosophy dominates else you have religion : Scientism !!!!!! You must separate “myth even with muscles” Of Nobels and rigorous math ( e.g. others’ string theory ) from reality : existence , mind and identity .

@@whatewb are you keeping up ? Todor put in a good set of arguments today ! You can infer his points from the answers I gave him : “ Todor you said “eternalism is a religion! @Silver Cloud will love this !!!! “. A. Why do quantum physicists use it in Hamiltonian? The above is a trick question to show you it’s perfectly all right in math . -> The trick is you can’t derive reality from math so moving to point B. B. Let’s play !!!! If existence is NOT eternal then we have your favorite concept !!!!!! Beginning !!!!! Yeah !!!!!!! Like the Pre-Quel to the movie ALIEN !!!! Did you see it ? Man goes to search for his maker and finds earlier more advanced man ! That earlier man made modern man AND ALIEN! ALIEN killed the maker ! But wait ! Who created the maker ? See the absurdity ? You will below . So the only reasonable conclusion is existence exists as the broadest concept even possible ! Advanced development of this idea below ---- C. Turing machines ? Beginning ? God ? Simulation hypothesis? ALL ARE THE SAME MYTH !!!!!!!! Why ? I am very well versed in Turing machines . It’s nothing BUT fiction - SCI FI . There are NOoOOO Turing machines . All machines are within Existence . Understand ? Else you’re once again grasping for a beginning ! Who created that Turing machine ? You ? Another man? Your mother “earth”? I thought that was GRETA’s mother ? Sick foul girl . Earth is not sentient - man needs to invade the earth always to create and trade value - but apology for a rant - back to you . You can’t call it “beginning” nor grasp at a MACHINE ( Turing or WOLFRAM or cellular automata ). ->>>> There’s only existence . That means it existed into infinity . How do you know ? Consciousness is the identification of existence !!!!! Done !!!! Just like in black hole physics or quantum things are counter intuitive ; similarly in analogy - your mind looking for a “beginning” is the result of your brain applying the intrinsic need for causality patterns . That’s fine at macro level . But doesn’t apply to “existence / cosmos”. ( In analogy : many other things do not apply like “what is space expanding into ? Another space ? But where is that other space held ? Another space ? Back to reductio ad ABSURDUM!!! You keep grasping for error : REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!!!! Error ! There’s only existence as the broadest concept . 1 I believe I already answered all this . If you don’t read then what’s the point ? “Big Bang” is a derogatory misnomer that stuck! Fred Hoyle stated it to disconfirm it! Later evidence suggests something like a Big Bang indeed. But a real Big Bang is impossible . Existence exists means it existED and will exist into infinity . There was NOO bog bang. Something does NOTTT come from NO-thing . 2. You CAN’T ask for a beginning even !!!!!! Why not ? To ask implies an existence BEFORE existence : so it’s a logical contradiction like your sim /computationalism failed non-theory as it means “who created the sim ? And who created the creator ? And the Creator’s creator ?” It goes into reductio ad ABSURDUM! ABSURDUM! Get it ? 3. Unaware and notice : your mind is crying and grasping for the “scam of scientism” that you had absorbed . Do you now notice it ? Your questions have implications that are dieing for science but science is NOT metaphysics ;map don’t make it into a religion like you are unaware doing because of the HORSEMEN and Sabine ! --- P.S. all science , math must be processed using human word game language to have understanding . 1011100011101001 has no inherent understand / meaning by itself . So the only way to get to truth is reason and logic using language - human word game language . And the only way to reason is using the mind ( with free will ) actively - an act of consciousness.

@@AmericanBrain Double double thumbs up dude :)

@@ziggyfreud5357 A man ( computer coder that tries to reject Rand) objects to the words I use to defray the conclusions so he can carry on with delusion like green commie girl called Greta; like God believers who’d rather embrace myth than face facts ; like the unelected Dalai Lama who forever lost a huge nation due to ongoing stupidity via fictional philosophy - their evil : socialism . So yes words matter : as concepts are the filters through which you perceive reality ! I told the guy: “You said that your mind forms meaning regardless of the dictionary - like a primitive but modern man that is illiterate ( many are around today ). Are you correct ? Yes ! Wow ! How ? Yes! But . But what ? 1. As I said in my earlier posts : a growing child or you are automatically and always forming concepts because you have a mind ( unique : as there’s nothing like it ) and concepts pertain to the mind . 2. But many or most higher level concepts are wrong ( fully or aspects of them). It needs man to learn , practice, master and use the methods of reason and logic to get things correct . Many believe the moon landings are fake ; or the earth is flat . They only judge reality using concrete ( experience ). They do not grasp higher level concepts . Only man has this and this ability . A.I/computers do not . Like driving or reading : man must formally learn but also actively use reason and logic at all times for all things (!) - the active use of a real mind ( vs computers are passive like a Turing machine ). 3. So learned man must do things that are counter intuitive in some things or intuitive-that’s - expanded using subjects one learns in academia and uses - using reason and logic. Such as a lawyer or philosopher where words are important . Even a architect and engineer : else there’s calamitous confusion - death and damage ! With a computer coder: without precision there is error . I stated in yesterday’s post : words are either descriptive or prescriptive . Both are important depending upon the context . Coders use operational prescriptive words like mathematicians use functional symbolism . Lawyers , philosophers and in fact theoreticians in every subject ( sciences ) - and everyone everywhere - use words to grasp concepts , understand and therefore ideate properly to reach VALID conclusion and/or hypothesis ( a “reasonable” guess out of a innumerable cloud of possibility!) In science this is called praxis . Without praxis - there is no science ! Both theory and practice ! Both concepts ( theory ) and experiment ! Praxis is where theory is modified by practice ; and practice is informed by theory ! To conclude: - man , all man uses the mind , uses concepts - rationality is never automatic and man must learn and properly use the methods of reason and logic. This means precision . - practical life is about praxis such as science OR an internet marketer choosing what to test ; what markets to target and engaging in Taguchi testing and/or simpler split testing ALL the time relentless! - but to understand the indisputable , immovable essences of reality ( actuality ) needs man to properly use descriptive language. The key word here is “properly” - and that needs the use of the dictionary . - to restate any uneducated man can use words like a young man screaming that his sister “assaulted” him for screaming at him . Assault in the criminal law , if established has certain consequences that the judge must follow including minimum sentencing . But in the law : screaming usually does not constitute assault . “Assault” is well defined by the dictionary and legal dictionary . Legal case law based upon established judgment elaborates upon the meaning and use of the concept ( the word ). Lawyers have to put in substantial time ( and money ) to reach a stage where one is certified to be able to argue in court - for these things are of the greatest importance in educated ( and free) society . Uneducated man can and does use words , concepts even numbers HOWEVER the you like welly-nilly ! Turkish architects constructing buildings that appear to look good to the paying clients ; that appear to hold up - until they do not in a minor earthquake resulting in great numbers of deaths . That’s the difference in grasping concepts , rigidity Of numbers ; and therefore standard of exams to notate if you do or do not really ( really ) understand concepts and words . Then there’s licensing by professional body to have minimum ( high) standards . That’s how important concepts are : words . But yes a less educated man CAN build sand castles Like kids ! One can use words , even concepts however you like and mostly get along with others in “lay” conversation . These posts are about something truly most serious . Reality . And precision is used . That is the subject of western philosophy: the underlying forest floor upon which all other subjects “depend” ( e.g. physics- tree in the forest ). The tree doesn’t stand in a vacuum : you can never derive reality ( philosophy) from physics nor math . Hence the mind has never been found nor will it be found using A.I , math or neuroscience nor physics ! The mind is an axiom - a valid one as you can validate it using your sense organs . Consciousness is the identification of existence! This means consciousness is a separate identity to all other identities including your brain ! It means consciousness is perpetual first cause ! It means the mind is real ! And the brain NoR computer can do “the mind”.

You joke, but it's incredible what the implications of this are on criminal justice. Basically, the concept of punishment is as incoherent as that of free will itself. I think of an analogy to demonstrate this. It's important to wrap ones mind around such implications. Imagine that you have a Sci-Fi kitchen appliance that has the function of turning rotten eggs into perfectly healthy and nutritious eggs. An Egg-Fixer Machine, if you will. It fits on your countertop. So, for example, if your eggs go bad, you just put them into this little gizmo, and it has a chance of turning them into good eggs. Not a 100% success rate, but it only uses a little energy. Awesome, right? Why not? Better than nothing. But now imagine that you walk into the kitchen one day, and you find your child throwing bad eggs into the trashbin. Ridiculous--you think--why not just use the Egg-Fixer? What a waste, right? The child says, "it was a bad egg, it deserved it!" Ludicrous logic, you judge. That's the analogy. Now look at justice systems globally and historically, and follow the logic to realize that punishment is just as ludicrous. Some good news is that Scandinavia has largely got the memo, and their justice/prison systems focus on rehabilitation. It should come to no surprise that Scandinavia, particularly Norway, have some of *lowest* recidivism rates on earth. And considering that recidivism is the primary measure of prison efficacy, this is huge. No contrast is necessary here, but if you need it, consider that the US bases their prison philosophy on punishment, among the highest threshold in the world, and have some of the *highest* recidivism rates on earth. It literally only makes logical sense to rehabilitate people, and to not actively punish them beyond confining them (if necessary) for rehabilitation. You can arrive to this conclusion more thoroughly by studying brain science, which is what I did for my degree and is the way in which I initially realized that free will doesn't exist. Thinking through the implications of it, however, in this case regarding justice systems, is deeply startling to public opinion.

@@WhatIsNature Excatly man, ppl are hung on punitive justice and insist upon some sort of revange, and while I can understand why some ppl goes vigilanty, one needs to understand that just because your house burned down you can't just go around and put out every fire on earth in every woods, lighter,stove, oven, boiler etc. "Evil" ppl are more like malfunctioning than anything else, and you don't punish and sentence your malfunctioning engine, but you either repair or replace it. Everytime I bring this up ppl around me thinks that Im naive because I don't belive in evil and bad intent. They fail to see that as - history shown - many times ppl rationalize "evil acts" and they just don't see themselves as bad at all. This misguided moral conviction makes ppl think that they would never be a nazi, yet psychological studies keep coming back with the result that, yes indeed, most of them would become one under certain circumtenses. They over estimate their free will and vastly underestimate the forces of enviroment on them. And as you said very well, it is somehwat an open secret now but as far as science goes, courts and the criminal "justice" systems does little to no good at actually solving the crime problem, at least not in their current form.

@@WhatIsNature There is no such thing as an “egg fixer” as you described it for human beings. Punishment is one way of handling justice that is meant to exact a “cost” on the perpetrator in question as a means of rectifying the “cost” that their wrongdoing had on others. The purpose of punishment is to instill in the person, and society at large, the idea that their actions have consequences, and those consequences affect them just as much as they do to others. Honestly, the question of free will is pretty much irrelevant here.

Ten years for your particles!

@@WhatIsNature On some level, I think we kind of knew that already. Punishment isn't really meant to be restorative or address the original crime, it's mostly vindictiveness and a vain fantasy of deterrence for other criminals. Neither of those is well justified and probably just as illusory as free will.

I can relate. The same happened when I realized it.

Damn, same. I think it also made me feel happier. The thought that "everything I do will affect my future" suddendly got a way less heavy. I think I'm taking my life for what is is now, enjoying it more, and stressing over it less.

