What a unbelievable teacher you are Robert Sapolsky, a treasure trove of a teacher.. I'm a long time fan, never disappointed, always enriched and deepening my understanding. your humour makes this process of learning so much enjoyable. Thank you so for sharing your rich world with us.❤
I think his point is that who we are is not all environment and the decisions we make is less about free will than we believe. Hope that helps those that can’t hear him addressing free will.
@workingTchr Mine is too. But the heart is physical. Break free. Start building a soul. It's an æthereal construction project. This no freewill thing is a deadend.
Either way we have the subjective experience of free will :9 so seize the day and also allow the implications of potential no free will to fuel more compassion towards yourself and others. It can really take the pressure off
Bravo Dr. Sapolsky. And he did neglect to address the issue of free will explicitly. Though peripherally all of that does have a bearing on the concept of . . . free will. But exactly how remains unanswered in this clip.
@@piehound but he dedicated his latest book explicitly to free will. this clip is quite old, but his most recent book is dedicated to this topic, precisely because he noticed that he didn't quite hammer it home clear enough in his previous books.
@@piehound oh if you're looking for a read i'd definitely recommend his latest, it's a very enjoyable and accessible writing style without dumbing the details down.
Notice that you can't remember the long train of previous thoughts. You would have to rethink them in the order in which they occurred to remember them. Also, notice that you can't think of a thought before you think it.
Yep, like when I ask you to name all movies you've ever watched you'll struggle, but when I list and name movies to you, you'll be able to tell easier which ones you've seen and which ones you haven't.
How do you explain solving problems (individually chosen) by creating new knowledge? I don’t mean knowledge about grabbing bananas, but knowledge of art, physics, engineering, space travel, morality, etc.
why dont these scientists ever talk about wildlife exploitation? this is the biggest modern day issue there is and even politicians dont talk about it. animals and plants are forced to suffer in domestication where they are genetically altered and lack natural selection. who would want to be reincarnated as a animal in todays world?
Completely misleading subtitle LOL nothing on consciousness or free will here. Sapolsky theme here is what is what is myth and what really is unique in humans: he debunks the myths of uniqueness (though animals examples are few and rudimentary capacities on each topic) also at the end of each topic he presents what makes us really unique.
Most assessments of what humans are, are idiotic as most have bought into Darwinism, instead of a higher age understanding of the human from its own unique human prototype; not from a different prototype; with fourteen versions in a universal cycle. To say that free will is an illusion is also bogus; another way of diminishing the human; the apex of evolution; why even have an apex if it does not reach free will. The atheistic perspective better do better than this before the next atheistic idiocy takes hold which is the human brain embedded with technology. It will bite the dust where it belongs as communism did and as all atheistic, materialistic ideologies deserve to do. That humans cannot change the laws of nature is a given; although the atom was split; that we can decide to refrain from calling our boss boneheaded is the case and an example of free will.
empathy for other species isn't unheard of, at all.. ocean mammals do this as well and multiple species at that. furthermore, they are intuitive enough to recognize which species have the capabilities to help them.. such as cases where seals or dolphins have alerted and brought humans to trapped whales and of course other variants of this triad.
What designer world?! What we're doing doesn’t imply free will or autonomy. Sure, we’ve built seemingly complex environments, but that’s a byproduct of our biological processes, not a testament to any conscious choice. Fungi and termites perform complex tasks without books. Just because we manipulate our surroundings doesn’t mean we’re in control of our actions. Beavers design dams too. You're no different from a beaver. We’re still biological machines, driven by stimuli and survival instincts, just like other species.
And speaking of theory of mind… an experiment… human, bird & chimp…a glass cylinder containing a nut…. The human extracted using some implement, the bird used stick, the chimp walked a few feet to tap, filled with water & nut floated to top, he picked it out…too easy 😂
Sure free will is a subjective first person illusion but a social reality given there is a legal system that determines guilt or innocence based on cognitive morality that is undermined by the concept free will agency to choose if to follow a rule.
