The 'veto' part of our decision-making is vital. This is why binge drinking/intoxication is so dangerous - it takes away our inhibitions from doing something stupid.
@@pluto9000Others may think that if theres pure randomness, free will could arise. However, they sometimes forget that even though randomness is true, its still outside of our control. But i dont think so that theres such thing as "randomness" if were able to measure all the factors that might affect a particular outcome of an event, everything can be predicted
We can apply the monitor analogy here, "When we click A button to move left in a game, the character moves after 20-50ms. It's called input lag. The delay could be from the response time of monitor and keyboard" Similarly we can say that 500ms might be our response time to certain actions. What do you think ?
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will. What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that. Ex. The decision making process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as: - previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to) - your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over) - your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
A reasonable interpretation, I think. Even the simplest actions can be made up of yet smaller steps, each of which takes an elapse of time. A similar interpretation would be be to consider the lag as the time necessary, not for the action itself -- here, making a decision or even recognizing the decision --, but for afterwards reacting to the decision. Particularly, in the course of this experiment, the time needed to initiate all the physiogical processes necessary for reporting to the scientists that a decision's been made. The lag would be like the time between seeing a ball in the road and stamping one's foot on the brake pedal to avoid hitting a careless child. Recognition takes time (including, say, "input lag"), and then a subsequent reaction takes additional time.
@@declup True, Our brain signals to break immediatley when the sensory signals reach the neurons, but it takes 120ms for a forumla1 driver realise the brakes.
It's not an us vs our brain, but that self-awareness is a reflection of our "Id" or actual poiont of being (like an echo bouncing off the inside of our skull, being "heard" thru the same wetware that allows us to convert the words, actions, and abstractions of others into the patterns we have built-up from the time we were born.
In *every* moment, we have choice of how to function, whether to and/or how to initiate action or how to respond. That is so even if you ignore that and let yourself go on automatic. We are human.
Why can't it be a consensus building process that the mind is working through in that precursor, just a discussion as it were, and when the committee determines what it would like to do, it is defined and requested to the conscious mind so that the request can be executed. In any case, this is free will as there were no external factors identified.
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will. What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that. In your case, the consensus building process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as: - previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to) - your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over) - your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
@@firelight3806 I have to admit I never considered the biochemical ramifications to consciousness, but I have to counter that these particles are subject to the uncertainty principle and so we are back to where we started as we will never know because the initiation is both willed and unwilled at the same time and cannot be determined until we crack the skull open. I for one find the need for an answer insufficient justification for brain surgery.
@@RibberflavenousThis argument has been beaten to death an uncountable number of times. The random atomic vibrations of the sodium and potassium ions that power the action potentials of your neurons matter little in the face of the macroscopic construction of your brain. Whether one ion vibrates left or right at a specific millisecond will not affect its entrance across the axon when the voltage gated ion channel is opened, and thereby it will have no affect on your thought process as the signal carries on to other neurons. Let’s be honest: every decision you have ever made has arisen from the culmination of a lifetime’s worth of stimuli reception. Your brain makes a decision for you, and you become aware of it after the fact. It doesn’t really matter that much, though, because for all intensive purposes it *feels* like you made the decision in the first place, so it’s easy to live under the illusion of free will. Why get bothered about things that are out of your control? Live your life as you think you want to.
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will. What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that. Ex. The decision making process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as: - previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to) - your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over) - your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
"Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move" - famous Spinoza's quote about consciousness. I'm inclined to believe there's just more nuance to it than a simple negation of free will. Even if it's just biased due to some kind of vitalist exceptionalism. Personally, I find it funny to think that the conscious I is just a CEO of a company that's aware of goals, wills and tendencies and kind of guides towards some directions, but behind this I there are a lot of components that actually manage each department individually, other parts that execute functions and relay the result and a integrating group that analyzes performance according to initial indications by CEO and then informs them of them to them, to the I. Maybe as if consciousness was just an almost immediate -but not quite - memory, the same way that memory experiments show that past experiences are at all times rewritten, contextualized and rationalized. This way, there's still responsibility on the conscious part of the brain, the same way a CEO is fired if the performance leaves much to desire. And I think the analogy also explains the experiences of people with some type of disability or brain injury (search for brain experiments on callous body injury), where some actions and spasms occur without conscious control, similarly as how people with addictions make unconscious decisions before conscious attempts to control their impulses and fail or before just rationalizing.
Sounds like they try to make something of nothing. It is like turning on your car, but haven't started the engine yet. I know I am writing a comment, I could care less if my brain was a few milliseconds adove me, it should be. That does not mean it acts out of my control. If it does, then there is no it: it is my brain, so it is me.
But in this case, the software is run by chemical processes. That are run by other chemical processes. In other words, everything is causal, therefore no free will exists. That’s the sort version of the no free will argument.
@@frusie91 We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process takes time or is run by chemical reactions. We are our brains. We are the unconscious part, and the conscious part. It is WE who are making the decisions, even if those decisions start brewing in the unconscious part.
It's real free will even if it's just an illusion, the fish sees the tank as the whole universe as long as it is inside it. The fish must get out of the pot in order to see how things really are. Unfortunately we can't detach ourselves from being conscious in order to see that we "don't have free will", and indeed we have free will(indeed the tank is the whole world for the fish as long as it's inside of it). Free will is an illusion that is also real if it makes any sense.
@@caofan5190 I like that explanation actually. Still think its not actually ‘free’ if it is sort of cascading from stimuli eventually from outside the body. So on a fundamental level, I still think it is reasonable to think that free will is not there. On the deeper levels. On a more conscious level you have at least the illusion that you control your mind. I think thats what you mean right?
As soon as anyone can define what "free will" means, and how you define it, I am on board. Your brain is you. How is the conscious awareness the measure of free will?
Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start. "Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.
""The brain started the process way before the person decided to do it" Is it the mind making the decision? Could we then define a person as just a mind? Our culture is used to "free will," but a "proof" of predestination may offer some resistance. That is the mind used to a comfortable belief, a conditioning. Can we speak of free will then?