So you chose to behave differently?

@@conorquinn9245 No, our brain made a calculation and came up with new results according to the new information. Watch the video again.

​@Simkets an those random calculation came up with the exact outcome you desired after learning you have no free will 😂

Classic

I HAVE FREE WLL I QUIT WARCHING THIS VIDEO 30 SECONDS IN ! SEE WE DO HAVE FREE WILL AFTER ALL !🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂

"You're not here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to understand WHY you made it." - please get the grammar correct. Anyway, I stopped watching this video about 4:34 into it. I already KNOW why I chose to check the video, and I understood why before I did. So....isn't it funny how some people try to screw with your thinking and your awareness? Those are fun movies, the only thing they get Right is that Jesus is a lie. Own your own stuff.

Smith: The problem IS choice.

Neo: Do you already know what I am going to do? Oracle: Well, I wouldn't be much of an Oracle if I didn't. Neo: But if you already know what I am going to do, how can I have free will to choose? Oracle: You don't.

The oracle ? You're quoting a movie ? You do know real life is not the same as a movie, right ? Movies are mind programming, just like the garbage coming from the mouth of the communist in This video

How comically ironic to hear someone initially rational here ,still believing in "quantum random jump". Like particles mysteriously disappears and reappears and are mini flatearths("mathematical points" etc). Rubbish. Particles have spin states and many have mass, so they have volume and causal variability. Of course freewill is gibberish as well ,yet most people miss out on the historical meaning ,which is related to laws and formal responsibility. It was probably not intended to be interpreted otherwise (😆)

@@KibyNykraft is this a comment to my post?

Sorry ,No..Just a general comment to the general stupidity of postmodernism. The debate is sometimes getting embarrasingly stupid and especially when the public start confusing will with free will. Everyone has will, that is evolved naturally. Of course there is neither literally free will nor literally any determinism. Nature is causally variabilistic. That is how one gets brown hair, black hair, blonde hair, etc. That is how one gets different solar systems in continuous change over time. There is no such thing as neither randomness, determinism nor free will. The exception for free will is the original meaning of the expression if we stick to english language ,and that is that in politics history ,the rights to education, speech or property are individual rights - thus a formal freedom of one's will. Old philosophy debated these kind of questions already many thousands of years ago, and we know for sure that the ancient greeks did. But here one also had to be careful about the translations.

We only need to read the second law of thermodynamics in order to solve the question.

😆 well put.

Lol, best reply

You could have chosen to not work out before you ate those cookies. Also you could have put interventions into place preventing you from eating those cookies. Or chosen not to.

@@bw0081 True, Could have, would have, should have... but I didn't do any of those things did I?

@@rickthomas422 Of course not. Because you only could have made one choice. This is called "resulting." As in, you have determined that since the result was what it was, that it could not have been anything else. What would be required in this situation is a time machine to go back and see if this exact scenario was repeated 100 times, that you would have eaten those cookies every time. Since we don't have time machines yet, we cannot determine this, though I would venture to say that different decisions would have been made in different simulations since the odds are in my favor. Other than this, the best way we can determine this is through experimentation. But we can't do that either, as each person runs of a different "program" and therefore would make different decisions based on this (even though the field of psychology posits that two groups (experimental and control) should be treated as fundamentally the same, especially if the sample size is large enough. Therefore, what we have here, is a hypothesis (we have no free will) that is entirely untestable and entirely unable to be disproved (such as the existence of God). So yes, we can determine that you indeed did not do any differently. We can only use God of the Gaps to conclude that no other decision ever would be made, because that is always how it was predetermined to be. I am unwilling to give into a conclusion such as this until it can actually be tested rather than refuted with things I can't experimentally test.

😄 I'd say your response shows that we are stimulus driven, vs will driven. No cookies in the house, no temptation, though less fun!

The universe will do exactly what it will do, and YOU will do exactly what you will do. Both of these things will never be known by a third party and therefore it doesn't matter that the outcome is "determined" because that word has no meaning unless it is KNOWN to someone

@@wikimon No there is no need for someone to have the information of an outcome in order for this outcome to be determent , it is regardless you just dont know it.

if no one knows it, it is absolutely provably pointless as "information" by definition

Don't believe her. She's stuck in the 1800's. The materialists don't have a leg to stand on yet they keep spewing this crap. Unreal how stupid/uninformed/or agenda driven they are.

@@RAF71chingachgook what agenda is there to this lmao. The entire point of the video is that it doesn't really matter if you don't have free will because everyone's perceiving it.

@@RAF71chingachgook you still believe in God don't you 😆.....🤣🤣🤣🤣....😩....😞

@@pcriged Doesn't help even if he's religious. "If Yahweh (that's his name) wants everyone to go to Heaven, why doesn't he just forgive them all?" I asked an educated Christian. "Because that's not in his nature" I was told. Ergo: Yahweh himself is a prisoner of his own programming, just like us -- he'd LIKE to forgive, but CAN'T. "Free will" is just their way of excusing the fact that Yahweh's behavior (which is predetermined by whatever gods have in place of DNA and childhood socialization) is contrary to human instincts of proper behavior. Yahweh can't be wrong, by definition, and human instincts can't be changed, so they claim the individual human "deserves" the treatment. This requires that you invent a way to "deserve" punishment for being what nature or Yahweh made you, and there's your "free will".

Lol dreams come true if you have the free will to dream them.

Yes, exactly. She rambles something about materialism for a moment but fails to mention that it is not yet proven that consciousness is derivative of the brain or is something purely physical (but might soon be, yes, but if we want to be correct, like good scientists, we should avoid making these 'obvious' assumptions). Building on this assumption with such confidence that it's sometimes straight up arrogant (or 'brutal' as those who find joy in it like to call it) is pretty annoying.

@@yorankerkhofs8183it is certainly known that consciousness is a product of the brain

Occam’s razor dictates we accept the theory that makes the least amount of assumptions. In the case of determinism and naturalism, we have only found evidence for a natural world that has this “1 way relationship” as you put it. If we assume free will is true, then you need to assume an undemonstrated mechanism by which it affects reality. How can you hope to defend that?

@@connorgrynol9021 I am only a layman, so please bear with me. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the collapse of the wave function is deterministic. Please explain!

@@florian_z_8735 at best, it’s random. At worst it’s not and there is some unknown mechanism behind wave function collapse. In either case, free will would not exist. If a wave function collapse is random, then soft determinism is true, the difference being your decisions are more of a coin flip than a book.

And they were correct.

@@ronpapi9539 Yes... if they were talking about you.

@@geografixxxx no u

@@FixedFace yo mama

That is a problem for this, it reduces everything to a banal inconsequential nothing, including the science that Sabine H. and her fans insist has a transcendent value that their ideology insists it can't have. The entire structure of physical science, the articulation of physical "law" is of no more transcendent value than iron oxidizing, water evaporating or any other banal chemical or physical reaction. It can have no truth value because truth would have to transcend it. Her very advocacy of her various positions is an indication she doesn't believe it, herself, at least for those things she likes, but her liking would have no more meaning than those of her opponents.

@@anthonymccarthy4164 I believe what she is referring to is that it is a possibility someone would reject the claim. Although I’m not entirely sure but your response seems like argument from consequence.

@@merikijiya13 Well, as the consequence of insisting on a deterministic character of the mind, precluding the possibility of the mind doing anything except fulfilling the actions of molecules and atoms in the brain - going on to however lower a level of physical entities the reductionist chooses to make their assertion - means that every idea is merely the consequence of the physical antecedents present in the brain, those that produce an accurate representation of reality and those that don't. The imposition of the value judgement of one of those being true and the other false would, as well, be merely an expression of physical antecedents present in some brains and not in others, the assertion that one kind of result would be better than another is unfounded in any actual evidence because even the evaluation of evidence would be, as well, reduced to a banal expression of which physical antecedents, by chance, happened to be present. If that is true then Sabine H. has no reasonable claim that any of the things she is claiming here are true which would be a shame as many of the things she points out here, especially when she limits herself to her professional subject and leaves out her ideological preferences seem to me to be valuable. The disastrous consequences of adopting the ideology of materialist reductionism, as she has, are there even if the reductionists choose not to admit it and it cannot but help to discredit their assertions in every area they choose to make them. Not being a reductionist or a materialist I have no problem pointing out that if they really believe what they say then their claims are irrational and discredited by their very own conclusions.

@@anthonymccarthy4164 So you don't like the conclusions you derive from her argument, so be it. But where's your proof her reasoning is false? You can't throw out a line of reasoning just because following makes you butthurt. lol.

@@77377 Evidence shmevidence. It's my experience of arguing with atheist materialists that no amount of evidence will get them to admit the most obvious of truths. They are idologues who believe they have the truth and nothing will shake them anymore than biblical fundamentalists will be moved. There is far more evidence that her contentions that the idea of free will, which would be more honestly be called "free thought" is incompatible with "natural law" is false than anything I've pointed out. Any number of far superior scientists have believed in and discovered "natural law" and who were complete believers in the possibility of free thought. Much as I like Sabine H. and her colleagues, I don't think any of them are likely to displace Issac Newton in those rankings of "greatest physicists" anytime soon. If free will is impossible due to her contentions then you don't get to pick and choose which areas of thought are not the mere product of physical determinism, none of it breaking "natural law" so all of it having exactly the same lack of truth value. That's true for all of human thought including all of science, all of mathematics, all of logic. That is a necessary logical conclusion of her kind of materialist monism. The basis of her argument is logically incoherent because it requires "natural law" to have the value of truth which her ideology prevents it from having in her framing. I don't need "evidence" to point that out, merely that she doesn't get to pick and choose where and when the limits of her materialistic monism is applicable so as to exempt the things she likes from it.

My understanding of Roger's point (based on more recent interviews with him) is that our mind is not a computational engine. He's not necessarily saying that we have free will, he's saying that we have the ability to "understand" things in a way that our current computers will never be able to do.

You can test whether hidden variables actually exist or not. It has been tested and hidden variable interpretation diverges more and more from measurements which are correctly predicted by assuming probability based randomness.

@@garanceadrosehn9691 This was his point even back then. It seemed to stem from a desire to remove the reductionalist argument from any discussion on human cognition. Clearly computers are a big part of that. We end up with the ghost in the machine. Hence spending a book arguing against AI. But it all comes back to the core point. He doesn't want a deterministic brain. He needs the hidden variable as a get out of gaol card.

@@francisvaughan7460 Why does he need the hidden variable, actually? Isn't it possible for you to be able to move away from reductionism and simultaneously acknowledge the randomness in QM?

@@francisvaughan7460 I'm sure I cannot find it now, but I'm fairly sure I've seen one of his recent talks where he says that he still thinks we (humans) are entirely material (not spirit, although he didn't say it that way), and obey laws of physics. He is just very confident that we don't know what all of those laws are yet.

Can you please help me understand the reasoning behind it? I think I'm dumb. I've watched this video over 10 times.

The implication is your successes weren't even yours, so how can you take joy in them? You can't just choose to say your failures weren't yours either, when for both victory or failure you exerted the effort and felt the very real pain to get there. You felt the pain or effort but the result wasn't yours? What a cruel joke then freewill is if it's an illusion.