If you think denying free will, would lead to justice and empathy, you are wrong. Free will is the root of empathy. Yes our justice systems need reform to take into account existing social conditions, but to say we need to remove the concept of agency from the law makes no sense
@@MarceloSeravalli Actually “agency to choose “ entails structural functionalist account to personal identity within a social structure and so moral realism which generates a legal structure relative to a nation state.
The very question of free will proves free will. Otherwise you couldn't even pose the question, you would just be mechanically putting out sounds like a cuckoo clock. You can't conceive free will without having it.
The question of free will doesn't prove its existence-just like asking about unicorns doesn't prove that they exist. You’re assuming that the act of posing the question requires free will, but that’s precisely where the illusion kicks in. Asking the question, just like speaking, thinking, or making decisions, is all part of the mechanistic processes your body follows automatically. You mentioned a cuckoo clock, and that’s actually a perfect analogy. We’re no different from that clock, making sounds and movements based on pre-programmed biological and environmental stimuli. Just because you can ask about free will doesn’t mean it exists; it’s simply the brain generating thoughts-thoughts about thoughts, all of which are just byproducts of a system running on autopilot. You don’t need free will to conceive of it; you just need a brain wired to respond to certain stimuli and make sense of the chaos. Posing the question is a hallucination of agency, a narrative we build after the fact to justify the automatic processes that are already in motion. There’s no freedom in this; it’s all just an endless loop of thought-generated noise, giving the appearance of choice and control when, in reality, none exist.
@@thenacregod so you can make decisions,but they are mechanistically per-determined...really? You can be a cuckoo clock if you identify as one...which you do,so enjoy your non free will life...love to chat but I have to go, my autopilot system is posing a question which may trigger a hallucination of agency ! 🤫 ...🥱
It's much more complicated than that. Your'e self reflection is inescapably caused by a chain of prior events and does not arise independently or in isolation from the physical world. That's all.
@@thenacregod "...is all part of the mechanistic processes your body follows automatically". But being aware of all this can't be mechanistic. A mechanism can't conceive freedom (CONCEIVE, not just put out the word "freedom"), the awareness of mechanisms - which is above the mechanisms otherwise it couldn't see them - can. "You mentioned a cuckoo clock, and that’s actually a perfect analogy. We’re no different from that clock, making sounds and movements based on pre-programmed biological and environmental stimuli". In this case, even what you are saying is just mechanical and has no truth value (like the "cuckoo!" of a cuckoo clock "says" nothing). Your argument is self-invalidating.
@@adrianaslund8605 Meditation practice allows you to remain aware in deep sleep, when the physical world is not present. Awareness itself is not "caused".
No, you can't because you have no freedom of choice. Deciding which story to tell yourself about your 'decisions' is a cope and still within the realm of conditioned thought. You can't have thoughts without the conditioning, and thoughts don’t belong to you. You may feel falsely empowered by this narrative, but recognize that the 'self' involved in this story is itself an illusion. Those narratives arise from the same mechanical processes that shape your perceived choices. It’s all part of the brain's probability-predicting mechanism-still not free will.
@@thenacregod "No, you can't because you have no freedom of choice." ....and the rest of this statement are simply restating this same claim. "begging the question"
We have thesame building blocks but we się it differently.. so he believes in soul? Becouse the cause of 'usung differently' must be something else than these building blocks.
@@deadaccount5290 What he means by using it differently, from what “I” understand. All mammals have a frontal cortex, humans just have the most. Humans are the result of the “correct” brain to body ratio. It’s a goldilocks zone kind of “thing.” Humans brains are big enough to have an abundance of neurons. Human bodies are “small” enough to have excess neurons for stuff like “intelligence.” It’s partially about how those neurons are distributed. To give an example elephants have far more neurons than humans. The majority of those neurons are “assigned” to operating such a massive body. So a lot of the neurons are condensed in their cerebellum, which is responsible for movement and balance. Hopefully, that helps you understand.