"It is generally recognized that we have a freedom to think and intend whatever we wish but not a freedom to say whatever we think or to do whatever we wish. The freedom under discussion here, then, is freedom on the spiritual level and not freedom on the earthly level, except to the extent that the two coincide. Thinking and intending are spiritual, while speaking and acting are earthly. There is a clear distinction between these kinds of freedom in us, since we can think things that we do not express and intend things that we do not act out; so we can see that the spiritual and the earthly in us are differentiated. As a result, we cannot cross the line from one to the other except by making a decision, a decision that can be compared to a door that has first to be unlocked and opened.
Thinking and intending are more often actually earthly, while speaking and acting follow suit. Also, thinking and intending can alternatively be spiritual, and speaking and acting follow suit.
Verovati u slobodnu volju je isto kao i verovati u postojanje bezuzročnih posledica (causless effect). Sve ima svoj uzrok uključujući i naše misli. Šopenhauer je rekao "Možemo raditi šta želimo, ali ne možemo da želimo ono što želimo". I drugi veliki filozofi poput Spinoze, Kanta i Ničea su se slagali s tim, a takođe i verovatno najveći naučnik Albert Ajnštajn.
@@mtlicqThinking and intending-which those familiar with Swedenborg’s thought might also recognize as willing and understanding-may not seem like inherently spiritual activities, but he emphasizes that the ability to make rational choices is the cornerstone of spiritual development, or regeneration. Our spiritual state isn’t simply the result of a single action or decision; it comes with years and years of consistently choosing one path over another. For example, in the book A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge spends years inflicting suffering on others for his own profit, until one night he’s confronted with the consequences of his actions and has a change of heart. That’s great, Swedenborg might say, but by consistently choosing to put his greed first, Scrooge has done spiritual damage to himself. It’ll take a lot of internal work-consistently trying to do good-before he can really turn himself around. Whatever we choose to do freely becomes a part of us. Swedenborg tells us that a rational choice-one that comes from considering our options and everything that we’ve learned-has more spiritual impact than an impulsive action. And actions that we’re forced to take against our will have the least impact of all. In the same way, people who aren’t able to make rational decisions, whether it’s because of mental or physical illness or due to more fleeting conditions like rage or intoxication, aren’t held spiritually responsible for their actions-even though they might be held responsible on a personal or criminal level!
@@vladan5383Free will is not effects without cause, for the cause for free-will decisions is the will itself. And will, together with intellect, is understood as an essential part of human nature caused by whatever causes human nature to exist.
Isn't that like instincts? For example martial artists, gamers, or even people reading or doing math and knowing the answer or what is likely to proceed, are already aware of how to respond without consciously thinking about it if they are trained to do so and so the movements or reactions would become ingrained as instinctive without needing to consciously think about it.
decision making is not an instant response like reflex it requires identification , evaluation and selection of a strategy so there is bound to some brain activity before arriving at a decision
Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start. "Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.
Even if these findings were fully replicated, all it tells you is that for random decisions, the brain may have a random generation circuit. It doesn’t tell you anything about thoughtful actions, reflective thinking, etc. What is being tested here is a lot more like testing a reflex then it is testing for free will. In fact, it’s probably impossible to prove one way or another, that we have free will. It’s the same thing as solving the hard problem of consciousness, because you would have to have access to the subjective experience of another person. Certainly the world appears to be physical and follow physical laws, but we also have a real first person experience of free will. In fact, it’s the most present and verifiable feeling a conscious being can have. I don’t think you can just throw out all of that evidence , because you don’t like what the implication would be.
@@declup you mean that’s what you’ve rationalized and told yourself. What you actually experience is yourself thinking and making decisions unless you’re unlike everyone else I guess.
@@mbmurphy777 -- Couldn't the same be said for the alternative viewpoint? That first-person-ness is a "rationalization" itself? A consequence, not a choice, in the same way that vision is a consequence, not a choice? You see because parts of the world (parts of you) interact with parts of the world. You're aware because parts of the world interact with parts of the world. But interaction and responsiveness don't grant your eyes or the vision centers of your brain first-person-ness. How then those parts of you that observe yourself?
@@declup I don’t think so because that’s not our firsthand experience. Or at least my experience and what most people say is their experience. Clearly lots of biology is unconscious… Autonomic responses, routine actions like the mechanics of walking, eating etc. Probably even some of our nonreflective/reflexive actions making, although it seems we can *choose* to hone certain reflexive actions (through choosing to practice free throws, for example). However, for reflective decisions where we consider and weigh options, ruminate over outcomes etc, it certainly feels like we are an agent/entity making decisions. Again, I don’t think that there is any way to prove things one way or another. The only evidence that we don’t have free will is that it seems that having free will does not play well with known deterministic/probabilistic physical models. Sure, that’s a big deal, but I don’t think we can dismiss all the direct first-hand evidence that we have consciousness and make decisions. I agree that that is not definitive evidence, and I don’t think definitive evidence can exist either way. But to have a deterministic universe, all of those daily experiences would have to be illusions. Why would such a situation evolve?