​@@aquashadow-if8gl If this is Sabine's argument then it's flawed in quite a fundamental way. Just because there may be many hundreds of thousands, even millions (or more) things going on at the same time as my own behaviour, with many of these things influencing the outcome of my efforts, it doesn't follow that free will is an illusion. All it says is that as the combination of causes and effects becomes more complex I have less and less control over the *precise* consequences of my behaviour. This isn't the same thing as a lack of free will. For example: if I get on the bus to go into town because I want to buy something for my computer, there are *many* things that affect my journey that are themselves outside of my control. It doesn't follow from this that I lose all ability to make choices for myself.

I think when Sabine made rational decision what to study if she choose law faculty she would be very good advocate or lawyer. or she could be very good director as well. But she choose physics for reasons which only she knows. Nevertheless very good video, but my thoughts is that there is problem how to define free will and things associated with it. if we are not able to define it exactly precisely and not able to measure it under every conditions than we cannot get precise results. So theoretically she is right but our society cannot function if we take her results as granted. even in Afghanistan or ancient Egypt etc they have laws courts and judges and people are not allowed to do whatever thay want /what could some people thought after seeing this video/.

@@josephsmith6351 You should accept that there are some things in the universe that can not be tested, can not be measured. Take pain, pain is very real to you, but it doesn't "exist". It can not be measured or calculated, it can only be felt by "you". If you were in the most severe pain you've ever felt in your life, and someone told you that it isn't 'real' because it can't be measured or isn't defined within the current scope of physics, or that it's an "illusion", you would think they were crazy. Freewill in the same way deals with subjective Observers, it is a function of consciousness. In this way "freewill" can never be something that can be tested or measured. But just because something can never be tested or proved doesn't mean it isn't a thing. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has already proved that there are aspects of the universe that can not be proved, that there are some holes so deep you can never reach the bottom, that there are in some instances, never an 'answer', and this is a hard concept for humans to accept, because our personal philosophical journey is geared from the start to find an "answer".

Sapolsky said the same thing a long time ago but with different wording

In the words of a wise commentor here, I believe that the intention of punitive action is to incur a 'cost' on those who intentionally make irresponsible or destructive choices. This is not unreasonable. The threat of punishment serves as a deterrent to destructive behaviors. Regardless of its success rate, the concept of punishment is a way that humans have attempted to rectify harm that has been inflicted.

​@@KA-vr4uuwhich video?

@@konyvnyelv. He has multiple short and longer discussions on free will, or lack thereof plus all it’s implications…on YT.

Socially useful labour should substitute prison. It's pointless to keep inmates doing nothing in a room for 23 hours a day

Penrose says consciousness is real : offers proof such as intuition via Goedel’s theorem. I say consciousness real because you identify the identity that precedes it called existence . This means you can identify there is “something as opposed to nothing” . You can’t say God created something for reasons shown below . All you can say is “existence exists “ as the widest concept humanly possible . The ground floor . In fact God is perpetually fantasy fiction and fraud as it always triggers “reductio ad absurdum “. Logical error . Therefore the BIBLE is correct : god needs FAITH ( the same as belief in Mickey Mouse as a sentient larger character !!!!!!!) Emotions like faith ( feeling of certainty of meaning ) are the “wrong” tool to get to any conclusion else you’re left like primitive man or modern little child . The right way is logic : you need to learn this skill and it’s never automatic . Emotions are important and automatic but never the tool for reaching valid conclusion . Summary: 1. Existence exists 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence . You have free will . 3. Aristotle’s law pf identity : there is truth . ( But how to identify any truth ? Reason and logic. )

Lol took the blue pill?

​@@FunkySwanson ​ @black_star said that because I had stated science can never find free will that I agree with Sabine. I replied : incorrect but Thank you. Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic.

Lmao! 🤣

Lol

Ah…. Free will vs determinism 🤷‍♂️ My whole life, I’ve found it impossible to choose

@@bobinthewest8559 Yeah i was determinism, but then moved to non deterministic universe due to unresolved quantum interpretations, after reading "Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" . But i leave it to smarter people than I to give us an answer.

She doesn't understand the importance of falsification when she says "established science". Newtononian physics was "established science" until relativity came along. She takes the big bang as "established science." She needs to read Popper, as she's making statements that can't be falsified or tested and are therefore non-scientific. So she's speaking now as a philosopher, not a scientist. DiffEQs don't "prove" determinism. It's mathematics, used to model determinism. The equation "predicts" the future because you set it up that way, with time as a parameter. It's the observations that test that model that are important. So that's logical slight of hand. There are blind spots in her understanding and weaknesses in her arguments. Keep looking. There's no reason any of us should be smug that we found the answers.

​@@pikas_palace I think civilization can still exist without that belief. It sometimes makes me feel more empathy towards others, wondering if they had a choice.

Omg same here 😂

Freedom, or biologic machinery forcing you to resume breathing to survive?

"However, I feel grateful that I can experience the story unfolding." Well said!

2am is much too early anyways

Some people never really leave the party, no choice.

except she’s actually smart

she has another video where she says that conciousness can not be transplanted to a machine because no one knows how to produce conciousness and even what is counciousness, like you can simulate gravity in a computer but not generate it in the computer, now she claims that brain generates counciousness and particles in it determine everything this counciousness will do, which is totally contradictory of her other critcism video, at this point i think she is just click baiting

@@usuario2967 Not knowing HOW the mechanism of consciousness works is one claim. Knowing WHERE that mechanism is located is another claim. These two claims are entirely compatible.

What she says was not to take away your free will, just to explain what it is and where it comes from and on top it give you a great opportunity, you choice ppl surrounding you and with this a new path and even this still is a part of something that just roll out ore maybe not for you but now you can alway better your self up

Thats exactly how you should approach it 💪

Rest assured, your choices are not illusory.

@@_Billy_Pilgrim yes, they are..

@@_Billy_Pilgrim Do materialist determinists ever actually think their model through? Imagining that the initial conditions played out according to the laws of quantum mechanics, and this massive universe of ours magically emerged from nothingness and eventually produced all the works of Shakespeare and Tolkien, etc.? It’s mysticism of the highest order. The idea that unthinking, deterministic particles can answer the questions on your math test is just bizarre and kind of silly. They’re basically missing the whole point! LOL.

Why do need to consider consciousness at all? That's literally what gives us the illusion of free will in the first place. And I don't see the problem other than ignorance.

@@isaacpender determinism is just an emotional grudge? Are you fucking srs? A srs philosophy that is held by most philosophers as well as scientists is just an emotional grudge. Plz stfu with your appeal to motive. Also, determinism has jack shit to do with quantum mechanics since those are, yk, random. Although they can still result in deterministic effects. I guess they are related.

Right? Lol the only way I see it is if we can somehow prove that we're able to choose the lives that we're born into, and indeed science can't explain consciousness, then yes we do have freewill, just not physically here on Earth@@pythondrink

@@AngelCaroline9 "Science can't explain conscious." Yet.

It either does (or at least helps) or doesn't. Whether we'll be able to find out the answer is a different question@@pythondrink

I agree!

Some (including Sabine) would argue that it changes nothing. lol

My ass on Zazzle right now.

@@joed180 No one is buying that.

She's talking crap. If everything is predetermined because of the starting positions of all the particles in the universe when they came into existence, but then quantum events mean that the constituents of the particles behave in an entirely undetermined and random manner, then those random events clearly WILL have an influence on the particles even if YOU might not ...which by the way she can't prove either because she can't explain how consciousness works. She just assumes it's entirely chemical brain processes and quantumness has nothing to do with it. Therefore things can't be predetermined, since at every instant of time, randomness comes into it. (i.e. whether a particular atom decays or not depends entirely on random chance, so whether the cat lives or not cannot be predetermined at all). But even if it is all predetermined and you go with the idea that, "well for God, quantum doesn't matter, he already knew how the movie of the universe would play out from beginning to end before he created it, including pre-knowing every decision that YOU would make", then that still doesn't get rid of free will. Just because he knows what will happen, does not mean he's taking anything away from you. Him knowing the future doesn't mean that you didn't freely choose your decisions and put in the hard work to make them happen.

This discussion on free will goes into the heart of what consciousness is and how it comes about. Simply assuming that it's all chemical and material is bad science. Clearly it's not all just material, because what are feelings? How do you make dead atoms feel? A lot of our will depends on our feelings. If we are scared of something, we won't go near it. Or we will behave in an entirely irrational way because of our feelings. Clearly our feelings have an influence on our will. Therefore before she's so quick to dismiss free will, I would also ask her to explain how feelings come about from mere chemical reactions. If our brain is just a computer, then how do you make your computer at home hurt? What, it's not complex enough? Lol what a cop out! Who says that "complexity" is all there is to it? Anyway, a bunch of computers added together is already more complexity than one single brain. Oh but it's not complex SOFTWARE? Predetermined software, if you mean DNA, doesnt determine our thinking. Our hardware itself grows and makes new links with itself based on its own decisions. Therefore the only way a computer can feel is if it's alive. So instead of just being a tool that makes decisions based on the predetermined instructions of the software, it decides for itself based primarily on its feelings. But what chemical arrangement, by itself, should necessarily give rise to a perceiver of feelings. Why should that be true any more so than electrons travelling through complex wires or water travelling through a complex arrangements pipes, with one flow of water in one pipe pushing ahead to switch on another flow of water in another pipe. Why should such complex flow then give rise to consciousness and feelings? Where's the bridge there? There's a missing link there. She hasn't explained anything. She's making assumptions. Bad science to jump to conclusions with incomplete knowledge and simplistic assumptions

@@marioluigi9599 Agh, calm down. Just because I quoted her doesn't mean I agree with her completely. I do admire the thinking of chaos having more parameters and hence it could be deterministic in a grander scale. I do not entertain the idea of the linear relationship of brain particles states to one's behaviour , because even if I put that under chaos model, we don't fully understand consciousness yet, just like you mentioned, but the takeaway of looking at chaos from a finite perspective does make one think, without arriving at conclusions yet.

That's about at the level of Sabine: junk. Oh it is Hawking? Then what a fine spirit and what a high thought !

He said that? Even great minds can espouse inane views.

Virtually everybody has spotted the fallacy: looking before is predestined, and that's how stupid accidents are predestined to be prevented.

I think the vid is right. In the 4th dimension past present and future are simultaneous; this includes the permutations of all phenomena within them. It's like a real of film, it's all there. In 3D it unfolds frame by frame. Choice is more so an interactive gestalt of a holographic model of interrelated spacetime, and occurs as a reflex of it.

That says nothing about us having free will. Quite a lame comment from the great one there.

Consciousness is how we input and process all of those external factors and how we interact with others and influence their behavior. Awareness is why the illusion is so strong. I think predetermined implies intent rather that determined which is basically that this moment is a direct result of the previous moment.

@@lrvogt1257 a deterministic system wouldn't require awareness. Free will isn't an illusion.

@@martineyles we are aware whether it’s required or not. Your awareness of this video could inspire a thought that could change the way you think about something. Being aware that something bothers you could convince you to do something new. We still have to make decisions it’s just that you will always do what you want but you don’t decide what you like. You find out what you like.

Sabine could become a part time advocate and fight at court with judge that murder is innocent because they couldnot do otherwise... She is right but it all depends on definition of free will. Apparently its impossible to define free will in a sense of physic laws like or define it precidely like eg speed of light. When judge put murder in prison because murder hasnot to decide to kill people it is not the EXACTLY same free will which she is talking about. Plus Everybody has its own definitions what free will means. Problem is in definition and initial assumptions thus results slightly differs. When Sabine is not talking about physics but people then results are not black and white but colourful it is not just yes or no but it could be anything between 0 and 1.

