David Eagleman - Mysteries of Free Will
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2018
- Our human sense is that our will is fully free. Our scientific sense is that every action is determined by a prior action. Free will versus determinism is a big question without clear answer.
Click here to watch more interviews with David Eagleman bit.ly/1jOb94D
Click here to watch more interviews on the mysteries of free will bit.ly/2CdGt6r
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com Your source for the study of philosophy and college philosophy class materials.
![Jason Aldean - Should've Been A Cowboy [Toby Keith Tribute] (Live from the 59th ACM Awards)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-B4nR-CgMVA/mqdefault.jpg)
Free will and infinity are the two things that will keep me up late thinking about.
Your videos are just jewells. Topics, guests and quality. I wished you got all the views you deserve. Keep up the excellent work!
1:18 1:18 1:18
Well explaination in terms of science...👍👍👍
All the best👍
It's important to distinguish whether that initial wave of brain activity is a subconscious impulse, a conscious decision to act, or a subconscious/conscious push to wait.
Great explanation in clear words. Now I need a beer ;-D
Such a clear explanation of the experiment helps define free will more than it undermines it.
4:29 Even if that activity does not correspond to decision but instead multiple voices fighting each other, where is free will in this either? If we don't author which voice wins the battle.
Could the wave particle duality of light form an interactive process that gives us freewill?
I would have to say 'no', 'if' my view of the dual slit experiment is correct:
It is only an idea on my part but it goes something like this:
1. Charged particles have their associated magnetic fields with them.
2. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
3. Photons also have both an electrical and magnetic components to them.
4. Whenever a proton, electron, or photon is shot out of a gun, it's respective magnetic field interacts with the magnetic fields of the electrons in the atoms and molecules of the gun itself, the medium the projectile is traveling through (ie: air), and/or from around the slits themselves.
5. Via QED (quantum electrodynamics), newly generated photons might occur.
6. The projectile goes on it's own way and the newly generated photons go on their own way. It gives the illusion of a wave particle duality, but it is not that way in actual reality.
7. Specifically in the case of protons or electrons, the newly generated EM wave travels faster than the particles. The new EM waves go through both slits and sets up "hills and valleys" of field energy. When the proton or electron goes through one of the slits, it then follows whatever "valley" it enters thereby over time, even shooting only one proton or one electron at a time, the interference pattern will still emerge.
8. As far as detectors are concerned, they probably have an energy field that is one way when on and a different way when off. The interaction of this energy field (or the lack thereof) with whatever is passing through it, gives the indication that is observed.
Now, for those who hold fast to reality being probability waves that are condensed down by an observer into one single physical reality, then:
a. What exactly are these probability waves made up of?
b. Where exactly are these probability waves stored at until they are observed?
c. How exactly does an observer in physical reality actually observe these probability waves and condense them down into one single physical reality?
d. Who and/or what observed the first observer?
e. What exactly happens when two or more observers observe different probability waves? Which one takes precedent in physical reality?
For me, while this observer condensing probability waves down into one single physical reality might work well on paper, it does not appear to reflect actual reality.
Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? My way by utilizing known scientific principals, or that is as discerned on paper as stated above is how reality actually is?
This idea can be based on just one equation: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence. At the smallest scale the Planck constant ħ=h/2π is a constant of action in the dynamic geometrical process that we see and feel as the passage of time.
But:
a. What exactly is 'space'? And how exactly can space 'contract' and I assume 'expand'?
b. What exactly is 'time'? And how exactly can time 'contract' and I assume 'expand'?
c. What exactly is 'energy' itself that must exist in some form to be able to create matter?
d. What is 'existence' itself that it can have 'an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence'?
e. If 'infinity' is really true, then how could the Planck constant be the smallest scale?
No.
There is a legion of entities in 'my' consciousness, it's not just 'me', OR am 'I' all of them?
Neat
It really depends on how you define your self if you ask me... Its an illusion in the same way the ego is an illusion i think... If there is no seperate self there is no real free will. If you think theres some kind of seperation between the real you and the rest of the universe you have to allow for free will. But in reality is all connected.