@@mbmurphy777 -- "Certainly feels like" is evidence of feeling, but it's not evidence of choosing or agency. It's evidence of feeling machines, brains, that can be influenced by other parts of the world, but it's not evidence of an abstracted self in a Platonic realm, some kind of special object that's physical, since it orchestrates a person's actions, but also, at the same time, metaphysical and set apart from the world. The experience of reality is the result of physical reality's impingements on itself, physical reality. The experience of reality isn't a choice any more than reality is a choice, and it isn't more or less impactful than reality is impactful -- because it's just another aspect of reality's complex self-interactions. "Certainly feels like" may be immersive, visceral, so encompassing as to seem cinematic, but sensation, no matter how impressive or high-resolution, has nothing to do with agency or first-person-ness. Nor do the emotions induced by sensation. Nor do mental states, like reflection or rumination, as physics churns within a human brain. Nor even awareness, which is the brain's own set of complex self-interactions and self-observation, as neurons signal other neurons and are signaled in turn. Instead, in a physical universe, one mediated by sense and response, awareness and "certainly feels like" are evidence of the physical and sensory nature of the universe and nothing else. And you ask, "why would such a situation evolve?", by which, you possibly mean, "why would such a purposeless mode of existence come to be?" But if that interpretation is what you'd meant by your rhetorical question, doesn't your underlying question not already presuppose the necessity of purpose? Why must there be purpose at all? What even is purpose? Intentionality? If so, then purpose does exist in this deterministic universe, since desire is a temporarily stable, complex subsystem's self-preserving behavior within its more-chaotic ambient environment. If not intentionality, maybe some kind of teleological finality? The target or culmination of the universe after its allotted duration of being? If so, perhaps the universe is indeed evolving toward some predetermined, physically entailed conclusion, but that end is entirely unrelated to people's agency or first-person-ness, since it'll terminate as it will whether or not consciousness is a special characteristic of human beings. And if not intentionality or teleology, there isn't much else. Value maybe? (Value is a corollary of desire and intentionality.) Meaning maybe? (The word "meaning" is as difficult to define or prove as "purpose" is.) Or possibly a recasting of consciousness or free will? That is, purpose as proof of first-person-ness in that agency would be defined as "that which chooses its own purpose" and purpose would be defined as "that which is determined by agency"? If so, then purpose, far from being irrelevant and unrelated to first-person-ness, would be too related, and any attempt to demonstrate agency by asserting purpose would be tantamount to proving agency by asserting agency, which is a circular argument and, although valid if one already takes, on faith, agency as an axiom of human nature -- since no argument, you're right, can definitively disprove an axiomatic assertion --, unconvincing to others who aren't already convinced.
When you said that brain began acting before they were aware of there action there are still free will the fact that we are aware of our actions is a sign of free will but it is not our only thing influence our action our instincts is one of the first things that decides our action free will comes after that and when I mean instinct I mean the brain responds that was in the experiment of libet we still can refuse the action after all
The coolest idea is we are living in the future, we react as much as 15 seconds before the reality manifests :O Is Friston and Nietzsche. Will James, Jung... Are they right? Are we meta beings - living in the between - the beyond that Fred called Hintervelten - from the back-worlds, between like hinterland, but he means those who live in the between of life and existence itself...
We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process takes time. We are our brains. We are the unconscious part, and the conscious part. It is WE who are making the decisions, even if those decisions start brewing in the unconscious part.
TLDR; Experiement did not factor the impact of anticipation on the results of the experiment One issue I have with the experiment is the initial instruction: "Flex your wrists whenever you feel like doing so." Wouldn't this prompt put the mind in a state of preparedness, activating unconscious or autonomous brainwaves associated with wrist flexing? Consider the moment before a traffic light turns green for both a race car driver and a civilian driver. Wouldn't our brains also register these unconscious brainwaves if observed? Yes, the environments differ-driving versus sitting in a room flexing your wrist-the key point is the anticipation of acting "whenever you feel like doing so," whether flexing your wrist or pressing the gas pedal. A more effective experiment might document all participants' behaviors unknowingly through casual conversation. Instead of creating a direct prompt, it would observe the actions of the individual when discussing something specific, like driving a car or curling a barbell. This approach would involve monitoring muscle movements with electrodes to establish relational data between brainwave and muscle activity before and after the conversation. While discussing driving, did the muscles in the foot prepare to flex or the wrist to turn the wheel? When talking about curling a barbell or engaging in workout-related activities (depending on a person's individual experience with the activity), did those associated muscles react based on the conversation? This method could offer a more grounded view of what's actually happening, while also presenting another potential perspective. It might also lead to some fascinating discussions.
A few issues other than just whether or not we have free won't and could veto it: 1. How do we know the time that we experience awareness of our decision? If they use subject self-reports then how do we know the subject's awareness doesn't actually occur before that and it just takes time for the brain to be able to communicate it? If we use the subject's placement of their observations of other events then how do we know that they really happened at the same time? It's possible the brain's subjective perception of when mental events such as awareness of making a decision or of making an observation is not entirely accurate. 2. If I decide to take a long time making a decision then the awareness of making the decision would pass through my conscious mind before I execute the decision perhaps many times. Could there be free will there? Could it just be no free will for impulsive decisions whereas if we take our time deciding things then we have free will?
“The conscious mind retains the right to veto any action”, but wouldn't that put you at a 500 millisecond disadvantage? What if your consciousness decided not to push it 200 milliseconds after you've already started to push the button and isn't it the subconscious deciding that anyways? This is either poorly explained, not by you, or it's simultaneously implying there are 2 distinct consciousness' making decisions. If the decision by A was made a third of a second before B becomes aware and thinks it was his idea then even if B decides against it that still started with A and if that's the case then A still makes the decisions and B only thinks he does and has no free will.
I dont understand how brain processing time relate to not having free will. Human reaction time is about 200ms which is highly corrolated. The free will conclusion does not make sense to me ...? Could you elaborate? Thanks
From what I could make out, the brain decided to move the wrist before the conscious decision to move the wrist took place. Unlike a reflex, it wasn't in response to any sudden stimulus, which means something outside consciousness initiated the action. Which suggests that the conscious isn't fully in charge, at least something precedes it in what we would otherwise refer to as voluntary action.
Thanks for your answer, I got that part, but still, the free will isn't relevant to me. We can consider the intention of doing as the trigger to the brain activity. Therefore, the 150ms, are more likely processing time.
That's obvious, isn't it? Like sound needs to first travel to your ear, get processed and only then you realize what you heard. Your vision and hearing allows to you sense, after sensing there is processing time/thinking/decision making/consciousness, after this you realize that you have "thought" and after this you command your mouth to speak and communicate your thoughts. I also don't see any connection to free will, and anyway free will is only perceived it's not something that really exists, I think it's some emergent phenomenon from the complexity of the brain. We live in a physical world and as far as we know physical things are causal, there's a step preceeding anything that comes after.
