You DO choose at least some of your thoughts and desires, and that just means that your current thoughts and desires are determined by your previous thoughts and desires, and external factors. But you can't have chosen the very first thoughts and desires that you had, so that means that all of your thoughts, desires and choices have always been determined by external factors, even if one of those factors is randomness.
You’re assuming that there’s consistency in people’s thought and desires. If thoughts are determined why do people change their mind all the time? How come there’s no machine that can predict what any individual will think and say? Maybe some people’s thoughts are determined by, say, dogma. But those who have an open mind and engage in science aren’t determined
Let me put this another way: It is true that you choose at least some of your thoughts and desires, and that your thoughts and desires determine what choices you make, but you can't have chosen the very first thoughts and desires that you had, so that means that all of your thoughts, desires and choices have always been determined by external factors.@@jedser
@spaceguy-qv9zf I see your reasoning, but it’s fallacious. It applies to things like the human brain whose design and function are determined by years of evolution, genetics, and the environment. (Thanks Sapolsky.) But that does not apply to thinking, which is different from mind-wondering. Mind wandering is more or less reflexive; whereas focused thinking like writing a sonnet or solving for x requires system-1 agency. If what you’re saying is true, it means that your first thoughts predict your later thoughts-that if your first thought is to believe in god, it is also determined that your future thoughts will be sauced by belief in god. But that’s not how it works in the real world. Everyone can change their mind. Even you can choose to abandon your incoherent view.
ok another way to say it: If you believe in free will, then you believe that you choose at least some of your thoughts, but if you chose your current thought, that's the same as saying that your current thought was determined by a previous thought, which means that you can't have chosen the very first thought you had, and that means that all of your thoughts and choices have always been determined by external factors.@@jedser
Entelechy is a philosophical concept that originated in ancient Greek thought and has been used by various philosophers throughout history. At its core, entelechy refers to the idea of an inner potential or driving force that moves things toward their natural end or goal. The term "entelechy" was first used by Aristotle, who believed that everything in nature has an inherent potential or goal that it strives to achieve. For example, an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, and it will naturally strive toward this goal if given the proper conditions and environment. The concept of entelechy was later developed by the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who used it to describe a pre-existing inner principle that determines the nature and behavior of all things. According to Leibniz, this inner principle is what gives a thing its identity and makes it what it is. In modern times, the concept of entelechy has been used in various fields, including psychology and biology. The psychologist Carl Jung, for example, used the concept of entelechy to describe the inherent potential for growth and development within the human psyche. Similarly, the biologist Hans Driesch used the concept of entelechy to describe the innate developmental potential within living organisms. Overall, the concept of entelechy emphasizes the idea that everything in nature has a purpose or goal that it naturally strives toward. It suggests that there is an inner driving force within all things that moves them toward their natural end or potential, and that this force can be harnessed and understood through careful observation and study.
Here I can agree with Phillip. The argument given for free will is (as it should be) independent of a deterministic or non-deterministic (via probability distributions) view of physics.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...
So 'downward causation' is that the organisation provides a context of reduced possibilities for the components. Just like a wheel on a car v a wheel rolling down a hill.
Many problems of philosophy are really problems of natural language processing. What is free will? In the simplest interpretation, can we achieve our goals? Of course we can, in reasonal limits. Only most participants here understand that matter is more complicated. Can we set a goal by will? The problem here is paradoxical self-linkage. Can we generate a desire by desire? Such issues may be resolved from physiology. Here, the picture is quite clear. Purely anatomically, the brain has 3 sources of behavioral activity. 1. External sensory stimulus including a direct order from your boss. 2. Internal motivation. In turn, it is divided in 2: 2.1. Inborn needs located in hypothalamus. 2.2. Voluntary goals generated in the prefrontal neocortex. Free will is here. These decisions are determined not only by previously learned rules and current situation. Also by the future via forecasting. Free will is often discussed in a particular context. Such as responsibility. An average person in normal conditions has a choice indeed. To become a criminal or to stay a law-abiding citizen and carry the burden. That's a personal choice. On the other hand, the principle of punishment is designed to restrict free will. So we arrive at another paradox. In many cases, people have no choice indeed. Paradoxes are difficult to conceive, and this is heavily exploited. In global politics, oftentimes justice is a pretext. Punishment is a way to satisfy narrow interests. All in all, this question is where numbers turn out to be useful. Elevating them into absolute is an error. Abandoning completely - an error either. We should talk about the degree of freedom. This may be confirmed on physiological level. Some functions are semi voluntary. For example, breathing. You can hold it, but only for a limited time. This 'semi' may be found everywhere. Some peoples were semi nomadic.
