18:00 So the claim is that if we think about something ("consciously choosing"), those actions are done with free will? When we do something "out of blue" its not free will? Did I get this argument/idea right? So if you just go in the room, see an apple in the mixed fruit basket and pick it up its not free will? But if you are aware/go through the cognition process to think if you should choose the apple than the action is fee will? note the use of term "deliberative decisions". That would mean that Kevin believes that there are a lot of human actions that do not fall under the domain of free will?
Yes I think that’s an accurate summation, if I understand you correctly. It’s clear at least some of our behaviours are not consciously deliberated on and are the product of habitual circuits in the brain. Estimates for that are around 40%. But this allows a substantial amount of time for deliberate decision making.
@GiantsShoulderClips thanks for taking time to respond! I am stil confused, why would anyone assume that within "deliberate decision making" (would it be fair to call this type of free will an emergent property of thinking?) free will exists? I would not call this free will at all. Reasons: 1. Thoughts just appear to us and we are observing it. ("I" am not causing the thought. I cannot even imagine how that could be possible) 2. Thought caused by previous stimuli or thought * Thought ONE appears: oh I am soo hungry (caused by the need/stimuli) * Thought TWO - What should I eat? * Maybe some healthy option today? * But I would really like a pizza * END thought just before the decision- Maybe some light pizza and some fruits.. - Ends up eating big pizza and chocolate for desert So you would argue that thought ONE is not free and that thought TWO and all that appear after are created/done with our free will? To me, thoughts within this process are caused by previous stimuli or by previous thought (only other option is that thoughts are supernatural/magical/no scientific explanation exists for the origin of a thought). So even if I pick an apple "automatically" or I think about it, I dont see that the later option can be described as free will. So the idea is that we are "more free" if we are more conscious about our actions and thoughts, e.g. we do not do things on autopilot. But this is all under determined domain without free will in my view.
I've given this a lot of thought and listened to many different opinions and still I haven't come to a firm conclusion myself either way. To a large extent I can see the a case for the block / deterministic universe, but then again there is so much we don't know yet, and to me it does appear there is something "extra" that animates us that I can also see a case for free will. What to me seems most plausible is time / existence / the future can be equated to a wave function, with everything being possible at once, with that wave function collapsing into a single state for each moment, as we arrive in that moment. Not entirely sure how or if that proves or indicates free will or determinism but thats what where my thinking is leaning anyway. The other thing to consider is that paradoxes do exist and 2 contradictory things could be true at the same time... Circulary argument, I know 😅
free will is an oxymoron, where there is a will there is desire, and where there is desire there is no freedom. ¨You¨ (or better, your character) are a slave of your desires. No entity (perceived or illusory) is really ¨free¨ for the encapsulation be it by desire corporeal or conceptual limits its supposed ¨freedom¨ The illusion of ¨free will¨ arises by the confusion of language. For example, one can say I am free to eat an ice cream, in this case one can use the term free, when one really means ¨I have the option of eating ice cream¨ , but you are never free to will things, because willing is something that one does automatically, it is like breathing, or beating one´s own heart.
@@GiantsShoulderClips the strange part is that we are free, just not in this human suit form! the character is not free because it has a will, a will is a chain, a bound, an objective, a goal, strings in this cosmic dance!
@@TANKE777 it is not "all cosmos dance" at first it is "My" dance and here are some levels and some levels of freedom. It is our biological live it is our mental live. All biological organism has some freedom to move freely form external circumstances. Mind is another level of freadom were we can have little freedom form some biological processes and to calculate.
The real problem with Sapolsky is his conclusions & arguments about “what we should do, behave, value” etc… He’s a sophist with a political agenda. “Don’t take pride in your accomplishments” “help those more unlucky than you”. Well nature determines I’m better lucky me. How about that?
I’m completely fine with helping those that are less lucky but I agree that not taking pride in your accomplishments is very silly. I also agree that I don’t like when he takes his scientific hypothesis (not proven) and uses it for guiding principles for life. People should believe they have agency over their actions.
@ I don’t think George Floyd could have been much more than he was & expecting him to follow rules he didn’t have the agency for is part of the problem.