I mean, wouldn’t there obviously be a delay between a thought and speech about that thought? It takes time for the brain signals to reach the speech center. You also have to take into account reaction time right? This experiment just seems to confirm it takes time for brain signals to travel and that reaction times obviously aren’t instant
This is an excellent we are still missing. I've already added it to our board of new ideas. Visit to comment or upvote this link: sprouts.featureupvote.com/suggestions/536198/dyscalculia
Thoughts cannot be controlled. But it seems the "veto" part explains why we believe we have free will since it makes us think we can control decisions before we do them. Nevertheless, the veto still comes from the brain 😁
Who "we" are is the first question to ask isn't it? If "we" is the mind inside of a fleshly suit, then "we" are making the decision. "We" were aware of the decision from the very start, before the flesh became aware of it.
Subconsciousness does not mean we don’t have free will. I can solve a rubiks cube without having to ponder over each and every move. Once you’ve done something enough times, it becomes subconscious and there will be brain activity even if you don’t know you’re thinking about it. Are you monitoring your tilt as you ride a bike? NO! you just want to turn, so you turn - the brain does the rest subconsciously.
@@SomeGuy-jx4qd Instinct, past experiences and things outside of our control. For example, someone walks up and hits you. The way you react to that is dependent on personality traits you have that are part nature and part nurture plus your current surroundings plus your mood at that time plus the appearance of the person that hit you... All of which you didn't choose.
Are you saying we are stuck reacting, and cannot possibly decide against past experiences and external-locus events? You never face fears? You never proverbially get back on your horse? Are you saying no human can ever be a contrarian?
@@mtlicq You do make decisions but that are based on all the things listed. Fear is a neurochemical response to stimuli that you have no control over. Some people are contrarians but that is a personality trait they got from the nature/nurture component of their past/biology. No decision is made in a vacuum.
Is the video suggesting our brain and our consciousness are two separate things? That our decisions are not made in our brains but in our consciousness? Is that what is being suggested here?
Brain considers many possibilities so "pinging" the consciousness for an inquiry about every possible decision would be extremely inefficient and slow thus the brain only presents the selected action once it has determined that it's the most desirable one which then the consciousness analyses to confirm, modify or stop the action entirely before the order for doing the action is sent. (This is all just speculation and I am in no way qualified to know anything about the topic.)
Your videos and topics are very interesting. But I found that looking at caricatures slowly forming distracts me from paying attention to the narration. You could try flashing each panel right away , might be more effective...
Well 350ms between human expressed (huge deal of action itself) and brain was acting. Or the scientist thought that the decsicion is taken when one can articulate it? E.g. there is a time gap between you turn on e.g. computer and screen even start lightning.
Isnt it how neurons activate the signal how fast your electric impulses, some people have fast reaction in games or gym muscle to brain signals, nutritions like potassium i think habe charges that the brain use its complicated some people have low motor function, i myself want to do a move in fighting games but always get defeated and wonder why my character did this move instead of the one i input my friend always imput perceicly turns out im slow toe excute, thats why the best league of legend players have low ms reaction and reflexes
if further rigorous experiments didnt yield same effects, then why is Libet's still around? why not retract or something? Vsauce video on this was good too
That experiment is deeply flawed. It takes time between thinking about doing a thing and actually doing the thing, not to mention it takes physically time to move finger to press the button. For example I've thought about typing this comment several seconds before I've actually started doing it.
Funniest joke. You're in control of what? The stars that shine? Control is an illusion. You're the one controlled by your environment. Action equals reaction, just as this video prompted you to spout your theory.
Your explanation of free will is totally wrong. It means we are not bound to act on our emotions such as a dog or lion… We are the only creature on earth with this ability.
![Can You Learn All Languages or Will You Die Trying? [Explained]](/img/1.gif)
The 'veto' part of our decision-making is vital. This is why binge drinking/intoxication is so dangerous - it takes away our inhibitions from doing something stupid.
Excellent point.
Its pretty much a neurological form of inertia.
You need more effort to put on the brakes.
That's as if asking if true randomness exists mathematically.
Atomic decay is true random but what does it have to do with making a decision?
That is assumed but not known.
@@pluto9000Others may think that if theres pure randomness, free will could arise. However, they sometimes forget that even though randomness is true, its still outside of our control. But i dont think so that theres such thing as "randomness" if were able to measure all the factors that might affect a particular outcome of an event, everything can be predicted
We can apply the monitor analogy here, "When we click A button to move left in a game, the character moves after 20-50ms. It's called input lag. The delay could be from the response time of monitor and keyboard" Similarly we can say that 500ms might be our response time to certain actions. What do you think ?
Interesting way to look at it
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will.
What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that.
Ex. The decision making process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as:
- previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to)
- your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over)
- your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
A reasonable interpretation, I think. Even the simplest actions can be made up of yet smaller steps, each of which takes an elapse of time. A similar interpretation would be be to consider the lag as the time necessary, not for the action itself -- here, making a decision or even recognizing the decision --, but for afterwards reacting to the decision. Particularly, in the course of this experiment, the time needed to initiate all the physiogical processes necessary for reporting to the scientists that a decision's been made. The lag would be like the time between seeing a ball in the road and stamping one's foot on the brake pedal to avoid hitting a careless child. Recognition takes time (including, say, "input lag"), and then a subsequent reaction takes additional time.
@@declup True, Our brain signals to break immediatley when the sensory signals reach the neurons, but it takes 120ms for a forumla1 driver realise the brakes.
It's not an us vs our brain, but that self-awareness is a reflection of our "Id" or actual poiont of being (like an echo bouncing off the inside of our skull, being "heard" thru the same wetware that allows us to convert the words, actions, and abstractions of others into the patterns we have built-up from the time we were born.
Excellent obervation.
Exactly what I was going to write, but with more elaboration.