There is free will, it's not ours though. Our will is not free; if youve ever even once done something you did not intend to do, taken a single undeliberated action, you cannot be said to have been free. Ask the drug addict whether he or she is free to do as they please.
@@reaganwiles_art Nice bit of deflective sophistry, but an aspect or entire portion of a of a recorded debate can clearly be identified as pedantic independent of the persons discussing it, because the subject matter itself is pedantic regardless of the persons involved. If you want to quibble between "issues" and "subject matter", the Oxford dictionary wont help you much.
She probably wasn't impressed with your metaphor - 'carbon copy' means a literal copy, because carbon paper is designed to produce exact copies of the information, unlike hereditary which has evolved to create variation within parameters.
@@christ_king_of_the_moonnot at all - they pointed out that the speaker had made a choice of personal style and grooming at odds with both the current social norms and the norms expected of contemporary publicly speaking professors. This is a strong data point that he is exercising a choice. In contrast you said "nuh-uh"
@@williamchamberlain2263 Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills, regardless pointing out an agent seemingly making choices of his own accord is flimsy. It proves nothing simply showing that the agent is operating in some way.
Robert Sapolsky is very successful, yet he doesn't believe in free will. It's almost like all the evidence leads one to the conclusion that there is no free will. 🤔
Which side do you mean that as a critique on? I can interpret it as either side's justification...the unhappy are prone to excuses or the happy are prone to take undo credit...?
Do you often state your baseless conclusions as if theyre actual fact? Because you just said that under a video of a man who graduated from Harvard, got his PhD from Rockefeller, is a professor at Stanford university, is and has been on the frontlines of research in various aspects of neuroscience, and is married with 2 children, with one of whom he has a Father-Daughter podcast. This man is what most people would consider a shining example of making the most of your life. As opposed to someone that goes online making judgemental, ill-informed statements about those more accomplished than themselves. Like you said, funny how that is....
There is no “free will”, the cells, bacteria, and sentient consciousness in your body dictates how your brain responds. The “soul” is a coping mechanism to keep you in your eternal loop. Good news is you’re apart of a body bigger than your own, so your existence is not for nothing, it has a purpose. You’ll never see it… you will hear it and feel the voice. You’ll feel its emotions, but you’ll never be able to interact with it. Ironically, you dictate it as all the living things you’re made of dictate you….
Pack of npcs up in here, I guess. I've made many mistakes over the decades. Some, I could claim that circumstances conspired against me and forced my hand, but in reality, I know that everything that ever happened to me, I did it. When you can take responsibility for your own actions and speak not a word about your random successes, you'll be a man, my son. Yes, that's a highly clipped paraphrasing of Kipling..
I love salpolsky but we are much more than what he claims. We are a species looking for a fixed ontology. We have alphabets and maths. We abstract that we abstract. We are trying to unify the whole. We are capable of the following thoughts. The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things. Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me. This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best. In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that. This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye whatever. I have often pondered the possibility that this is the eye of consciousness/god/spirit/logos, call it what you will. In a million years we will still be employing it to systemise our positions on the evolutionary ladder. The modes are huge in us. Adding is a phenomenal mode and if there is a god then perhaps it needs the mode of adding to add itself up. It needs unification to unify itself. It needs evaluation to evaluate itself. It needs precision to be precise about what it is and so
How elegantly Dr. Sapolsky knocks down the human arrogance!
We are All just Animals… simple
Human = Animal + X
Arrogance is thinking that you've hacked life itself with only a meager education in biology.
Is there's a difference between a border patrol of male chimps and those male voters who want ex president 45 to be re elected?
@@Jessiejam-44 some people don't want to hear that!