What an insightful and I daresay correct response. "Free Will" as it is scietifically defined of course does not exist as she says. But a person's "ability to choose" yes that very much is in exsitence in most cases.

@@benjaminroe311ify It's an interesting distinction, "ability to choose" vs. "free will." There is no debate concerning our ability to choose, since we clearly make choices. But are we _free_ to choose? The thing which makes me feel that I am free is that I am often ambivalent, and consciously consider, and seek out new information upon which to base my choice. Just now, I added a sentence, then deleted it. I thought about it for some time before deciding to do so. Nothing about that process was preordained. I don't think we will have certain knowledge about that until we understand consciousness. We may never.

@@crawkn Yeah well it's an interesting discussion anyway. I know for one thing. I generally HAVE to comment back when people respond to my comments in an engaging and intelligent manner. So you might say, I am in this, compelled to comment back. Cheers!

@@benjaminroe311ify Thanks and cheers to you.

While I completely agree with the nature of your argument, I must take issue with your classification of use of the term "free will," ie. scientific definition vs common use. In this particular case the "scientific definition" that Sabine uses to refute free will is not the actual, textbook definition of the term. Almost every dictionary I referenced has at least one entry defining it as simply as "the ability to choose" or "voluntary choice or decision." Aside from that, bravo on pointing out the entirely semantic basis of the discussion.

YourGothicMaster That is the quintessential question. Can one, confronted with this statement, choose a food or a color one doesn’t like, and willfully change that preference. Not by superficially fooling oneself, but by contemplation and careful kindly exposing oneself to these sensory impulses authentically rewire one’s mind and wash one’s brain of the negative connotations once held. And is it easier or more difficult to change less trivial revulsion, like turning revulsion about Trump into adoring him. Germans actually did the experiment in the 1930’s and found that it is relatively easy. Also kicking the habit takes little time, as was proven in the mid 1940’s.

​@@benheideveld4617 It would only make it one step down. It doesn’t contradict the core point. He will then will what he will, but not will what he will what he will. (he didn’t chose to want to choose a food he didn’t like)

Denis Baudouin I disagree. The meta-question does not destroy the demonstration of free will. My opinion.

You may believe in free will if you wish but I choose not to.

Ben Heideveld rewiring is possible, been doing it since forever and over time I’ve come to feel like a passenger in this body’s journey. Freeing but spooky at times. Lately I’m down to my foundations and I wonder what (if anything) lies beyond.

so are you able to change the ride? jump around?

@@ahmetdiril824 It kinda forces you to let go of trying to control everything

U were just dissociating homie

@@monica.s1345 Yeah. Schizophrenia runs in the family.

I think you need to re-listen to the video, maybe more than once. Because that's been covered.

@@chickenlover657 No, it hasn't. Sabine assumes that the "hard problem" of consciousness has a solution within deterministic physics, but even the existence of quantum randomness - which Sabine assumes exists but is far from proven - could provide a nondeterministic solution to consciousness and thus also to free will. However, there are only assumptions and she gives us no reason to agree with them.

@@psychohist That's totally wrong and only demonstrates you don't understand what she's saying. Watch it again. Try actually listening, as opposed to assuming.

Has it been proven "we" don't have control over quantum randomness in our brains? I believe we interfere in other undetected systems that the now "observable" quantum randomness is subjected to. A (infinite?) chain of increasing subtler systems hierarchically structured until an "absolute essence" that behaves as a "butterfly effect" takes place here.

Exactly. Some of her peers, like Rodger Penrose, argued that consciousness is not computable.

I have to write this down on my notebook.

I have had similar thoughts. Mine differ in that I view my life as a predetermined set of events in this particular universe. I am just along for the ride in the cockpit known as my head. Though I don't think this way often because I experience every day life as having free will. These thoughts do still surface every now and then. I do believe the predetermined future is most likely to be the actual truth - until proven otherwise.

@@Klinoklaz in might be even better unless it's full ha

Suicide is for those of us that hate reading

Woah! Now this is a quote! Please clarify what you mean because I want more of this!​@@DonTrump-sv1si

As she says, your belief or disbelief in free will is fundamentally irrelevant. So go ahead, you don't have any choice in the matter, whether you believe or not.

@@nycbearff You didn't address his concern at all, nor did she. She didn't offer any relationship or equation that relates anything material with consciousness. Anyone serious about this topic should want to find such a relationship.

Quite so. She seems behind the curve when it comes to the latest theories. Being arrogant doesn't make someone right.

@@nycbearff but we are not talking about belief here. Do you understand that her own argument is also a belief? she is extrapolating the evidence in very few systems with the data that humans can perceive to every system with data humans can't perceive. This could be completely wrong. She saying that she believes that every system functions with the same fundamental logic whether humans can perceive and understand it or not. Sure there's a probability she be right, but she can be wrong. And we don't know the probability so she can even be mostly wrong.

@@davegraham9100 yep. Basically she is making a huge assumption that how humans perceive the idea behind laws of physics is correct and that it applies equally to everything after big bang. There's an infinite amount of ways this can be proven wrong in the future, or maybe it can never be proven wrong despite being.

He never wrote that.

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 : If Albert Einstein himself quoted this phrase...who am I to doubt it ? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pRJ6Nihmdaw.html

@@peplegal8253 He wasn't quoting Schopenhauer but rather paraphrasing him. The relevant book here is Schopenhauer's "On the Freedom of the Will" in which the author exposes a doctrine which could (more or less) be summed up as "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills", but the exact quote is nowhere to be found in this brief book. It is like when people quote Machiavelli as saying "The end justifies the means".

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 : Good to know ! Thanks ! But let's agree it's just technicalities. If the idea is there...the exact phrase is kind of irrelevant (considering philosophy is not an exact science).

@@peplegal8253 Yes, I agree

she IS being contradictory here. Free will is an experienced fact, and denying it was always an atheist stance to deny any moral authority outside of themselves.

You are contradicting yourself, if you truly believe what Sabine is saying then there has been NO reason for your instinctive, and not for SOME reason. The whole point in the video was that random quantum events are TRULY random, and as such has absolutely no reason. Since random quantum events actually do have an effect on our world it means there are things happening for NO reason (according to Sabine, that is: it's not not free will, there's just no reason for it). I dont subscribe to that btw, namely because it is unreasonable. It has basically become a type of religion to believe that random quantum events are TRULY random and without any reason for them happening. Why not just call it "God" and be done with it then? Or maybe there actually is a reason for those random quantum events, we just havent discovered it yet making it appear random....

The true God did give you free will. To choose Him or reject Him. John 3:16-21 [16]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17]For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19]And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20]For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21]But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

@@bres.3449 what are you, a god-bot?

@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq I'm a christian. It's very important for people to understand their God-given free will, and the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of the world. Anyone can be saved by believing in Jesus. Accept His payment for your sin. Salvation is a free gift. I've accepted, and He has changed my heart in a miraculous ways. I no longer love the things I used to love, such as drinking 6 days a week/smoking/ overeating, I could go on. He gives a person new desires. Many millions can attest to the change in their hearts after being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit.

@@bres.3449 so you exchanged spirit with holy spirit.

Yeah, her logical inconsistencies lol.

Let me convince you of a thing. Just kidding. This is actually performance art.

We still make choices, unless we are constrained in a coercive way. Freedom is just a subtle way of being constrained, that doesn't hurt our feelings and conceptions. But we can't choose about how we feel, only stumble onto convincing reasons to ignore it or to change perspective.

@@G1vr1x your concept of coercion is masking agency. Like almost everything in the comments section, it’s dripping with an implicit assumption of free will that no one can (seemingly) filter out of their own thoughts as expressed here.

@@jc6226 it's not a logical inconsistency just because it makes you uneasy. Do not make the mistake of using your intuition in place of logic.

Have you had any impact? E: Clarification: Have you made any progress convincing people on the topic of free will?

@@patrickb.4749 People generally don't change their viewpoints immediately, and if they do then they typically won't admit it. If there is any impact then I probably won't be able to observe it on this platform. All I can do is try to help people be a bit more thoughtful and reflective of their ideologies, especially ones they have taken for granted.

@@RialuCaos I suppose, I asked you about it because 2/3 times I brought my disbelieve in free will up to acquaintances, all I got was dismissal and/or ridicule. I might as well have questioned whether the Earth was round. It was neither fun nor productive, I just felt hurt (a little, anyway).

@@patrickb.4749 Even if you are dismissed or ridiculed, it doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make an impact. When I was younger with a less-developed worldview I also thought that the idea of humans not having free will was ridiculous, but eventually I came to realize that it was actually the most logical conclusion from learning and observing the principles of the world.

You mean they don't think before they decide? Oh wait no one can decide because decisions are a result of free will.

And so people can never realize things on their own? I'll admit, there's a bunch more luck of the cards in the universe, tho it doesn't reveal all. Nor do our environment in how it shapes all of us and our mindsets. We choose what mindsets to follow, for better or worse. Maybe debatable we choose what we value, since we tend to auto-assign what gives us pleasure and less pain higher priority (unless at least long as it isn't too out of control addictive or other mallady)... This may apply to Most people, ignorant and overly trusting the news and t.v. ramblings, but not to all who have a brain (and even if it were technically otherwise if you dig deeper, what good is it in believing we have no control?? Just promotes hopelessness, being overly hyper-rational is a disease not a cure. Wisdom is the treatment and balance between exacting truths and functionable reasoning (especially since we cannot control our inner mind 100%, moreso when push comes to shove, it Controls Us. We must do what we can to appease it with compromises but not delusions, imo)

Spot the self-contradiction? This is the problem with "determinists." Underestimate? Sorry, determinists, you cannot have that word without contradiction. To say that human beings estimate or underestimate is predicated on judgment and the ability to value a conceptualization about some subset of the universe according to its correlation to that actual subset of the universe. In a world where "free will" "does not exist" neither does "estimation." Of course, we could look at it from the other direction: in a world where "free will" is "an illusion" (and what does THAT mean?) then so is estimation an illusion. Even the concept of Illusion presupposes a free-willed consciousness that is either "fooled" by illusion or sees through it. In fact, in a deterministic context, consciousness and thinking are "illusions." A deterministic universe contains only "stuff happening." If you want to live in that world that consists only in "stuff happening" you are welcome to do so, but when you start conceptualizing you are dropping contexts and stealing concepts. Thought, calculation, and even the giving and referencing of names are the exercise of conscious choice. The only way you can dismiss "free will" out of hand is to dismiss consciousness itself out of hand, and even your dismissal reflects a choice.

​@@deepfriedsammich You make unwarranted assumptions. A computer can estimate. A computer can be fooled by an illusion. Thought and calculation, the giving and referencing names are NOT the exercise of conscious choice, as has been proven repeatedly. Also, what do you mean by "stealing concepts"? I'm thinking you didn't watch the video...