In *every* moment, we have choice of how to function, whether to and/or how to initiate action or how to respond. That is so even if you ignore that and let yourself go on automatic. We are human.
It happens to me when my brain wants to do some very important task but my conscious waits for too long and I procrastinate😅
I used to have a t-shirt that said...
"Top 10 Reasons I Procrastinate
1.) "
Why can't it be a consensus building process that the mind is working through in that precursor, just a discussion as it were, and when the committee determines what it would like to do, it is defined and requested to the conscious mind so that the request can be executed. In any case, this is free will as there were no external factors identified.
I love this explanation, and I agree
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will.
What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that.
In your case, the consensus building process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as:
- previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to)
- your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over)
- your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
@@firelight3806 I have to admit I never considered the biochemical ramifications to consciousness, but I have to counter that these particles are subject to the uncertainty principle and so we are back to where we started as we will never know because the initiation is both willed and unwilled at the same time and cannot be determined until we crack the skull open. I for one find the need for an answer insufficient justification for brain surgery.
@@RibberflavenousThis argument has been beaten to death an uncountable number of times. The random atomic vibrations of the sodium and potassium ions that power the action potentials of your neurons matter little in the face of the macroscopic construction of your brain. Whether one ion vibrates left or right at a specific millisecond will not affect its entrance across the axon when the voltage gated ion channel is opened, and thereby it will have no affect on your thought process as the signal carries on to other neurons.
Let’s be honest: every decision you have ever made has arisen from the culmination of a lifetime’s worth of stimuli reception. Your brain makes a decision for you, and you become aware of it after the fact. It doesn’t really matter that much, though, because for all intensive purposes it *feels* like you made the decision in the first place, so it’s easy to live under the illusion of free will. Why get bothered about things that are out of your control? Live your life as you think you want to.
I very much like that theory.
Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will.
What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that.
Ex. The decision making process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as:
- previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to)
- your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over)
- your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)
"Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that," that I believe too.
So this means my brain decided to click on this video 500ms before i did 🙄
You are your brain and body.
It means it was decided before you experienced it ;)@@pluto9000
"Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move" - famous Spinoza's quote about consciousness. I'm inclined to believe there's just more nuance to it than a simple negation of free will. Even if it's just biased due to some kind of vitalist exceptionalism.
Personally, I find it funny to think that the conscious I is just a CEO of a company that's aware of goals, wills and tendencies and kind of guides towards some directions, but behind this I there are a lot of components that actually manage each department individually, other parts that execute functions and relay the result and a integrating group that analyzes performance according to initial indications by CEO and then informs them of them to them, to the I. Maybe as if consciousness was just an almost immediate -but not quite - memory, the same way that memory experiments show that past experiences are at all times rewritten, contextualized and rationalized.
This way, there's still responsibility on the conscious part of the brain, the same way a CEO is fired if the performance leaves much to desire. And I think the analogy also explains the experiences of people with some type of disability or brain injury (search for brain experiments on callous body injury), where some actions and spasms occur without conscious control, similarly as how people with addictions make unconscious decisions before conscious attempts to control their impulses and fail or before just rationalizing.
Sounds like they try to make something of nothing. It is like turning on your car, but haven't started the engine yet. I know I am writing a comment, I could care less if my brain was a few milliseconds adove me, it should be. That does not mean it acts out of my control. If it does, then there is no it: it is my brain, so it is me.
The brain is hardware and the mind is software. They are distinct but inseparable. Neither one can function without the other.
But in this case, the software is run by chemical processes. That are run by other chemical processes. In other words, everything is causal, therefore no free will exists. That’s the sort version of the no free will argument.
@@frusie91 People can't even agree on how to define free will, which makes debates on its existence rather pointless.
@@frusie91 We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process takes time or is run by chemical reactions. We are our brains. We are the unconscious part, and the conscious part. It is WE who are making the decisions, even if those decisions start brewing in the unconscious part.
It's real free will even if it's just an illusion, the fish sees the tank as the whole universe as long as it is inside it. The fish must get out of the pot in order to see how things really are. Unfortunately we can't detach ourselves from being conscious in order to see that we "don't have free will", and indeed we have free will(indeed the tank is the whole world for the fish as long as it's inside of it).
Free will is an illusion that is also real if it makes any sense.
@@caofan5190 I like that explanation actually. Still think its not actually ‘free’ if it is sort of cascading from stimuli eventually from outside the body. So on a fundamental level, I still think it is reasonable to think that free will is not there. On the deeper levels. On a more conscious level you have at least the illusion that you control your mind. I think thats what you mean right?
As soon as anyone can define what "free will" means, and how you define it, I am on board. Your brain is you. How is the conscious awareness the measure of free will?
Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start.
"Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.
""The brain started the process way before the person decided to do it" Is it the mind making the decision? Could we then define a person as just a mind? Our culture is used to "free will," but a "proof" of predestination may offer some resistance. That is the mind used to a comfortable belief, a conditioning. Can we speak of free will then?
"It is generally recognized that we have a freedom to think and intend whatever we wish but not a freedom to say whatever we think or to do whatever we wish. The freedom under discussion here, then, is freedom on the spiritual level and not freedom on the earthly level, except to the extent that the two coincide. Thinking and intending are spiritual, while speaking and acting are earthly.
There is a clear distinction between these kinds of freedom in us, since we can think things that we do not express and intend things that we do not act out; so we can see that the spiritual and the earthly in us are differentiated. As a result, we cannot cross the line from one to the other except by making a decision, a decision that can be compared to a door that has first to be unlocked and opened.
Thinking and intending are more often actually earthly, while speaking and acting follow suit. Also, thinking and intending can alternatively be spiritual, and speaking and acting follow suit.
Verovati u slobodnu volju je isto kao i verovati u postojanje bezuzročnih posledica (causless effect). Sve ima svoj uzrok uključujući i naše misli. Šopenhauer je rekao "Možemo raditi šta želimo, ali ne možemo da želimo ono što želimo". I drugi veliki filozofi poput Spinoze, Kanta i Ničea su se slagali s tim, a takođe i verovatno najveći naučnik Albert Ajnštajn.