What a unbelievable teacher you are Robert Sapolsky, a treasure trove of a teacher.. I'm a long time fan, never disappointed, always enriched and deepening my understanding. your humour makes this process of learning so much enjoyable. Thank you so for sharing your rich world with us.❤
I think his point is that who we are is not all environment and the decisions we make is less about free will than we believe. Hope that helps those that can’t hear him addressing free will.
Robert is looking better than I saw before. Good for him and for all of us who get to listen to him.
@@workingTchr the lecture is over a decade old. You automatons... 🤣
@@gmw3083 Oh no! Jeez. Well, my heart was in the right place! Holy F.
@workingTchr Mine is too. But the heart is physical. Break free. Start building a soul. It's an æthereal construction project. This no freewill thing is a deadend.
Love Sapolsky! Essential viewing for biochemical meat-machines everywhere.
Another shallowly-educated biologist.
I would simply say that our uniqueness is the capacity for imagination and materializing what we imagine into the real world.
Either way we have the subjective experience of free will :9 so seize the day and also allow the implications of potential no free will to fuel more compassion towards yourself and others. It can really take the pressure off
Your entire existence is a social construct and when you realize it you can evolve through existential dilemma.
Bravo Dr. Sapolsky. And he did neglect to address the issue of free will explicitly. Though peripherally all of that does have a bearing on the concept of . . . free will. But exactly how remains unanswered in this clip.
@@piehound but he dedicated his latest book explicitly to free will. this clip is quite old, but his most recent book is dedicated to this topic, precisely because he noticed that he didn't quite hammer it home clear enough in his previous books.
@@real_pattern thanks for that update. I didn't know that.
@@piehound oh if you're looking for a read i'd definitely recommend his latest, it's a very enjoyable and accessible writing style without dumbing the details down.
@@piehound not to mention, there’s also an abundance of interviews where he discusses his latest book.
Thank you.
Notice that you can't remember the long train of previous thoughts. You would have to rethink them in the order in which they occurred to remember them. Also, notice that you can't think of a thought before you think it.
Yep, like when I ask you to name all movies you've ever watched you'll struggle, but when I list and name movies to you, you'll be able to tell easier which ones you've seen and which ones you haven't.
I was looking forward to the "free will" portion of the lecture, is that somewhere else?
How do you explain solving problems (individually chosen) by creating new knowledge? I don’t mean knowledge about grabbing bananas, but knowledge of art, physics, engineering, space travel, morality, etc.
Can anyone give a precise definition of freewill? What is it exactly?
There's no such thing as free-will. The only thing there are thoughts about a free-will.
The low-IQ fanboys of Sapolsky don't worry about such matters.
@@thenacregodJust a thought: couldn't this be said about all abstractions?
Weird Al looks great with a beard.
Does anyone know where the hamster experiments he’s talking about are from? I’m having trouble finding them on Google.
Is this Assurbanirpal?
Great
Daniel Dennett passed this last April....He would of enjoyed this so much.
You know they had a "debate," if you can call it that, just months before he passed. He obviously didn't enjoy it. lol
Haha nah, Daniel Dennett unfortunately didn't have the balls to confront himself with the ultimate brutal truth.
Dennett--according to Dennett--didn't "pass," he died.
why dont these scientists ever talk about wildlife exploitation? this is the biggest modern day issue there is and even politicians dont talk about it. animals and plants are forced to suffer in domestication where they are genetically altered and lack natural selection. who would want to be reincarnated as a animal in todays world?
Completely misleading subtitle LOL nothing on consciousness or free will here. Sapolsky theme here is what is what is myth and what really is unique in humans: he debunks the myths of uniqueness (though animals examples are few and rudimentary capacities on each topic) also at the end of each topic he presents what makes us really unique.
Most assessments of what humans are, are idiotic as most have bought into Darwinism, instead of a higher age understanding of the human from its own unique human prototype; not from a different prototype; with fourteen versions in a universal cycle. To say that free will is an illusion is also bogus; another way of diminishing the human; the apex of evolution; why even have an apex if it does not reach free will.