This whole polemic is steaming out from the in build tendency of western philosophers to think in terms of the 4th logical postulation of the excluded middle. It is postulate that has been already proven inconsistent to completely encompass the nature of reality. The proper nuance conclusion is that we are both free to will but determined at the same time, dependent on perspective
Clearly we observe free will everywhere so it exists. But if you are thinking of free will in terms of some abstract philosophical principle based on physics, then sure, it doesn't. But so what?
@@GiantsShoulderClips Framed in terms of physics, then there is no 'room' for free will, because either the universe is deterministic, in which case there is no room for choice, or there are 'random' outcomes, that you have no control over that either. But viewing human consciousness in that way is engaging in a category error.
@@willnitschke appealing to physics to conclude “there’s no free will” (however that’s defined) is like concluding: because atoms aren’t alive, life doesn’t exist.
Yes we are brain and we have some fredom in our thoughts (betwean diferent parts of brain)and activity from external, internal proceses, it is our biological activity against outer world. Yes word is not strong deterministics becouse of chaoses and infinity of small and big particles and their interactions. Infinities there is no possibility of calculating them even theoretically.
That doesn’t follow. If the reason why the block is THIS way as opposed to THAT way is irreducible to the freedom/choices of agents within the block who determine intrinsically the contents of the block, at least in part, then free will can exist in a block universe. Time doesn’t need to flow in an absolute sense, but it does need to flow from the point-of-view of agents within the block as the subjective experience of time flowing partially determines why the block is what it is as opposed to some other configuration or other block, even if time flowing is some kind of illusion from an idealized omniscient perspective.
18:00 So the claim is that if we think about something ("consciously choosing"), those actions are done with free will?
When we do something "out of blue" its not free will? Did I get this argument/idea right?
So if you just go in the room, see an apple in the mixed fruit basket and pick it up its not free will? But if you are aware/go through the cognition process to think if you should choose the apple than the action is fee will?
note the use of term "deliberative decisions". That would mean that Kevin believes that there are a lot of human actions that do not fall under the domain of free will?
Yes I think that’s an accurate summation, if I understand you correctly. It’s clear at least some of our behaviours are not consciously deliberated on and are the product of habitual circuits in the brain. Estimates for that are around 40%. But this allows a substantial amount of time for deliberate decision making.
@GiantsShoulderClips thanks for taking time to respond!
I am stil confused, why would anyone assume that within "deliberate decision making" (would it be fair to call this type of free will an emergent property of thinking?) free will exists?
I would not call this free will at all. Reasons:
1. Thoughts just appear to us and we are observing it. ("I" am not causing the thought. I cannot even imagine how that could be possible)
2. Thought caused by previous stimuli or thought
* Thought ONE appears: oh I am soo hungry (caused by the need/stimuli)
* Thought TWO - What should I eat?
* Maybe some healthy option today?
* But I would really like a pizza
* END thought just before the decision- Maybe some light pizza and some fruits..
- Ends up eating big pizza and chocolate for desert
So you would argue that thought ONE is not free and that thought TWO and all that appear after are created/done with our free will?
To me, thoughts within this process are caused by previous stimuli or by previous thought (only other option is that thoughts are supernatural/magical/no scientific explanation exists for the origin of a thought). So even if I pick an apple "automatically" or I think about it, I dont see that the later option can be described as free will.
So the idea is that we are "more free" if we are more conscious about our actions and thoughts, e.g. we do not do things on autopilot. But this is all under determined domain without free will in my view.
I've given this a lot of thought and listened to many different opinions and still I haven't come to a firm conclusion myself either way. To a large extent I can see the a case for the block / deterministic universe, but then again there is so much we don't know yet, and to me it does appear there is something "extra" that animates us that I can also see a case for free will. What to me seems most plausible is time / existence / the future can be equated to a wave function, with everything being possible at once, with that wave function collapsing into a single state for each moment, as we arrive in that moment. Not entirely sure how or if that proves or indicates free will or determinism but thats what where my thinking is leaning anyway. The other thing to consider is that paradoxes do exist and 2 contradictory things could be true at the same time... Circulary argument, I know 😅
🤣 hard to keep up with this but I appreciate the comment. It seems at least that Kevin Mitchell has triggered some interesting thoughts 🤣
@@GiantsShoulderClips LOL yeah excatly its a very complicated topic :)
Randomness is just that nothing free about it.
free will is an oxymoron, where there is a will there is desire, and where there is desire there is no freedom.