The argument that Freewill is only relevant for “important” decisions is so incredibly weak.
Thoughts are the intermediary between stimulus and actions. Interpretation of the expt. may be correct.Once stimulation to act is created in the brain at corresponding brain region, we can be aware of it only little bit later. But the fact is the action can be overcome at the intermediate level ie. at the thoughts level .This expt. doesn't take this fact into account.
What is the *ego?* It’s a bundle of memories in an empty shell, the *twisted* product of our evolutionary animal heritage where self-preservation is essential for survival: all animals pursue pleasure, avoid pain, and avoid being killed by another animal owing to the instinct of self-preservation. *We all* have that unnecessary product reinforced by heavy societal conditioning except for one known case-Gautama Buddha. The ego has created beliefs like soul, spirit, God, the hereafter, and so on.
Moreover it looks like scientific determinism, the basis of all modern science, governs not only physical processes but also our brain/mind:
_For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion._ -Stephen Hawking, _The Grand Design,_ 32, 2010
Your mind is part of the machine.
What you experience as the "mind" is like an echo of electrical activity in the brain.
I believe that the 'you' (or mind) is sort of an echo or reflection that extends from the machine, but they are in different spheres of reality. The machine is in the physical realm (the one we experience through senses), whereas the mind is in some sort of non-physical realm (can't be experienced through senses).
I think the physical brain is just a really sophisticated computer. It seems purposeful because it's 'programmed' by nature to be so.
Turn right for jeasus at the table and you'll always have left overs of all your needs 😅😊
Damn I commented already.
What is taking the entire field of neuroscience to catch up with the work of Aaron Schurger? He created a paradigm shift with new variations of the Libet experiments that have shown that the readiness potential is background "noise" and that the original experiments were misinterpreted. That was in 2012 and Schurger, John Dylan-Haynes and others have conducted a variety of new and similar experiments that have expanded on Schurgers initial work and shown that we do have a degree of volition/free will.
Amos 4
13: For lo, he who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought;
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Exodus 4:
10: But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue."
11: Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
12: Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."
Psalm 33
10: The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11: The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!
13: The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men;
14: from where he sits enthroned he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth,
15: he who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds.
Hávamál "Where you recognize evil, speak out against it, and give no truces to your enemies."
@@MrLJT1 Don't you understand that good and evil are from the same tree that your mind is processing into visible images that deceive you and keeps you from experiencing the tree of life in the form of words that have been teaching me everything our Creator wanted me to know before my visible body is killed?
@@BradHolkesvig ― Hávamál -Let no man glory in the greatness of his mind, but rather keep watch o'er his wits.
So my unconsciousness is now part of somebody else to not be accounted for free will?
God free will precede human free choice which derives from it.
While this guys stance that the experiment needs updating may have been accurate when they filmed this, more recent experiments allow for multiple decisions and the brain activity can predict the decision that will be made with fairly good accuracy, more than 80%. So, the experimenter knows what the subjects will is before he/she does. All reasonable persons know you can’t get freedom from determinism.
Do you have any kind of link I could go watch, or read about this? Because the way you explained it seems like they could only have claimed to predict the behaviour. Because it's not like the experimenters brain works any faster (to a significant enough degree) than the subjects brain does.
So it would be odd to say that even under completely determined circumstances that the ex lik erimenter would be able to read, and interpret, and gain a conclusion of the EEG data before the person is even done thinking towards that decision.
Because in order to conclusively say you can predict the decision from the EEG, youed have to predict the decision before the subject is done. Which would mean that prediction has to be made within the 500, or so milliseconds that it takes the subject to make it. Which if it takes 500 milliseconds to make the decision, how can the experimenter predict before that when the only way they can get the EEG activity is if that person is already thinking.
Okay :) but your conscious brain was the first one to send the message to subconscious brain. If all you have left is subconscious brain maybe it won’t be able to lift a finger at all. I think it’s a joint effort 😃
There is no mystery of free will. You are a creature that directs its own movements and behaviors. You are not a puppet being controlled by strange forces or a walking computer that is programmed to respond.
Still dont know nothing useless talk