@@mtlicqThinking and intending-which those familiar with Swedenborg’s thought might also recognize as willing and understanding-may not seem like inherently spiritual activities, but he emphasizes that the ability to make rational choices is the cornerstone of spiritual development, or regeneration. Our spiritual state isn’t simply the result of a single action or decision; it comes with years and years of consistently choosing one path over another.
For example, in the book A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge spends years inflicting suffering on others for his own profit, until one night he’s confronted with the consequences of his actions and has a change of heart. That’s great, Swedenborg might say, but by consistently choosing to put his greed first, Scrooge has done spiritual damage to himself. It’ll take a lot of internal work-consistently trying to do good-before he can really turn himself around.
Whatever we choose to do freely becomes a part of us. Swedenborg tells us that a rational choice-one that comes from considering our options and everything that we’ve learned-has more spiritual impact than an impulsive action. And actions that we’re forced to take against our will have the least impact of all. In the same way, people who aren’t able to make rational decisions, whether it’s because of mental or physical illness or due to more fleeting conditions like rage or intoxication, aren’t held spiritually responsible for their actions-even though they might be held responsible on a personal or criminal level!
@@vladan5383Free will is not effects without cause, for the cause for free-will decisions is the will itself. And will, together with intellect, is understood as an essential part of human nature caused by whatever causes human nature to exist.
I love that !!!
conscience awarness is the question ::
Isn't that like instincts? For example martial artists, gamers, or even people reading or doing math and knowing the answer or what is likely to proceed, are already aware of how to respond without consciously thinking about it if they are trained to do so and so the movements or reactions would become ingrained as instinctive without needing to consciously think about it.
When I clear my mind I become completely thoughtless.
That's obvious, if you clear yer mind of any thoughts, you won't have any thoughts :V
decision making is not an instant response like reflex
it requires identification , evaluation and selection of a strategy
so there is bound to some brain activity before arriving at a decision
Recursive free will. In the event no free will, but you can prepare and learn, so your brain decides right (8
Having a debate about free will is rather silly if it is not first defined precisely.
Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start.
"Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.
Good point! Thanks!
The answer is in "Zen and the art of reapairing motorcycles", and the importance of the concept of right and wrong in that book
Even if these findings were fully replicated, all it tells you is that for random decisions, the brain may have a random generation circuit. It doesn’t tell you anything about thoughtful actions, reflective thinking, etc. What is being tested here is a lot more like testing a reflex then it is testing for free will.
In fact, it’s probably impossible to prove one way or another, that we have free will. It’s the same thing as solving the hard problem of consciousness, because you would have to have access to the subjective experience of another person.
Certainly the world appears to be physical and follow physical laws, but we also have a real first person experience of free will. In fact, it’s the most present and verifiable feeling a conscious being can have. I don’t think you can just throw out all of that evidence , because you don’t like what the implication would be.
You say 'we', but "I" don't think of "myself" as an "I". More like a conduit of all the chance events happening around "me".
@@declup you mean that’s what you’ve rationalized and told yourself. What you actually experience is yourself thinking and making decisions unless you’re unlike everyone else I guess.
@@mbmurphy777 -- Couldn't the same be said for the alternative viewpoint? That first-person-ness is a "rationalization" itself? A consequence, not a choice, in the same way that vision is a consequence, not a choice? You see because parts of the world (parts of you) interact with parts of the world. You're aware because parts of the world interact with parts of the world. But interaction and responsiveness don't grant your eyes or the vision centers of your brain first-person-ness. How then those parts of you that observe yourself?
@@declup I don’t think so because that’s not our firsthand experience. Or at least my experience and what most people say is their experience.
Clearly lots of biology is unconscious… Autonomic responses, routine actions like the mechanics of walking, eating etc. Probably even some of our nonreflective/reflexive actions making, although it seems we can *choose* to hone certain reflexive actions (through choosing to practice free throws, for example).
However, for reflective decisions where we consider and weigh options, ruminate over outcomes etc, it certainly feels like we are an agent/entity making decisions.
Again, I don’t think that there is any way to prove things one way or another. The only evidence that we don’t have free will is that it seems that having free will does not play well with known deterministic/probabilistic physical models. Sure, that’s a big deal, but I don’t think we can dismiss all the direct first-hand evidence that we have consciousness and make decisions. I agree that that is not definitive evidence, and I don’t think definitive evidence can exist either way. But to have a deterministic universe, all of those daily experiences would have to be illusions. Why would such a situation evolve?
@@mbmurphy777 -- "Certainly feels like" is evidence of feeling, but it's not evidence of choosing or agency. It's evidence of feeling machines, brains, that can be influenced by other parts of the world, but it's not evidence of an abstracted self in a Platonic realm, some kind of special object that's physical, since it orchestrates a person's actions, but also, at the same time, metaphysical and set apart from the world.
The experience of reality is the result of physical reality's impingements on itself, physical reality. The experience of reality isn't a choice any more than reality is a choice, and it isn't more or less impactful than reality is impactful -- because it's just another aspect of reality's complex self-interactions. "Certainly feels like" may be immersive, visceral, so encompassing as to seem cinematic, but sensation, no matter how impressive or high-resolution, has nothing to do with agency or first-person-ness. Nor do the emotions induced by sensation. Nor do mental states, like reflection or rumination, as physics churns within a human brain. Nor even awareness, which is the brain's own set of complex self-interactions and self-observation, as neurons signal other neurons and are signaled in turn. Instead, in a physical universe, one mediated by sense and response, awareness and "certainly feels like" are evidence of the physical and sensory nature of the universe and nothing else.