Does the universe have personal agency beyond just lifeforms having personal agency? If not, then our ability to predict some place like Venus and its weather shouldn't be affected by personal agency. That means the prediction errors have other causes that this free will argument isn't accounting for. The butterfly effect is ultimately about rounding errors in fine-tuned systems that make models inaccurate for predictions too far out. How can this free will argument differentiate between rounding errors and free will?
The fundamental question is whether the Borne rule is violated inside a living system. If that is true, then we can really say there is something different going on, and the claim of downward causation would have some substance behind it. If the Borne rule applies equally inside a living system and inside a non-living system, then any talk of downward causation should be seen as just a fancy “subjective” level of description of what is happening at the physical level. It would not be different than saying that a thermostat uses its “will” to control the temperature of a room. The example of the computer given by Kevin Mitchell goes exactly against what he’s claiming: the program the computer is executing is just a recorded set of bits (i.e. physical configuration of elementary particles) which determine the evolution of the system. I could claim that the program is constraining the electrons to behave in a particular way to follow its “will”, but that is just a fancy and funny way to describe what is going on at the physical level. (And the design behind the computer program can be seen as simply corresponding to the design used by evolution in living systems, as Keith Frankish said).
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...
Re what we "know" from quantum physics... is that there is no objective/local reality, and that the wavefunction-collapsed & 4D view of reality only exists in-minds, and only partially for each mind. Starting with the falsified (albeit reassuring) assumption that there is an objective reality won't help one analyze the capacity for will or choice -- which are plausibly fundamental aspects of any mind. And there's a bigger question here that's generally overlooked. A freedom to choose between apparent options/paths has little meaning unless the chooser has enough information to accurately assess the plausible effects of every choice. Humans almost always lack such information for a large portion of important choices. Hence the freedom to choose is not a capacity to actualize one's will. (Tho it does allow for "moral responsibility" in some cases.)
Really interesting discussion - many thanks for arranging it. It's persuaded me to support you on Patreon though, guys, $10 a month is really a lot, for anyone who has more than one interest! I love to see biologists and physicists challenged by philosophers. I particularly appreciated Keith Frankish's interrogation of Kevin Mitchell's appeal to top-down causation. I'm guessing that Frankish suspects that Mitchell is trying to dress his dualism up in neuroscientific robes? If so, I agree. I hope you have plans to get Robert Sapolsky on the podcast. He articulates brilliantly what I, vastly less clearly, think is true and I'd love to hear him defend his position against friendly but strong criticism from the two of you.
No wonder Kevin mentioned George Ellis. Like George he also does the past-truncated analysis. He says that the thoughts and intents make the neurons do things, but the thought themselves were result of past neuronal activity all the way to the baby and the machinery of building the human brains itself was encoded by evolution in the DNA. Yes we have to go back all the way and build up the theory incrementally. It is like what George Ellis (on a CTT video) says that computer program make the computer do things meaning top down causation. Sure for that leg of the causation. But we cannot stop there. The program was written by a programmer, who thought about it in his brain which developed from childhood and was ultimately build by evolved DNA.....and so on. The software program runs on hardware that was once again build by evolved entities. There is no magic dust that gets injected in computer program to make computer do things. In fact I am very puzzled by this kind of truncated analysis by smart people (unpopular opinion). It is like saying a wet towel cools the body as water evaporates, thus the water made the body cool. Sure. But how does the water in the wet towel have the properties of evaporation and thus causing cooling. Because of the properties of water molecules and their bonds and so on. Of course my example is about vastly vastly simpler phenomenon but the principle applies.. A towel dipped in only hydrogen or only oxygen may or may not cool the body if at all at the same rate because it has different evaporation rate and the ability to carry away heat. So the specific evaporation rate of water comes about because it is specific to water at normal room temperature.
Q✅ Mechanics of Learning? Connections of neurons (Learn) and act as neural antennas that receive and transmit information from the universe? #QuantumEntanglement #ESP #LayLines #Computation #NoLimits✅
@@s-saad7401 Duh. It’s an interrogative meant to elicit some thinking on your part. That the “phenomenon” that living things are made up of non-living things is a strong “argument” for emergence. Atoms on their own are not living things; when bunched up they form into molecules-still non-living; molecules bunch up and interact and together develops into a living single-celled organism; fast forward and you get humans with prefrontal cortex. Is that “empirical” and “concrete” enough for you? So, what’s your argument? Saying that something is “way too obscure” (not really, unless what Kevin was saying is over your head) isn’t argument nor evidence either.