@@marils8452 A computer does not conceptualize "illusion." Computers are programmed, by people, who exercise a value judgment. A computer doesn't "care" about its state, per se. Human beings do. To care or not to care, normative value judgments, are an act of choice. Stealing concepts and dropping context are what happens when someone tries arguing from a particular context but then is forced to resort to concepts or conditions only obtaining outside the context. If you're going to play the determinism game and establish a criterion that says all emergent phenomenon are illusion and insignificant then if your argument is to hold substance, you need to avoid invoking other emergent phenomenon that are rooted in the phenomenon you are trying to dismiss. The only way you can dismiss "free will" out of hand is to dismiss consciousness itself out of hand, and even your dismissal reflects a choice. Consciousness is the ability to direct our attention to one thing as opposed to another, in other words to choose what matters.

If you cannot predict the behavior of emergent phenomenon from the interaction of particles, which btw is not predictable itself either, then you must admit that emergent phenomenon bring in extra information that was previously absent from just a gross sum of the particles constituting the system.

The difficulty of modelling is an engineering issue stemming from lack of knowledge and computational power, not from inherent unpredictability.

The first time I heard the "determinist" based argument why we don't have free will, I paused for a moment and realized that this is obviously true if our assumption about a determinist world is correct. I then fairly quickly realized that for most people in most situations that conclusion is of little value or relevance since we still experience life "as if" we have free will. It seems to us like we are independent authors of our decisions. That's what led our brains to come up with the concept to begin with. And in most practical situations, that's a perfectly reasonable concept or approximate model to explain what we do. I can't actually access all the actual data that led to my typing this message. But a reasonable "autonomous agent" model could give some coarse insight.

Nice contribution. Also, I do believe that Lee Smollin also "believes" in free will, or at least that yes futures are changeble.

@@usuario8245 Would like to here his explanation for his belief.

Not everyone is ready to hear the truth. Most would fall in fatalism and nihilism.

exactly. say "free will" exists, then look at the possible alternate futures that didnt occur as a result of your decision. they didnt happen, didnt exist. if you say it doesnt exist, and your decision was a result of a massively large equation, it still results in the future that did happen and the futures that didnt still doesnt exist. you are still you.

Of course you can trace what happened before this moment, explain, what happened and come to the conclusion, that it had to be that way, that it was determined... But, what if something else had happened? You would just find other explanations...

@Don´tbehasty what about Henri Bergson?

It does change a few things pragmatically speaking. One, if you really grasp this than anger in yourself is easier to combat (unless you are a person that also gets angry at objects like computers or tools for braking) and might even disappear completely if you grasp this truth on an emotional level. People that hurt you do this based on their initial conditions and maybe fluctuated by quantum randomness. They could not have done otherwise. Just like a tool braking at in inopportune moment. You can be frustrated with the situation and the object. People can still bore, hurt and frustrate you. But anger seems to disappear. This frees you from seeking revenge and furthermore stops any negative feelings as soon as the person is no longer in your life or has bettered their behaviour. Punishment might still be needed if it helps correct that behaviour or deter others or protect the innocents by removing the person from society, but revenge or "justice" is no longer one of the driving forces behind punishment. Which means we can be compassionate towards our criminals and feel with them for having been born into such a life. If all or most of society ditches the silly notion of free will we could build a criminal punishment system based purely on science: what works best to stop this person and others from doing harm to other individuals in te society without needlessly hurting the criminal in the process?

@Don´tbehasty interesting, and thank you for Baggini.. To me, we are not only the mind and we can overcome that circular and spacial thinking of the mind... So, yes, I agree, it must be compatible... And the whole question of having or not having free will is in itself erroneous

The first Matrix movie?

Wjere is this from?

Exactly right! Your choice in the matter was predestined... and the oxymoron by Sabine goes on... and people love it... they have no choice lol

Regardless what she may think philosophy is king. Science gathers data and interprets the data to get to a conclusion. Philosophy is there to judge the interpretation and the conclusion against the laws of logic. She's probably a good scientist but like Richard Dawkins should probably stay out of the world of Philosophy.

@@chapfathead9961 nah, it's about time science takes over philosophy. The only problem is that she makes a conclusion that does not follow from her premises.

@@chapfathead9961 extremely naive approach to philosophy. She could not stand her ground for more than one minute in a debate with a scientifically informed theologician.

@@rlustemberg All theology is, is philosophy about God. Theos/Logos.

Is that so? Does the general reality of the Cosmos care about what you personally believe or how your senses change or perceive? I doubt it :) What is up to you in a sense is how you adapt to it, but those adaptations do not start in a theocosmical vacuum.... They are a part of a long chain of relative dynamics. Which in science is simplified by language to "cause and effect", although there is really only "interactivity". The most influential part energyphysically, is called cause, and the weakest is called effect. Here Sabine at least occasionally closes up to the excellent skeptic and physicist called Alan Sokal :) "Beyond the hoax" is really a must-read for everyone who wants to study physics or chemistry or philosophy. Not as a teaching book literally on a subject, but as a very important warning about the always present danger of religion and esoterica always trying to plunge its way into sciences- which practically always will damage science and reduce its quality standards. Think about the following: In a world where we have "words", we also have objects for the words. Those objects existed already, the words are re-presentations of the objects. Nature is always in continuous motion ,it is completely relativistic. There is such no literal position or unrelative condition as standstill in any way possible for localities of matter/energy, whether it be a particle or a human body, or the human mind which is a sum of particle interactions and chargefield dynamics. Thus, ideas, expressions or single words like position or free will or randomness are literally impossible as existentials, they are contradictions to what all of thorough empirical science always have showed about nature in lab and engineering physics, in chemistry, in geology, in neurology etc. If some energystate or particle is isolated, literally, how would it affect anything else? A very simple question the supporters of free will and other esoterica never are able to answer. If we talk of free will as a judicial/law-related expression however, it is a whole different story, and here many mess up things politically by believing that personal responsibility "by your will and mind" by law systems has anything to do with cosmic existentials, which is of course never meant like that in law studies. In law studies "free will" means that you are responsible for your action to the Law and to others by defineable morals of a civilization (see Sam Harris : The moral landscape, and "moral relativism vs moral objectivity"-type of debates and lectures on the web, youtube etc). It doesn't mean that you magically chose to be born or that the world is an "illusion" or something rather anti-intellectual like that ;)

@@KibyNykraft i think i should have been clearer in how I connected the two ideas. I apologize. "Free will or fate/determinism?" is a philosophical question like "what is truly real?". Also like "FWoF/D", it has a weirdly simple answer (at least in my opinion). I side with determinism/fate based on the premise of "2 twins with the same experiences will make the same decisions". Everything is cause and effect. When it comes to people, it is extremely complex cause and effect. We are still responsible for our choices because that is something that goes into the "CaE" analysis. Free will is an illusion, but we should still strive to make the best decision possible.

​@@KibyNykraft "If some energystate or particle is isolated, literally, how would it affect anything else? A very simple question the supporters of free will and other esoterica never are able to answer." "Nature is always in continuous motion ,it is completely relativistic." It will be exceedingly obvious to future generations that human beings have free will and the only reason why there was an agenda in this current age to deny this reality is because a tiny group of sadistic psychopaths benefit from a population of human beings who do not know how powerful they are. The universe is mathematical. The mistake of thinking free will is impossible derives from a non-mathematical, materialistic worldview. We are not far from a world so advanced intellectually that they will look back and view you free will deniers, materialists and philosophical illiterates as we do the absurdity of the times when doctors didn't know to wash their hands. A mathematical universe is non-local. There is no relativity in the fact that 2+2=4, it is an absolute fact. That absolutism, combined with the diversity of a different expression on each side of the equation, is how the universe generates the rich complexity and expansiveness of the cosmos. In a relativistic universe, certainty and absolutes are impossible. There even is no objective reality in the relativistic universe which will baffle future generations as to how long such an irrational worldview could have been held in such esteem. As far as a relativistic universe is concerned, the spaceship traveling near light speed doesn't experience the length contraction and time dilation that Einstein's laws say will be observed by the relatively stationary observers of the craft on earth. The objective reality of the length contraction and time dilation of a spacecraft traveling near light speed can be ignored from the spaceship's frame of reference in the relativistic worldview and instead the spaceship merely experiences those effects in its perceptions of planet earth because earth, even though it is stationary in objective reality, is moving at light speed relative to the craft. This obviously doesn't make sense. But science doesn't care about rationality at all because it is worship of the psychological function of sensing and the dogma empirical materialism. Science masquerades as a rational worldview when anyone who has a basic level of knowledge of the matter knows that science is a bitter rival of rationalism and rationality. Science's true hidden identity is empirical materialism and the whole project is about total service to the rich elites and their narrow, psychopathic agenda of arbitrary, total domination. Rationality and rationalism is about actually confronting reality and it immediately follows that you look after the people. Science says fuck you pay me. Fuck the people, fuck reality, there is no objective reality(!), all we care about are the rich elites who control all scientific institutions we work at. Science says, we will literally concoct any reality you want for the right price because after all, reality is relativistic so there is no objective reality that our data should be searching for. It is here that the relativity of science operates a necessary feature of the worldview warfare waged by the rich elite.

@Nickers which 'other thing'? And the twin thing is pretty true: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QWoOpyfTTBU.html Find me a good example of twins having similar experiences and acting differently.

@@KibyNykraftThe notion of non-interacting/non-conditioned entities or "particles" was what made me really tilt my head when reading Kant. So much seemed on the money, but when it got to agency it seemed like he just couldn't give up the ghost on what he could clearly see.

Well, if you have no choice, then there is no successful strategy and it doesn't matter. If you have choice, and don't know for sure either way, then acting as if you are free gives you the only path to victory.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IG_TGNJfg0s.html

Christopher was an adamant atheist. We live in a physical world which definitely controls our fate. I agree with Christopher on that. But I also believe in deity and spiritualism. And I believe free will affects us only in the spiritual sense. I find Sabine to be incredibly intelligent and also wonderfully flamboyant. Those qualities cause my physical body to find her intensely sexy. That is a natural physical reaction. It happens most often in professional relationships and is acknowledged and identified as transference. "Free Will" only comes in to play spiritually. I can "choose" to covet her physical beauty in the form of fantasy and use that fantasy to abuse myself sexually through self gratification. Or not. God warns us that it would be better for us to blind ourselves than to abuse ourselves sexually based on the natural beauty we find in other naturally sexy bodies. What a hard task! My body finds many members of the opposite sex to be incredibly sexually exciting. There are groups that would call that misogynistic or somehow perverse when in fact it is absolutely and perfectly natural. To me it seems that people live their lives traveling through social circles pretending that their bodies are not extremely affected by what I refer to simply as ass. Ass is the bodies desire to enter into sweaty, grunting sex with those the body finds desirable. In itself that is not perverse. But ignoring the Holy Spirit and allowing that natural desire to allow ourselves to pursue that animalistic sex is spiritually perverse. Free will exists, but only in the spiritual world. This material world is only a blink of the eye in the big picture.

@@johnallenrichter Haha. I like your response. I would add that Sabine's argument does have a potential weakness. She does not want to grant that the "randomness" of the quantum world hints at any type of "free will" because (as she says) our Will does not affect it. But what if our Will just IS a complex phenomenon with quantum components? If one wishes to speak with a spiritual slant, one could say that our will manifests as a complex and at least partially quantum phenomenon. One does not have to beleive in radical free will to believe in free will in some sense. I also find it detrimental to science to take philosophical positions like this when it is entrirely unnecessary. It does more harm to science than good. We should be encouraging scientific investigation/research without pushing Scientism. It will turn off more people than it turns on.

dishonesty of video starts where she blatantly claims that we KNOW there's no free will where as even the biggest neuroscientists say they THINK there's no free will it's at best just a theory

What you say would be correct if determinism and randomness were the only two options, but that is not the case. It just happens that the laws of nature we have discovered so far are a combination of these two. I speculated here about what kind of natural law would allow for free will: arxiv.org/abs/1202.0720

In a deterministic universe randomness doesn't exist and in fact is meaningless. We only have the concept of strange seemingly random events which we blame on quantum mechanics because we think we are devising clever experiments that show it.