And you ask, "why would such a situation evolve?", by which, you possibly mean, "why would such a purposeless mode of existence come to be?" But if that interpretation is what you'd meant by your rhetorical question, doesn't your underlying question not already presuppose the necessity of purpose? Why must there be purpose at all? What even is purpose? Intentionality? If so, then purpose does exist in this deterministic universe, since desire is a temporarily stable, complex subsystem's self-preserving behavior within its more-chaotic ambient environment. If not intentionality, maybe some kind of teleological finality? The target or culmination of the universe after its allotted duration of being? If so, perhaps the universe is indeed evolving toward some predetermined, physically entailed conclusion, but that end is entirely unrelated to people's agency or first-person-ness, since it'll terminate as it will whether or not consciousness is a special characteristic of human beings. And if not intentionality or teleology, there isn't much else. Value maybe? (Value is a corollary of desire and intentionality.) Meaning maybe? (The word "meaning" is as difficult to define or prove as "purpose" is.) Or possibly a recasting of consciousness or free will? That is, purpose as proof of first-person-ness in that agency would be defined as "that which chooses its own purpose" and purpose would be defined as "that which is determined by agency"? If so, then purpose, far from being irrelevant and unrelated to first-person-ness, would be too related, and any attempt to demonstrate agency by asserting purpose would be tantamount to proving agency by asserting agency, which is a circular argument and, although valid if one already takes, on faith, agency as an axiom of human nature -- since no argument, you're right, can definitively disprove an axiomatic assertion --, unconvincing to others who aren't already convinced.
Either our actions have a cause, in which case they are not free, or else they have no cause, in which case they are not will.
When you said that brain began acting before they were aware of there action there are still free will the fact that we are aware of our actions is a sign of free will but it is not our only thing influence our action our instincts is one of the first things that decides our action free will comes after that and when I mean instinct I mean the brain responds that was in the experiment of libet we still can refuse the action after all
The coolest idea is we are living in the future, we react as much as 15 seconds before the reality manifests :O Is Friston and Nietzsche. Will James, Jung... Are they right? Are we meta beings - living in the between - the beyond that Fred called Hintervelten - from the back-worlds, between like hinterland, but he means those who live in the between of life and existence itself...
That’s interesting, I believe Roger Penrose suggests something similar
I wouldn't give this serious thought without more data
We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process takes time. We are our brains. We are the unconscious part, and the conscious part. It is WE who are making the decisions, even if those decisions start brewing in the unconscious part.
Our body is also involved in a lot of the decision making. 🍪
@@pluto9000 Can verify! :)
My brain decided to ignore all the videos RUclips recommends to me.... Except this one
We like your presentation..... keep it up....
TLDR; Experiement did not factor the impact of anticipation on the results of the experiment
One issue I have with the experiment is the initial instruction: "Flex your wrists whenever you feel like doing so." Wouldn't this prompt put the mind in a state of preparedness, activating unconscious or autonomous brainwaves associated with wrist flexing? Consider the moment before a traffic light turns green for both a race car driver and a civilian driver. Wouldn't our brains also register these unconscious brainwaves if observed? Yes, the environments differ-driving versus sitting in a room flexing your wrist-the key point is the anticipation of acting "whenever you feel like doing so," whether flexing your wrist or pressing the gas pedal.
A more effective experiment might document all participants' behaviors unknowingly through casual conversation. Instead of creating a direct prompt, it would observe the actions of the individual when discussing something specific, like driving a car or curling a barbell. This approach would involve monitoring muscle movements with electrodes to establish relational data between brainwave and muscle activity before and after the conversation. While discussing driving, did the muscles in the foot prepare to flex or the wrist to turn the wheel? When talking about curling a barbell or engaging in workout-related activities (depending on a person's individual experience with the activity), did those associated muscles react based on the conversation? This method could offer a more grounded view of what's actually happening, while also presenting another potential perspective. It might also lead to some fascinating discussions.
When I play chess with 5 minutes timer, sometimes I make a move which I didn't intend to. The hand just moves on its own
Is it usually a good move when hand does it automatically?
great question!@@pluto9000
A few issues other than just whether or not we have free won't and could veto it:
1. How do we know the time that we experience awareness of our decision? If they use subject self-reports then how do we know the subject's awareness doesn't actually occur before that and it just takes time for the brain to be able to communicate it? If we use the subject's placement of their observations of other events then how do we know that they really happened at the same time? It's possible the brain's subjective perception of when mental events such as awareness of making a decision or of making an observation is not entirely accurate.
2. If I decide to take a long time making a decision then the awareness of making the decision would pass through my conscious mind before I execute the decision perhaps many times. Could there be free will there? Could it just be no free will for impulsive decisions whereas if we take our time deciding things then we have free will?
I think the important question is. What do we have if we don't have free will. Gonna take alot of thinking to work through that one.
@jjw00dw. Oh can you elaborate?
Your microbiome didn’t make you cheat on your spouse…
This is what I feel like when I'm high, every movement is a surprise
HAHA
Choosing what's for dinner is not the same as the brain beating your heart.
Also true!
“The conscious mind retains the right to veto any action”, but wouldn't that put you at a 500 millisecond disadvantage? What if your consciousness decided not to push it 200 milliseconds after you've already started to push the button and isn't it the subconscious deciding that anyways? This is either poorly explained, not by you, or it's simultaneously implying there are 2 distinct consciousness' making decisions. If the decision by A was made a third of a second before B becomes aware and thinks it was his idea then even if B decides against it that still started with A and if that's the case then A still makes the decisions and B only thinks he does and has no free will.
Thats a very valid point!
I dont understand how brain processing time relate to not having free will.
Human reaction time is about 200ms which is highly corrolated.
The free will conclusion does not make sense to me ...? Could you elaborate?
Thanks
From what I could make out, the brain decided to move the wrist before the conscious decision to move the wrist took place. Unlike a reflex, it wasn't in response to any sudden stimulus, which means something outside consciousness initiated the action. Which suggests that the conscious isn't fully in charge, at least something precedes it in what we would otherwise refer to as voluntary action.
Thanks for your answer, I got that part, but still, the free will isn't relevant to me.