@@jedser ok that’s an argument. Here’s my counter: properties at the “higher level” that seem to not be shared by lower level can be demonstrated through weak emergence. So there’s a reason to believe that life from non life is also a case of weak emergence. There’s no reason to believe life from non life is strong emergence because strong emergence hasn’t been demonstrated. I called Kevin’s argument obscure because the idea of formulating Kevin’s system mathematically doesn’t make sense to me. Saying this as a person that is academically trained with modelling complex systems through the methods of engineering.
@@s-saad7401 Good. I would say that 'strong' and 'weak' aren't definite scientific terms, unless there are formal ways to measure the threshold of when weak becomes strong. So I kind of think it's a non-point. Here's another line: people aren't machines or products of engineering. We don't really know how the brain works, and neural networks pale in comparison to the human brain's complexity. As a last point, there's preliminary talk that large language models' ability to "converse" is an emergent phenomena. If that's demonstrated to be actually the case, would you change your mind? (Also, are you a non-believer of free will?)
it's somewhat weird and disappointing that some philosophers describe kevin's book as 'a robust defence of the reality of free will', despite the heaps of inaccurate, speculative assertions made by kevin about physics. i find it bizarre, at least. let kevin debate sabine hossenfelder, or sean carroll, or any intellectually honest physicist or philosopher of physics, and it'll be made obvious that he built his argument on misunderstandings and/or unwarranted, poorly motivated assertions about what physics tells and can tell us. kevin is misrepresenting what we can say with quantum theory currently. it's very irritating, it's kinda analogous to a non-biologist confidently asserting that we know that *all* traits of all organisms are 70% a result of genetic drift. it's like, wow, just no, please, no. he even says certain ideas are "ludicrous on its face and mathematically and physically IMPOSSIBLE", when in actual fact, we just. don't. know. whether big bang conditions were *the* initial conditions, or whether they were conditions such that they determined everything so far since. we don't know and we certainly haven't empirically excluded determinism or indeterminism, or even the existence of causal structure. so he switches up intellectual honesty and epistemic humility with ignorant incredulity, just asserting a bunch of incorrect statements about our best understanding. why? baffling and irritating. but at least he acknowledges that his metaphysical speculation just 'fits better his intuitions', and reassures himself that physics hasn't 'proven' explanations he doesn't like. wow. continuing kevin's shenanigans, in an other interview over at decoding the gurus, he misrepresents sean carroll. sean carroll doesn't endorse "real causation". he's a wavefunction monist, and there's no causation in physics anyway (this is just a fact about how quantum & newtonian physics work), only rigid patterns inferred from observed regularities- empirically adequate, predictively successful models of the humean mosaic. SC is quite clear in his books that causation is a pragmatic heuristic.
Nice chat. Thank you
You DO choose at least some of your thoughts and desires, and that just means that your current thoughts and desires are determined by your previous thoughts and desires, and external factors. But you can't have chosen the very first thoughts and desires that you had, so that means that all of your thoughts, desires and choices have always been determined by external factors, even if one of those factors is randomness.
You’re assuming that there’s consistency in people’s thought and desires. If thoughts are determined why do people change their mind all the time? How come there’s no machine that can predict what any individual will think and say? Maybe some people’s thoughts are determined by, say, dogma. But those who have an open mind and engage in science aren’t determined
Let me put this another way: It is true that you choose at least some of your thoughts and desires, and that your thoughts and desires determine what choices you make, but you can't have chosen the very first thoughts and desires that you had, so that means that all of your thoughts, desires and choices have always been determined by external factors.@@jedser
@spaceguy-qv9zf I see your reasoning, but it’s fallacious. It applies to things like the human brain whose design and function are determined by years of evolution, genetics, and the environment. (Thanks Sapolsky.) But that does not apply to thinking, which is different from mind-wondering. Mind wandering is more or less reflexive; whereas focused thinking like writing a sonnet or solving for x requires system-1 agency. If what you’re saying is true, it means that your first thoughts predict your later thoughts-that if your first thought is to believe in god, it is also determined that your future thoughts will be sauced by belief in god. But that’s not how it works in the real world. Everyone can change their mind. Even you can choose to abandon your incoherent view.
ok another way to say it: If you believe in free will, then you believe that you choose at least some of your thoughts, but if you chose your current thought, that's the same as saying that your current thought was determined by a previous thought, which means that you can't have chosen the very first thought you had, and that means that all of your thoughts and choices have always been determined by external factors.@@jedser
@@spaceguy-qv9zf yeah. You said the same exact thing in different words, avoiding my specific points. You sound like a broken gpt.