The atheistic perspective better do better than this before the next atheistic idiocy takes hold which is the human brain embedded with technology. It will bite the dust where it belongs as communism did and as all atheistic, materialistic ideologies deserve to do. That humans cannot change the laws of nature is a given; although the atom was split; that we can decide to refrain from calling our boss boneheaded is the case and an example of free will.
Just ended before anything about free will at all. What was that trying to say to us here???.
I love this. The fact that I'm a loser has nothing to do with it me.
Exactly
Roger that
empathy for other species isn't unheard of, at all.. ocean mammals do this as well and multiple species at that.
furthermore, they are intuitive enough to recognize which species have the capabilities to help them..
such as cases where seals or dolphins have alerted and brought humans to trapped whales and of course other variants of this triad.
U completely misunderstood him.
@@thenacregod well i'm intrigued and may go back and listen again now, you could have at least thrown in what i missed lol ;)
What year is this from?
2009
@@thenacregod Feels and looks like 2009
We might be another animals species but when have other species created a designer world ? Is it all in the hands ? Brain, what ?
What designer world?! What we're doing doesn’t imply free will or autonomy. Sure, we’ve built seemingly complex environments, but that’s a byproduct of our biological processes, not a testament to any conscious choice. Fungi and termites perform complex tasks without books. Just because we manipulate our surroundings doesn’t mean we’re in control of our actions. Beavers design dams too. You're no different from a beaver. We’re still biological machines, driven by stimuli and survival instincts, just like other species.
And speaking of theory of mind… an experiment… human, bird & chimp…a glass cylinder containing a nut…. The human extracted using some implement, the bird used stick, the chimp walked a few feet to tap, filled with water & nut floated to top, he picked it out…too easy 😂
Sure free will is a subjective first person illusion but a social reality given there is a legal system that determines guilt or innocence based on cognitive morality that is undermined by the concept free will agency to choose if to follow a rule.
If you think denying free will, would lead to justice and empathy, you are wrong.
Free will is the root of empathy. Yes our justice systems need reform to take into account existing social conditions, but to say we need to remove the concept of agency from the law makes no sense
@@MarceloSeravalli Actually “agency to choose “ entails structural functionalist account to personal identity within a social structure and so moral realism which generates a legal structure relative to a nation state.
That 3000-year-old paradox is certainly not resolved by this pretentious blather or that of the narcissistic ape-watcher in the video.
Its so funny to me that he looks so religious
He is Religious. He worships a false idol. His narrative is to find the details that connect us but to deny the power of our conscience.
What do you mean by looking religious? What is a religious look?
He looks like he expends a lot of energy on his appearance.
How anyone could possibly desire to give this homeless Santa the time of day is beyond me.
This reinforces my own thoughts as of late.
The very question of free will proves free will. Otherwise you couldn't even pose the question, you would just be mechanically putting out sounds like a cuckoo clock.
You can't conceive free will without having it.
The question of free will doesn't prove its existence-just like asking about unicorns doesn't prove that they exist. You’re assuming that the act of posing the question requires free will, but that’s precisely where the illusion kicks in. Asking the question, just like speaking, thinking, or making decisions, is all part of the mechanistic processes your body follows automatically.
You mentioned a cuckoo clock, and that’s actually a perfect analogy. We’re no different from that clock, making sounds and movements based on pre-programmed biological and environmental stimuli. Just because you can ask about free will doesn’t mean it exists; it’s simply the brain generating thoughts-thoughts about thoughts, all of which are just byproducts of a system running on autopilot.
You don’t need free will to conceive of it; you just need a brain wired to respond to certain stimuli and make sense of the chaos. Posing the question is a hallucination of agency, a narrative we build after the fact to justify the automatic processes that are already in motion. There’s no freedom in this; it’s all just an endless loop of thought-generated noise, giving the appearance of choice and control when, in reality, none exist.