@Goran Vukovic Well, it's one of the reasons we are unable to predict the future. But in most practical matters it's not the dominant reason. Think of predicting election outcomes or next year's weather. It's not quantum effects that are the obstacle.

@@SabineHossenfelder Wow, you got feedback from Lee Smolin and Scott Aaronson on this topic? Cool! However, there is one thing I do not get. Your article says: "For simplicity, let us assume that the evolution is reversible and deterministic except for a series of moments [...] in which the agent “makes a decision” and the set of possible states branches [...] into different options that are only probabilistically known." Why does the Schrödinger equation not satisfy the requirements for the agent's decisions? The part about "only propbabilistically known" seems fulfilled, so where is the gap?

I think to assume over 100 years we “know” QM is a bit myopic considering we knew the atom was indivisible. Before relativity physiscists knew they had mastered all physics and knew nothing was left to discover.

You may have invented this little story, but there is an old Arab story about this. Something like "I am not responsible, it was written"...

@@gabrielweber5912 interesting. Please post the story.

@@gabrielweber5912 the point is that it doesn’t matter whether it has been written or not. The two scenarios are logically confluent. We have no free will -> Serial killer kills -> Judge judges -> serial killer is convicted. We have free will -> Serial killer chooses to kill -> Judge chooses to judge-> serial killer is convicted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confluence_(abstract_rewriting)

@@tgenov It does not matter, indeed. Sabine stated it clearly. It's just about accepting the soundest scientific evidence available. If somebody appears with better evidence showing we have free will, we must evaluate it. But it won't matter, still.

ppl are trying so hard to make jokes in the comment section.

No there is some expert word salad. You must be related to Humpty Dumpty who was known to say, 'A word means exactly what I choose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.' We'll ignore HD's being silly thinking he had a choice but then he was the Master of his Own Word Salad.

Well said!

To put it a little more concisely, free will and choice are not at all the same thing. We all have the ability to choose and make decisions, which should be obvious. But so do computer programs. Free will is something else entirely.

@@z242 Then you should be able to offer a concise definition of both. Computer programs neither 'choose' nor 'decide.' To think they do is simply a sloppy use of language [and thinking]. Or are we going to talk about Hurricanes being angry and deciding to go on shore or not. Rocks that choose to move or weather or stay still. A lens that allows a light to shine through it. A light that goes on or doesn't. There is a reason to maintain language that is aware of these distinctions and no good reason to confound thinking by using language in a sloppy way.

Not quite. Interesting but we are not on autopilot for a reason. We need pain and pleasure to drive us. Pure logic alone (autopilot) is to slow and inefficient. Burning finger requires a forced (pain driven) response. I believe that is the place for conscious awareness.

Joao Victor Lima It was a pure coincidence that as soon as I saw your comment, she said it at the same time on the video!

Well, there's the LegalEagle channel too! 😀

@@Bassotronics ha, it was predetermined!

It's true the meaning of words is immaterial, anyway the physicists are the ones who are right.

Ha ha! 😅

I'm just going to repeat it because of the same, lol. I thought in on moment that I get it and ended totally confused by the end.

Maybe it’s confusing because some of these things contradict each other. Try to interpret it more literally or abstractly

Don't worry, I agree with everything in the video but I still believe in free will based on some things not mentioned. I love Sabine's videos but remember physicists disagree on some stuff and Sabine takes some positions that others don't!

@@andyh87able I believe in free will for reasons not mentioned in the vid, just like u. I came to the realization on my own that we 100% have some form of free will. The fact that we don’t know what is in our thoughts that influence us subconsciously means that free will exists in one form or another. I met someone who has this crazy sounding (but not impossible) idea that before we came into existence, we discussed what sort of personality we had with God. She doesn’t believe in any conventional religion. It’s some New Age mysticism that I’m not sure whether or not to believe Edit: I’m paraphrasing here because she was pretty vague about it and I also don’t remember the convo that well. also, Tier Zoo’s a cool channel. He makes vids about biology from the perspective of life being a video game. Would be funny if he turned out to be right about that (tho it’s just his way of explaining things. U might have heard of the channel before. He does biology tier lists)

@@andyh87able I’m a Christian in the sense that I go to Church, but I’m not what they call a “true Christian” (whatever in the world that’s supposed to mean). I think I’m what you’d call agnostic (I’m not sure whether I believe in God or not. I guess u could say I’m on the verge of being an atheist, but I’m not quite an atheist). I might try to go to another church, like maybe the church of Scientology, or I might go to some Buddhist place, but I’m not even sure of that. What religion are u part of, if anything

"Thinking I can choose to prevent that from happening seems to prevent this from happening." This!. I take comfort that my actions are determined by who I am coupled with what I am aware of. I am, by nature, congenial and like to get along. I am aware of and fear law enforcement and the criminal justices system for what they can do to me if I don't follow societal rules and laws. I like that others may feel the same way...be afraid to misbehave and react to the world around them to try to fit in rather than feeling 'free' to misbehave. Many do...apparently...choose to misbehave, but I think overall, a society that can show its disapprobation for misbehavior is part of the environment that modifies behavior of most people.

It would not be your fault if you chose to rob a bank? Steal a lollipop from a baby? More so, it would not be your success for making through a PhD program or curing cancer? Is that really the type of world you would want to live in? Where responsibility for one’s negative actions are shrugged off and accomplishments mean nothing?

@@bw0081 Want to live in? We don't really have much of a choice.

@@Leto85 How do you figure? To reduce human behavior to mere programming, akin to computers, is a gross oversimplification of our capabilities. It neglects our capacity as humans to evaluate different options, draw from our experiences, education, and biological makeup, and make choices that reflect what we have learned, and how we apply that knowledge. It is crucial to recognize that humans are not mere victims of circumstance or prisoners of genetics. The actions of criminals cannot be solely attributed to external factors, just as the achievements of pioneers in their fields cannot be solely attributed to genetic predispositions. By acknowledging free will, we acknowledge the complexity that goes into making decisions and the agency we have to ultimately decide how to go about various situations. To view the absence of free will as freeing seems nihilistic and dismissive of the richness of human existence. It echoes sentiments like "what's the point" or "why bother?" It undermines the pride and sense of accomplishment that individuals rightfully experience for their achievements. We absolutely have a choice to reject determinism and in my belief we are better for it.

@@bw0081 What (which person) are you referring to in your statement 'it would not be your fault if you chose to [list the possible actions]? And who is the implied 'other' who would be finding fault?

I agree!

Nice

Omg, why bother...

Looking for this...during 2nd watch of this video...

Ohhh this joke has layers. A+

they had us in the first half, not gonna lie

Brilliant observation

Her point was that our consciousness makes a choice before the body registers the choice. Not the same as saying we have no free will. Rather, that the intelligence that you are is beyond your human existence 🤯

@@admininfo536 umm..that too.

@@admininfo536 I think her point was more that we can't predict the outcomes of our thought processes, not that there is an unrealized decision waiting to be revealed.

@@admininfo536 That wasn't her point. But incidentally, your consciousness is by nature quite slow. It results while, or perhaps just after, processing all of the various signals from your environment and your body. The process of making choices occurs, and THEN we become consciously aware of it. When we recognize our internal thoughts undergoing a decision-making process, that process is merely our interpretation of the true reason we made the choice. But the decision was made by the brain before the mind could be aware the decision was made. Hence how people often find out through therapy that many of the things in their life that caused them problems were a result of their behaviors that they didn't properly understand. After an objective outsider can listen to their life story and how they think, and point out where their reasoning for their choices were irrational, it helps them to see the true reason for their past choices.

@@AfricanLionBat she said that in the video

but we are not. degenerative diseases are on the rise. everyone is eating the wrong diet. if everyone was running software to optimize well being everyone would be eating a species appropriate diet which is carnivore.

@@mjordan5382 well not everyone’s “software” is good enough to realize that carnivore may be the best diet.

who's the programmer?

@Jeff Poland AND ALL READERS: ​ A man said I should write a book after seeing my posts to you. I told him and you: ​ @Andrew Holster and @Jeff Poland: Thanks. I am about to do that! We should actually agree on everything I have said. Each point follows from the earlier point below . They are not therefore separate but part of a chain in this order. 1. You said "reality is real" or I said "existence exists" . But "how' Can you know that? 2. Consciousness is the "identification' of the preceding "identity" - what you call reality or I call existence. This means "Consciousness" is a separate identity to to existence; and is 'from and of' existence. Similarly consciousness is a separate identity to a cup of tea, but a cup of tea is real , 'of and from existence' . 3. If existence and consciousness are identities then it means Aristotle's law of identity is also part of existence. This means there is truth! It's NOT about your perspective versus another's perspective. It is NOT subjective (to you) but Objective to reality itself. The above 3 items are METAPHYSICS: existence, mind and identity. 4. EPISTEMOLOGY: But how can you know any identity (i.e. truth)? The methods of reason and logic. 5. What about science and math ? These are "Sub-sets' to Epistemology. This means you can have PROBABILISTIC truth BUT it must always be interpreted using reason and logic. Metaphysics is ABSOLUTE truth. The existence of epistemology is also absolute so is what follows: ethics, politics (including economics) and aesthetics. But how and why? 6. We've established you have a mind (so it is NOT impotent but potent: with free will; a separate identity that must be exercised IF rational man to reach "valid" conclusion: that there is existence. Even a blind, deaf and mute girl - Helen Keller reached this understanding. A mental patient can not reach this position. To reach the fact existence exists (or your words reality-is-real) needs one to distinguish "non reality" from "reality" and reach the correct conclusion . This needs man to exercise free will to make that choice. It is Not automatic : no animal has ever reached this conclusion nor can any animal conclude. They just "are" but have no "human mind" (i.e. no free will; although animals have 'Awareness" state of consciousness ). 7. The fact you are an individual of a species that must "decide' at every moment of your life (exercising free will) to sustain your very life ; means by your very intrinsic nature you have to have liberty to think (to decide) and therefore act on the conclusions of your decision. Why would do you do that? To sustain your "life". And humans seeks happiness in the immediate term (eg. get to the bathroom or get a glass of water) , short , medium, long and longest term (your life). Whether you make the correct decision right now is judged AGAINST your "longest term". For example - you may decide to do 'dr*gs" to feel happy: but judged right now against the longest term, it is a "Wrong" and there is "right vs wrong" [law of identity]. It's NEVER HOW YOU FEEL like you had originally and incorrectly stated - never SUBJECTIVE TRUTH but Objective and reality is knowable, as your mind is potent (not impotent like you imply by the wrong conclusion about subjective reality in the previous post). Therefore we can summarize you have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have NO RIGHTS to happiness else you can "rapture" another lady by force for example or force welfare in a state by stealing from free fair earners (we'll come to that below). You only have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If you want love or wealth then you must use your mind to think , and learn the method to think properly (methods of reason and logic; see epistemology above; using your mind - which is potent - see metaphysics above). And you must act. Then you must learn from feedback and optimize. Indeed online marketing is constantly about this 'optimization'. 8. Politics: you need an elected government to protect you else in anarchy the strongest thug will rule you (Mad Max; the history of any Dictator/Monarchist nation or Commie nation). Because you have the right to pursue happiness and sustain life: you as a human being must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (Eg. hat, mat, cat, or money etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. The only evil is force or fraud (e.g. taxation or minimum wage or any economic regulation). This is because every person is equal (see ethics) with "inalienable" rights. That means the rights are part of the cosmos itself and can not be bestowed upon you NOR taken (except in self defence such as justice). This means the only correct economics is capitalism (laissez-faire). You are OWED NOTHING for being alive EVER, for you are not Dictator (and dictator is evil as it means the use of force). You need a government to protect you using the arms like the military (Against foreign invasion) , the courts (including civil courts like at divorce or contractual dispute; tort like if you slip in McDonalds, even outside contract they owe a duty of care that is implied the place is safe when you enter their premises). 9. Aesthetics: man needs good art. Art is a magnification of life. Art is a spiritual need. Spirit does not mean woo woo but it means "pertaining to the mind". But the way how does man have a mind? It is not known and not knowable. It is an assumption But not a frivolous/arbitrary assumption. Consciousness (to remind you) is the identification of existence itself. You can touch things and realize "Something exists". So your sense organs inform your "mind" - a real thing - of existence, from existence, a separate identity (see metaphysics above, points 1 , 2 and 3). BUT THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY HUMANS MISTAKE FICTION FOR FACT. Sabine's post above for example.

yes please. missed market here.