We can consider the intention of doing as the trigger to the brain activity. Therefore, the 150ms, are more likely processing time.
@Indeeeex you are right, its just a lag in processing time
@@Indeeeex The experiment shows the intention coming after the processing time, not before.
That's obvious, isn't it? Like sound needs to first travel to your ear, get processed and only then you realize what you heard.
Your vision and hearing allows to you sense, after sensing there is processing time/thinking/decision making/consciousness, after this you realize that you have "thought" and after this you command your mouth to speak and communicate your thoughts.
I also don't see any connection to free will, and anyway free will is only perceived it's not something that really exists, I think it's some emergent phenomenon from the complexity of the brain.
We live in a physical world and as far as we know physical things are causal, there's a step preceeding anything that comes after.
Ok so clicking on this video was predetermined by my brain.
I mean, wouldn’t there obviously be a delay between a thought and speech about that thought? It takes time for the brain signals to reach the speech center. You also have to take into account reaction time right? This experiment just seems to confirm it takes time for brain signals to travel and that reaction times obviously aren’t instant
Hi 👋 Sprouts. Can you please 🙏 make a video 📼 about what dyscalculia is?
This is an excellent we are still missing. I've already added it to our board of new ideas. Visit to comment or upvote this link: sprouts.featureupvote.com/suggestions/536198/dyscalculia
Beautiful presentation 😊 with what software did you make this presentation?
Mostly our brain and our hands. No real animation in that sense.
Thoughts cannot be controlled. But it seems the "veto" part explains why we believe we have free will since it makes us think we can control decisions before we do them. Nevertheless, the veto still comes from the brain 😁
It could be we just make our choices before we are aware of them.
Unconscious decision is still decision.
does this mean my brain clicked this video before i decide to watch it?
Who "we" are is the first question to ask isn't it? If "we" is the mind inside of a fleshly suit, then "we" are making the decision. "We" were aware of the decision from the very start, before the flesh became aware of it.
Subconsciousness does not mean we don’t have free will. I can solve a rubiks cube without having to ponder over each and every move. Once you’ve done something enough times, it becomes subconscious and there will be brain activity even if you don’t know you’re thinking about it. Are you monitoring your tilt as you ride a bike? NO! you just want to turn, so you turn - the brain does the rest subconsciously.
My concusion? Utter bunkum! According this thinking(?) My mind (?) moves my hand beore it is burned or pricked by a pin?
well thats what you call an addiction right?
Free will is an illusion. Your past experiences and things outside of your control dictate how you will react to new things.
Thats not free will...
Are you saying we are dictated by instinct ?
@@SomeGuy-jx4qd
Instinct, past experiences and things outside of our control. For example, someone walks up and hits you. The way you react to that is dependent on personality traits you have that are part nature and part nurture plus your current surroundings plus your mood at that time plus the appearance of the person that hit you... All of which you didn't choose.
Are you saying we are stuck reacting, and cannot possibly decide against past experiences and external-locus events? You never face fears? You never proverbially get back on your horse? Are you saying no human can ever be a contrarian?
@@mtlicq
You do make decisions but that are based on all the things listed. Fear is a neurochemical response to stimuli that you have no control over. Some people are contrarians but that is a personality trait they got from the nature/nurture component of their past/biology. No decision is made in a vacuum.
Is the video suggesting our brain and our consciousness are two separate things? That our decisions are not made in our brains but in our consciousness? Is that what is being suggested here?
Brain considers many possibilities so "pinging" the consciousness for an inquiry about every possible decision would be extremely inefficient and slow thus the brain only presents the selected action once it has determined that it's the most desirable one which then the consciousness analyses to confirm, modify or stop the action entirely before the order for doing the action is sent.
(This is all just speculation and I am in no way qualified to know anything about the topic.)
Your videos and topics are very interesting. But I found that looking at caricatures slowly forming distracts me from paying attention to the narration.
You could try flashing each panel right away , might be more effective...
Oh! I am sorry you feel distracted.
I've heard about these experiments many times. Never has the evidence seemed compelling, in the least.
Wouldn't the decision to veto the action also need 500ms?
Brain Readiness
(PreConscious) = no freewill
Bad conclusion
the brain is mine so i have free will 😊
Haters will call this video "Woke" like Zombies.
What are you talking about???
They can't help themselves.
Well 350ms between human expressed (huge deal of action itself) and brain was acting. Or the scientist thought that the decsicion is taken when one can articulate it? E.g. there is a time gap between you turn on e.g. computer and screen even start lightning.
"God alone suffices" St Teresa of Avila
Isnt it how neurons activate the signal how fast your electric impulses, some people have fast reaction in games or gym muscle to brain signals, nutritions like potassium i think habe charges that the brain use its complicated some people have low motor function, i myself want to do a move in fighting games but always get defeated and wonder why my character did this move instead of the one i input my friend always imput perceicly turns out im slow toe excute, thats why the best league of legend players have low ms reaction and reflexes
if further rigorous experiments didnt yield same effects, then why is Libet's still around? why not retract or something?
Vsauce video on this was good too
Some did.
That experiment is deeply flawed. It takes time between thinking about doing a thing and actually doing the thing, not to mention it takes physically time to move finger to press the button. For example I've thought about typing this comment several seconds before I've actually started doing it.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks
we have free will, thats why you made the video right? for views, for subscriber, for money
Hmm
not that our brains are independent tho.
We are in control. Period.
Funniest joke. You're in control of what? The stars that shine? Control is an illusion. You're the one controlled by your environment. Action equals reaction, just as this video prompted you to spout your theory.
Weird flex but okay.
? 0:12
What is your question?
@@pluto9000 my bad. Statement. No proof.
Your explanation of free will is totally wrong.
It means we are not bound to act on our emotions such as a dog or lion…
We are the only creature on earth with this ability.
*Promo SM* 😪
hg
Whait
So a brain isn't a part of a person who makes decisions? So it's a kind of god, invader or something alien?
Nonsence)
This is stupid.