@@thenacregod so you can make decisions,but they are mechanistically per-determined...really? You can be a cuckoo clock if you identify as one...which you do,so enjoy your non free will life...love to chat but I have to go, my autopilot system is posing a question which may trigger a hallucination of agency ! 🤫 ...🥱
It's much more complicated than that. Your'e self reflection is inescapably caused by a chain of prior events and does not arise independently or in isolation from the physical world. That's all.
@@thenacregod "...is all part of the mechanistic processes your body follows automatically".
But being aware of all this can't be mechanistic. A mechanism can't conceive freedom (CONCEIVE, not just put out the word "freedom"), the awareness of mechanisms - which is above the mechanisms otherwise it couldn't see them - can.
"You mentioned a cuckoo clock, and that’s actually a perfect analogy. We’re no different from that clock, making sounds and movements based on pre-programmed biological and environmental stimuli".
In this case, even what you are saying is just mechanical and has no truth value (like the "cuckoo!" of a cuckoo clock "says" nothing). Your argument is self-invalidating.
@@adrianaslund8605 Meditation practice allows you to remain aware in deep sleep, when the physical world is not present. Awareness itself is not "caused".
So i might not have free will but i surely can decide which story i tell myself about my 'decisions'
cope
That 3000-year-old question is certainly not answered by this pretentious dandy with the ape stories.
@@kakistocracyusa 😂...🏆
No, you can't because you have no freedom of choice. Deciding which story to tell yourself about your 'decisions' is a cope and still within the realm of conditioned thought. You can't have thoughts without the conditioning, and thoughts don’t belong to you. You may feel falsely empowered by this narrative, but recognize that the 'self' involved in this story is itself an illusion. Those narratives arise from the same mechanical processes that shape your perceived choices. It’s all part of the brain's probability-predicting mechanism-still not free will.
@@thenacregod "No, you can't because you have no freedom of choice." ....and the rest of this statement are simply restating this same claim. "begging the question"
When was this talk given, 2009?
Yes
Of course Bruchea and I weren't trying to have kids.
🤔 ...😂...👌
Damn...thought I clicked on an Alan Moore thumbnail. This dude doesn't understand magic at all.
Martinez Mark Allen Eric Jackson Maria
Toxicity is our most unique characteristic.
and a good song of SOAD
Much Ado About Nothing...🐒🦍🦧...🐧
We have thesame building blocks but we się it differently.. so he believes in soul? Becouse the cause of 'usung differently' must be something else than these building blocks.
@@deadaccount5290 What he means by using it differently, from what “I” understand.
All mammals have a frontal cortex, humans just have the most. Humans are the result of the “correct” brain to body ratio. It’s a goldilocks zone kind of “thing.” Humans brains are big enough to have an abundance of neurons. Human bodies are “small” enough to have excess neurons for stuff like “intelligence.” It’s partially about how those neurons are distributed.
To give an example elephants have far more neurons than humans. The majority of those neurons are “assigned” to operating such a massive body. So a lot of the neurons are condensed in their cerebellum, which is responsible for movement and balance.
Hopefully, that helps you understand.
There is free will, it's not ours though. Our will is not free; if youve ever even once done something you did not intend to do, taken a single undeliberated action, you cannot be said to have been free. Ask the drug addict whether he or she is free to do as they please.
Study the history of this philosophical debate and you will not be addressing pedantic issues.
@kakistocracyusa how's this for pedantic? Only people can be pedantic; issues cannot be pedantic. You don't understand proper usage.
@@reaganwiles_art Nice bit of deflective sophistry, but an aspect or entire portion of a of a recorded debate can clearly be identified as pedantic independent of the persons discussing it, because the subject matter itself is pedantic regardless of the persons involved. If you want to quibble between "issues" and "subject matter", the Oxford dictionary wont help you much.
@kakistocracyusa you've said nothing. Total nonsense.