¨You¨ (or better, your character) are a slave of your desires.
No entity (perceived or illusory) is really ¨free¨ for the encapsulation be it by desire corporeal or conceptual limits its supposed ¨freedom¨
The illusion of ¨free will¨ arises by the confusion of language. For example, one can say I am free to eat an ice cream, in this case one can use the term free, when one really means ¨I have the option of eating ice cream¨ , but you are never free to will things, because willing is something that one does automatically, it is like breathing, or beating one´s own heart.
That’s lots of words but I didn’t see any real evidence for why we are not “free”. Thanks for the comment 🙏
@@GiantsShoulderClips the strange part is that we are free, just not in this human suit form! the character is not free because it has a will, a will is a chain, a bound, an objective, a goal, strings in this cosmic dance!
@@TANKE777 it is not "all cosmos dance" at first it is "My" dance and here are some levels and some levels of freedom. It is our biological live it is our mental live. All biological organism has some freedom to move freely form external circumstances. Mind is another level of freadom were we can have little freedom form some biological processes and to calculate.
The real problem with Sapolsky is his conclusions & arguments about “what we should do, behave, value” etc… He’s a sophist with a political agenda. “Don’t take pride in your accomplishments” “help those more unlucky than you”.
Well nature determines I’m better lucky me. How about that?
I’m completely fine with helping those that are less lucky but I agree that not taking pride in your accomplishments is very silly.
I also agree that I don’t like when he takes his scientific hypothesis (not proven) and uses it for guiding principles for life. People should believe they have agency over their actions.
@ I don’t think George Floyd could have been much more than he was & expecting him to follow rules he didn’t have the agency for is part of the problem.
This whole polemic is steaming out from the in build tendency of western philosophers to think in terms of the 4th logical postulation of the excluded middle.
It is postulate that has been already proven inconsistent to completely encompass the nature of reality.
The proper nuance conclusion is that we are both free to will but determined at the same time, dependent on perspective
Seems right 👍
Clearly we observe free will everywhere so it exists. But if you are thinking of free will in terms of some abstract philosophical principle based on physics, then sure, it doesn't. But so what?
I think even based on physics there is no proof we don’t have free will. But yeah it absolutely depends how you define your terms
@@GiantsShoulderClips Framed in terms of physics, then there is no 'room' for free will, because either the universe is deterministic, in which case there is no room for choice, or there are 'random' outcomes, that you have no control over that either. But viewing human consciousness in that way is engaging in a category error.
@@willnitschke appealing to physics to conclude “there’s no free will” (however that’s defined) is like concluding: because atoms aren’t alive, life doesn’t exist.
@@bryanutility9609 You lost me there, bro.
@@willnitschke spelling edit corrected 🫡
'You' just what and where is a self?
Yes we are brain and we have some fredom in our thoughts (betwean diferent parts of brain)and activity from external, internal proceses, it is our biological activity against outer world. Yes word is not strong deterministics becouse of chaoses and infinity of small and big particles and their interactions. Infinities there is no possibility of calculating them even theoretically.
No free will in a block universe.
Block universe?
@@GiantsShoulderClips time doesn't flow it merely is.
That doesn’t follow. If the reason why the block is THIS way as opposed to THAT way is irreducible to the freedom/choices of agents within the block who determine intrinsically the contents of the block, at least in part, then free will can exist in a block universe. Time doesn’t need to flow in an absolute sense, but it does need to flow from the point-of-view of agents within the block as the subjective experience of time flowing partially determines why the block is what it is as opposed to some other configuration or other block, even if time flowing is some kind of illusion from an idealized omniscient perspective.
@@mattsigl1426 "Andromeda Paradox"