You’re looking at (metaphor) the Holy Grail below . Let's start at the beginning. Questions before we start: Do you now understand there is no way around it - you have free will? Do you grasp science is NOT A RELIGION you've made it into ? ______________ Here's the ​ GRAND SUMMARY. Valuable? Yes, every legend throughout history was looking for the system I gave and give you in summary below. _______________________ What is metaphysics? It means actuality-reality, regardless of your feelings. 1. Existence exists: this is the broadest concept of the entire cosmos! How do you know that? You can touch something like a chair and know something exists, anything. So existence exists is the abstraction. But how do you know that? Consciousness is the identification of existence. So consciousness is a separate identity with free will to identify existence as opposed to the OTHER CHOICE "no-thing-ness" if you're a rational man. Well if existence and consciousness as identities then Aristotle's law of identity is so (a penguin is a bird even though it has strong bones and no wings and can not fly; a whale looks like a fish but is a mammal!). Everything has identity. Truth. Do you now understand there is no way around it - you have free will? Do you grasp science is NOT A RELIGION you've made it into ? 2. Epistemology: but how do know any identity or truth? The methods of reason and logic. 3. What is ethics? Your Sovereign: inalienable rights because above we establish you have a mind and need to use it to sustain your life. You need liberty to sustain your life. And man lives to pursue happiness. 4. Politics: democracy. Why? An Elected government to protect you - the Sovereign! That means evil is the use of force or force against you (Except in self defence). Economics: capitalism. Why? Your property rights are also derived as a self evident truth from ethics above. All animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment but man must re-adapt the environment - create cloth, shelter, fire and all the items you enjoy that you can see and much you can't see (under the hood of your car, house or smartphone - there's many ingenious invented - smashed, extracted, mined and drilled from nature and brought to you as value that you pay for in a transaction directly or indirectly such as when renting or living with parents!) Man must acquire, maintain, dispose OR TRADE your services or property (E.g. hat, cat, mat, iphone or money, etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without fraud or force. Indeed a government is needed for disputes like the courts. YOU MUST readapt the environment. Greta is completely wrong because of these reasons. 5. Aesthetics: good art! Yes! The problem is too many humans (almost 100%) mistake FICTION for fact like you had previous to my posts. Fiction is GREAT BUT IS NOT FACT. Facts are ascertained like the above using the methods of reason and logic: man's ONLY way to reach valid conclusion in anything, in everything like the above!

I am so glad she finds the subject that still challenges and occupies greater minds than hers “silly” and “trash”.

Yeah, a calm, rational science debate is way too boring. Let's make this into a circus.

@@svenhaadem I think that's a Germanic trait, whether or not that's her heritage. It's mine and I recognize it.

Very eloquently said

@@mofayer no it's not, he means that the "striving" was never a choice in itself, making it possible

@@alsdean then it ultimately doesn't matter, just like Benjamin typing that comment and Sabine making this video 🤷‍♂️ See? Choosing an idea that implies there's no such thing as choice is self-defeating.

If you realize there is no free will you will also realize..."luck" doesn't exist either.

@@mofayerspot on. it would be a choice to fight against the hopelessness wouldn't it. how could hopelessness even exist in a predetermined life without the choice of a better future?

The words 'free will' make no sense. The human psyche is made up of mind, affections and will. The mind and affections may pull in opposite directions. This determines which way our will takes us. Hence we do not have free will. It is better to say that we are free moral agents. If our minds incline to evil but our affections incline to moral good whichever is stronger determines how the will acts. This way of viewing this issue is from the bible. It shows why humanity largely rejects God. The mind and affections collaborate in this. Only God himself can change this and he does in the case of his elect.

I had no other choice but to leave a comment...

@@johnrowland9570 You can define "free will" however you like. That's why you can always make an absurd and dumb argument how you think we have no free will. Particle physics injecting itself into psychology claiming "well there's science on that" is one of the stupidest things I've heard Sabine say. Or maybe she wants to test our critical thinking, in which ofc we have none - but that definitely wasn't determined at the big bang. We don't even know for sure that the big bang is real, up to now it's just a theory. On the other hand 600 years ago we knew for sure that the earth is flat. People were saying that Columbus is gonna sail off the edge.

I also often have that feeling.

​@@johnrowland9570 indeed the constraints of being a biological entity just being hungry can affect outcomes

Her argument is wrong. ​ ​ ​ A guy called ​ @Alexandru Suchea said to me "Mr. awesome commenter. Almost every good video on youtube has at least one of those crazies! You! ", THE VIDEO WAS SABINE ON DETERMINISM [BEING SO] JUST LIKE SHE HAD ANOTHER ON FREE WILL BEING 'NONSENSE' I replied: thanks for interaction. The video is good? So is Star Wars. But this is a place for truth - not just 'good video' - do YOU AGREE? If there is determinism [and/or you have no free will like her OTHER video - seen it yet] then your mother is open to be raptured senseless and neither you NOR her can complain because you are saying YOUR MOTHER has NO FREE WILL. However I am defending her honor and saying - yes she HAS free will "because" consciousness is the identification of existence: meaning you can pick up a pen and if rational , then identify it is "Something of existence" - i.e. existence exists. But to repeat how do you know existence exists? MENTAL PATIENTS DO NOT, A.I. has not, animals can not. Answer: consciousness is the identification of existence. This means consciousness is a "separate" identity that identifies a previous identity (e.g. validates there existence by picking up a pen. The word "validates" is wider than the word "proof"). So if one identity identifies another identity then it means there is Aristotle's law of identity (i.e. truth). But how do you know any truth? The methods of reason and logic. So metaphysics [what is reality?] : existence, consciousness [with free will] and identity [i.e. truth]. Epistemology [how to know truth , any identity?]: the methods of reason and logic. ETHICS: your [or your mother's ] inalienable rights to her life liberty and pursuit of happiness - as SOVEREIGN of her body, mind and life. U.S.A . SELFISHNESS: she can seek her rational self interest. She does NOT owe her body to anyone as a 'selfLESS' person - never! Why? All other species come pre-adapted to a niche environment BUT MAN must use his mind to sustain his life at every moment of life. Man does that by RE-ADAPTING the environment to yourself like "clothes" [even caveman], shelter [even caveman], tools [even caveman has the axe] and all the way to today - the "millions or billions' of items around you [millions of earth elements in your smartphone from AROUND the world; invaded and taken legally and put together in a factory in China or S.Korea, then packaged and brought to you where-ever you are like iPhone OR Samsung!] Fourth branch is : politics and a subset 'economics'. By the way the correct politics is democracy. Why? Because in ethics you have inalienable rights so you need an elected government to protect you [anarchy means rule by strongest thug, so back to socailism-statism] The correct economics? Laissez-faire capitalism. Why? Above in ethics you saw you have a right to "think and act" [only man can dot that and MUST do that- i.e. man must have LIBERTY to sustain life and also pursue happiness meaning dreams and goals and live as you want]. So man needs the right to property (e.g. clothes - see above) : to acquire, maintain, dispose or TRADE your services or property [bear skin, iphone, mat, cat, hat or money]. A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. So there IS EVIL: force or fraud against you [except in self defence and/or justice which is fair]. finally man needs good art to magnify life because you have a mind [see metaphysics] and it needs to be nourished like your body needs to be nourished by food [no other species has to have this nor A.I.] So yes to the final fifth branch of philosophy : aesthetics. Do you understand? No one can harm your mother NOR you. NO ONE. NO ONE. So please NEVER AGAIN imply I am crack or wrong when Sabine is WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. The mind [consciousness with free will] is seperate and unique - it is PERPETUAL FIRST CAUSE. That means NO deterministic universe nor super determinism. YOU exercise your mind [the act, the cause] and the effect is thinking resulting in thought OR behavior [like moving your arm]. Get it now? Go ahead: move your arm. You did that. There is no determinism and yes you have free will . Sabine is wrong.

@@AmericanBrain Was this comment written by broken AI? It's practically incoherent even syntactically.

​@@JoshNpublicgplus What do you want to know? 1. You are conscious with free will. 2 Consciousness is the identification of existence. 3. Pick up a pen and if rational then you know that "it is of existence". So is everything else so - existence exists - is the broadest concept. But how do you know that? Remember? Consciousness is the identification of existence! You make a choice between no-thing and something reaching the only correct conclusion if rational man. A.I. can not do that, nor can mental patients nor animals. 4. So as one identity identifies another identity then it means the above is the truth: Aristotle's law of identity. 5. So metaphysics [what is reality]: existence, mind [with free will] and identity. 6. How do you know any truth, any identity ? The methods of reason and logic.

@@JoshNpublicgplus ​A man just said to me after reading my posts to you "Truth cannot be known.....". I told him what I tell you, and you in particular: @Aaron Huffman Huge thanks for response. You are wrong and have fallen into Russell Bertrand's paradox: an honest man says to you that "I am a liar". Well what is it? Look away and think about this for a minute before reading on - because getting it is vital. ____________________________________ The answer is the original proposition is rejected in logic . So it's an error of logic. In exact analogy : your proposition "truth can NOT be known" is wrong. Are you (for example) stating a truth and if not (because you say it can Not be known) then you are stating something "incorrect". Aristotle's law of identity that I told you about is part of the fabric of the cosmos and using reason and logic, one ascertains the truth. ____________________________________ Now that you know you are wrong, you were wrong - possibly all your beliefs to date are wrong - you've been conditioned like a rat-lab to date [I am serious] by whatever sources [school? Professors? Teachers? Friends? Colleagues? Peers? Papers? RU-vid videos? - the totality being "Scientism - a religion" - which is a catchall term for modernism, post-modernism, materialism, physicalism- all error, myth, fraud, fiction, filth and foul" - akin to Jesus or today Putin : "whatever the heck you want to make up" he does. In contrast read my original earlier posts for the truth, the WHOLE truth AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. The absolute truth.