@@reaganwiles_art Sorry about your reading comprehension skills.
I wonder if he's vegan
why would we
Told my doctor once that we are all just carbon copies of each other with a few genetic tweaks. She was not impressed.
She probably wasn't impressed with your metaphor - 'carbon copy' means a literal copy, because carbon paper is designed to produce exact copies of the information, unlike hereditary which has evolved to create variation within parameters.
it has everything to do with genes, this "due" is talking from his back fanny...
Genetics is a bs theory invented by a Christian priest.
free will exists. Just look at that Hair, and beard. a better proof is not needed... IMO
When faced with truth the human resorts to weaponized incoherence
@Libertine_of_despair do you have a counter-argument or just ad-hominems?
@@williamchamberlain2263 the original posters argument was of the same quality
@@christ_king_of_the_moonnot at all - they pointed out that the speaker had made a choice of personal style and grooming at odds with both the current social norms and the norms expected of contemporary publicly speaking professors. This is a strong data point that he is exercising a choice.
In contrast you said "nuh-uh"
@@williamchamberlain2263 Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills, regardless pointing out an agent seemingly making choices of his own accord is flimsy. It proves nothing simply showing that the agent is operating in some way.
The biggest predictor on whether someone believes in free will or not is how happy and accomplished they feel about their life. Funny how that is...
Robert Sapolsky is very successful, yet he doesn't believe in free will. It's almost like all the evidence leads one to the conclusion that there is no free will. 🤔
Which side do you mean that as a critique on? I can interpret it as either side's justification...the unhappy are prone to excuses or the happy are prone to take undo credit...?
Do you often state your baseless conclusions as if theyre actual fact? Because you just said that under a video of a man who graduated from Harvard, got his PhD from Rockefeller, is a professor at Stanford university, is and has been on the frontlines of research in various aspects of neuroscience, and is married with 2 children, with one of whom he has a Father-Daughter podcast. This man is what most people would consider a shining example of making the most of your life.
As opposed to someone that goes online making judgemental, ill-informed statements about those more accomplished than themselves. Like you said, funny how that is....
[citation needed]
@@Kaecie-dl1dk
Weird Al talking nonsense
Who would you prefer he looked like?
He didn't prove there's no freewill. He never will. Because there is..
I don't think it exists.
Where and how?!
If it's not predetermined then you can decide to not comment...
There is no “free will”, the cells, bacteria, and sentient consciousness in your body dictates how your brain responds. The “soul” is a coping mechanism to keep you in your eternal loop. Good news is you’re apart of a body bigger than your own, so your existence is not for nothing, it has a purpose. You’ll never see it… you will hear it and feel the voice. You’ll feel its emotions, but you’ll never be able to interact with it. Ironically, you dictate it as all the living things you’re made of dictate you….
Pack of npcs up in here, I guess. I've made many mistakes over the decades. Some, I could claim that circumstances conspired against me and forced my hand, but in reality, I know that everything that ever happened to me, I did it.
When you can take responsibility for your own actions and speak not a word about your random successes, you'll be a man, my son. Yes, that's a highly clipped paraphrasing of Kipling..
Go back to the seventies please.
I love salpolsky but we are much more than what he claims. We are a species looking for a fixed ontology. We have alphabets and maths. We abstract that we abstract. We are trying to unify the whole. We are capable of the following thoughts. The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things.
Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse.
Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously.
Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate.
Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration.
Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it.
There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me.
This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it.
From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best.
In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that.
This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye whatever.
I have often pondered the possibility that this is the eye of consciousness/god/spirit/logos, call it what you will. In a million years we will still be employing it to systemise our positions on the evolutionary ladder.
The modes are huge in us. Adding is a phenomenal mode and if there is a god then perhaps it needs the mode of adding to add itself up. It needs unification to unify itself. It needs evaluation to evaluate itself. It needs precision to be precise about what it is and so