@@JoshNpublicgplus p.s not broken A.I. - and ​ v2 update . ​ JUST LIKE ​A YOU TO ME - another man just said to me after reading my posts to you "Truth cannot be known.....". I told him what I tell you, and you in particular: @Aaron Huffman Huge thanks for response. You are wrong and have fallen into Russell Bertrand's paradox: an honest man says to you that "I am a liar". Well what is it? Look away and think about this for a minute before reading on - because getting it is vital. ____________________________________ The answer is the original proposition is rejected in logic . So it's an error of logic. In exact analogy : your proposition "truth can NOT be known" is wrong. Are you (for example) stating a truth and if not (because you say it can Not be known) then you are stating something "incorrect". Aristotle's law of identity that I told you about is part of the fabric of the cosmos and using reason and logic, one ascertains the truth. ____________________________________ Now that you know you are wrong, you were wrong - possibly all your beliefs to date are wrong - you've been conditioned like a rat-lab to date [I am serious] by whatever sources [school? Professors? Teachers? Friends? Colleagues? Peers? Papers? RU-vid videos? - the totality being "Scientism - a religion" - which is a catchall term for modernism, post-modernism, materialism, physicalism- all error, myth, fraud, fiction, filth and foul" - akin to Jesus or today Putin : "whatever the heck you want to make up" he does. In contrast read my original earlier posts for the truth, the WHOLE truth AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. The absolute truth. ______________ NEW NEW NEW !!! ​ So whilst I was you writing . The other guy then responded - ​ and asked - what is knowing a thing? _______ I told him what I tell and told you: Consciousness is the identification of existence. Pick up a pen or smell a flower or your own far* ! Decide whether it is 'of existence' or "no-thing-ness" ? If rational you will make the correct choice- the OPPOSITE choice to A.I., animals or mental patients [literally]. Whether pen or flower - this line of reasoning applies to all things so the widest concept of existence is simply: existence exists. You can validate that and do so ostensively above. But wait! How do you know that? This is AKIN to your question! The answer has already been given but have you forgotten? Consciousness is the identification of existence! BOOM! As one identity identifies another identity then it stands to reason there is Aristotle's law of identity [truth]. But wait again! How to know the above is correct or any truth, any identity ? The answer is the methods of reason and formal logic. BOOM! DONE! ->>> The opposite of your "feelings - like faith : Feeling of certainty about what something means" - conditioned by "society, others, schools, Professors, MOVIES , academic papers etc." EMOTIONS are VERY important but NEVER the way to reach valid conclusion. The only way to reach valid conclusion is reason and then emotions can FOLLOW THROUGH like "motivation or fear ; passion or rejection of a potential suitor etc."

Exactly. People *including myself at times* tend to over think things to the point of wasting time. Way easier and much more conclusive to just accept some things for what they are.

The idea of free will is political. You shouldn't worry that you don't have free will. You should worry that people will use the concept of free will to deny you the help you need.

Jeez... Someone was born with wonderful, awesome, brilliant parents, weren't they?

Of course you are satisfied. You have no choice.

@@DiegoM265 i had to chuckle; nice

To be completely honest, I don't think Brian Cox would know the first thing about souls, despite the data. By definition, souls are immaterial, which means that they cannot be measured in a scientific way. I think philosophical inquiry is the best way to get information on whether or not we have free will or souls. And while a majority of Western philosophers don't believe we have free will, there are still a significant amount that still argue for it. I think scientific discovery will give more philosophers ammo as to whether or not we have souls or free will, but this is ultimately a philisophical matter. Full disclosure, I don't believe in souls. Michael Huemer is a secular philosopher who advocates for souls himself, but I think his arguments fall short. Personally, I really love the concept of panpsychism, which is advocated by philosopher Phillip Goff. Check it out if you're interested!

I also thank you for mentioning this.❤ Spirituality exists too. Rapture will be a matter of both philosophy and physics.❤

Roger just spanked genathing with a truth paddle

@Roger Loquitur what’s your point? Define “good”. The Nazis thought they were doing good? I’m not sure that’s true. They knew that they were committing amoral and heinous acts. This has nothing to do with religion. I don’t know if you first stumbled on Nietzsche and adderall and decided to go off here, but what you said reads like a pile of mental masturbation.

@Roger Loquitur and furthermore, those who decided to impeach Trump did so with cause. We all saw that cause and it’s effects on the capitol on January 6. You should go jerk it with your fascist friends instead of doing it online. Thanks.

@Roger Loquitur all I’m saying is that you’re just giving me word salad. Where was the contradiction? Point it out. You haven’t proved anything. You’re just a garbled voice screaming baseless accusations. Also: I’m mot sure that you understand English grammar.

@Charles Unleashed did you learn this response from your “incel hearts fascist” message forum?

But if for all those individuals who don't "understand this" isn't that completely explainable and predetermined by the motions of the particles in those individuals' brains? According to hard determinism, since the beginning of the universe each of us was predetermined to either accept or reject determinism. Sebastian, do you accept or reject my analysis? (Keep in mind Sebastian that your response has already been predetermined)

And how, pray tell are you going to *choose* to either become more aware of information or influences, or to do anything about them? Oh wait, you cannot in a deterministic universe without varying degrees of freedom in choice. She completely contradicts herself.

@@jc6226 You are making the mistake of assuming a false dichotomy. The fact that the universe is causal doesn't exclude the fact that causes can be within you without being "free". A city can be in a state and also be in a country and also be in the world. You can choose something, and also that choice can be determined.

@@neomohism9997 no, you are making a false equivocation and being incoherent. a city isnt also the world, and causal doesnt mean only deterministic and understandable only by reductionist methodologies. and a choice you make that is also pre-determined is not a choice made of free-will; that is not what people often mean by 'choice,' and certainly not in a context of choosing freely or willingly.

Indeed

There's a lot of stupid irrational nonsensical theories all observations prove Free Will is not a real stop over complicated things with your philosophical gobbledygook

Well, I guess you had no choice but to say that.

@@z242 that's your guess. We will never really know...

Use your own logic you don’t need dozens of philosophers to answer the free will question. You don’t even have to understand physics or neuroscience. If a will would be truly free also from your internal circumstances (your psychological make up) it wouldn’t be YOUR will anymore and even more bizarre.

But you can't will your will to change in a direction you want.

@@christopherfreeman5663 Can we equate will with desire, the two terms being synonymous? If so then I do believe we can recondition our desires through repetition and change our habits in a direction we want. In my case I willed myself to desire less and less food, moderating my intake until such changes became conditioned and the desire to eat more food was reduced.

I'm glad you were able to make the changes to your life that you wanted to make. Indeed, determinism and a lack of free will does not mean that choices aren't made, rather that choices are made, they matter, but nobody makes them. They are made themselves. So no one can say with certainty what the future will hold for us, even if it is already predetermined or coexisting with the present.

So you debunked Schopenhauers claim, good for you! I did the same. The "will" is just a series of beliefs that can be changed, but most people don't because they identify with those beliefs and are afraid to let them go for the fear of losing themselves.

Hmm, as someone who hast lost weight and kept it off over the last 2 years, it wasn't about will at all, it was just discovering that intermittent fasting isn't for crazy people, but actual science. Easy Peasy. I also quit porn addiction just by getting better information. Also, food addiction is dopamine addiction, but like all drug addictions, your brain does get bored or desensitized over time, so many drug addicts end up quitting eventually on their own. Their 'will' changes just out of boredom / desensitization. Your brain craves novelty. So congrats on the weight loss, but it doesn't show you aren't made from particles...

To elaborate a bit, the methodology of science requires repeatability. Any claim must be testable by a doubter, and doubt is dispelled only when repetition of the experiment leads to the same result. It therefore is clear that the methodology of science is intrinsically restricted to deterministic topics. The claim that this approach encompasses all of reality either is just hope or is simple hubris.

Henrique klein pedroso Exactly!!!

Rupert Sheldrake

Consciousness (the "hard problem", specifically) and free will are in fact two different questions - Sabine is only talking about the second in this video. Existence or nonexistence of the second does not influence the first.

How do you mean, ‘who’ is being deluded? Why would there have to be a who? The notion that there has to be a ‘who’ to be deluded is in fact part of the delusion.

I think the difficult part of subjective experience is more the 'whence' than the 'who'. But the whole universe is a bit funny with emergent properties. Light is a timeless thing, yet we are all made of essentially confined light, by virtue of which we perceive light to move through time. I don't think it's too far fetched to conclude that the 'entity' we perceive as ourselves is an emergent property of the information patterns in the brain.

Guilt may be seen as a "moral" way to feel by some people, and as something that we may "deserve" to feel due to past transgressions. But on the other hand, guilt can weigh us down so much that we can be almost disabled by lack of motivation to improve. Feeling better can help us move forward with better optimism and self confidence in our ability to be better.

Did it work?

If you agree with her, you never tried to improve anything and never could try to improve anything.

@@cyberfunk3793 that makes absolutely no sense.

@@blorkpovud1576 It makes perfect sense to anyone with any understanding of basic logic: to improve means to change something to the better and there is not changing of anything under determinism just as you can't change a movie while you watch it.

This is not what the video is saying though. In the video she says that not even the minimum amount of free movement exists, everything follows necessarily from initial conditions

@@davidebizzarri9460 i am not talking about particular video but in general about free will in context of universe(simulation theory)

@@param888 And why do you believe this theory is true?

@@davidebizzarri9460 because few private events proved to me that free will is an illusion.

@peter I can't choose to say this or not.

“I don’t know what the problem is but I think I know” my platoon Sargent Gonzalez

And I can see from the comments that people would like to have free will ...😉

You need not have said that, because we all knew you were going to say it.

Rumsfield said "There are things you know, things you don't know, and things you don't know you don't know" when talking about the IRAQ war.

Yes, it is possible that our knowledge about the laws of nature must be revised one day. As I said, I am merely telling you what the situation is according to best current knowledge.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. I believe free will, like temperature, is rather a macroscopic emergent phenomenon. This is why it vanishes when you go beyond a certain scale.

You're making the assumption that we don't know and will learn otherwise. Without any evidence to suggest what you claim then we can only go on what we already know which is free will is an illusion and ultimately does not exist.

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 The correct way is to view "free will" as a social idea, of not being coerced by another person. The neurological version makes sense in terms of decision-making processes relevant to ideas of criminal responsibility. To act as if it's a fundamental feature of reality depends on there being an imagined person, God, within or outside of nature. Nature doesn't coerce, it just is.

​@@aniksamiurrahman6365 How exactly do envision it Anik? Do you imply that, say, 100 atoms cannot decide on their own future, but 1000 atoms suddenly can? I hear a very similar argument about self-awareness all the time, but I don't really follow it. Yes, a bigger brain gives you more computational power, so you can have more sophisticated calculations, and thus (potentially) more sophisticated experiences. But, clearly, self-awareness is outside of the boundaries of modern physics. Every physical emergent phenomenon I know of (e.g. any material properties like conductivity or phase transitions) are really a collection of very simple atomic behaviours, which nevertheless have something in common with the original process: e.g. you can think of a single atom conducting heat between two other atoms. You can think of a crystal lattice already by observing allowed mutual positions of like 3 interacting atoms. Surely, we should be able to find then an elementary version of self-awareness, right?