Entelechy is a philosophical concept that originated in ancient Greek thought and has been used by various philosophers throughout history. At its core, entelechy refers to the idea of an inner potential or driving force that moves things toward their natural end or goal.
The term "entelechy" was first used by Aristotle, who believed that everything in nature has an inherent potential or goal that it strives to achieve. For example, an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, and it will naturally strive toward this goal if given the proper conditions and environment.
The concept of entelechy was later developed by the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who used it to describe a pre-existing inner principle that determines the nature and behavior of all things. According to Leibniz, this inner principle is what gives a thing its identity and makes it what it is.
In modern times, the concept of entelechy has been used in various fields, including psychology and biology. The psychologist Carl Jung, for example, used the concept of entelechy to describe the inherent potential for growth and development within the human psyche. Similarly, the biologist Hans Driesch used the concept of entelechy to describe the innate developmental potential within living organisms.
Overall, the concept of entelechy emphasizes the idea that everything in nature has a purpose or goal that it naturally strives toward. It suggests that there is an inner driving force within all things that moves them toward their natural end or potential, and that this force can be harnessed and understood through careful observation and study.
Here I can agree with Phillip. The argument given for free will is (as it should be) independent of a deterministic or non-deterministic (via probability distributions) view of physics.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
INTRODUCTORY PREMISE:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
STANDARD DEFINITIONS:
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know.
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
FREEDOM OF CHOICE:
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph).
ACADEMIC STUDIES:
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE:
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!!
Cont...
So 'downward causation' is that the organisation provides a context of reduced possibilities for the components. Just like a wheel on a car v a wheel rolling down a hill.
Many problems of philosophy are really problems of natural language processing. What is free will?
In the simplest interpretation, can we achieve our goals? Of course we can, in reasonal limits. Only most participants here understand that matter is more complicated.
Can we set a goal by will? The problem here is paradoxical self-linkage. Can we generate a desire by desire? Such issues may be resolved from physiology.
Here, the picture is quite clear. Purely anatomically, the brain has 3 sources of behavioral activity.
1. External sensory stimulus including a direct order from your boss.
2. Internal motivation. In turn, it is divided in 2:
2.1. Inborn needs located in hypothalamus.
2.2. Voluntary goals generated in the prefrontal neocortex. Free will is here. These decisions are determined not only by previously learned rules and current situation. Also by the future via forecasting.
Free will is often discussed in a particular context. Such as responsibility. An average person in normal conditions has a choice indeed. To become a criminal or to stay a law-abiding citizen and carry the burden. That's a personal choice.
On the other hand, the principle of punishment is designed to restrict free will. So we arrive at another paradox. In many cases, people have no choice indeed. Paradoxes are difficult to conceive, and this is heavily exploited. In global politics, oftentimes justice is a pretext. Punishment is a way to satisfy narrow interests.
All in all, this question is where numbers turn out to be useful. Elevating them into absolute is an error. Abandoning completely - an error either. We should talk about the degree of freedom. This may be confirmed on physiological level. Some functions are semi voluntary. For example, breathing. You can hold it, but only for a limited time. This 'semi' may be found everywhere. Some peoples were semi nomadic.
Philip looks like Martin Freeman with glasses ... just a bit more goofy!
Not really.
The neuron can fire on different occasions, but at a 'higher level' the significance is completely different, depending on the 'context'.
A signal has different significance, depending on how wide you define the context boundary at what level. The 'semantics' is different.
Does the universe have personal agency beyond just lifeforms having personal agency? If not, then our ability to predict some place like Venus and its weather shouldn't be affected by personal agency. That means the prediction errors have other causes that this free will argument isn't accounting for. The butterfly effect is ultimately about rounding errors in fine-tuned systems that make models inaccurate for predictions too far out. How can this free will argument differentiate between rounding errors and free will?
I like to think the duck is on extended vacation with his riches from the buyout.
P.S. The patreon isn't linked in the description!
The fundamental question is whether the Borne rule is violated inside a living system. If that is true, then we can really say there is something different going on, and the claim of downward causation would have some substance behind it.
If the Borne rule applies equally inside a living system and inside a non-living system, then any talk of downward causation should be seen as just a fancy “subjective” level of description of what is happening at the physical level. It would not be different than saying that a thermostat uses its “will” to control the temperature of a room.
The example of the computer given by Kevin Mitchell goes exactly against what he’s claiming: the program the computer is executing is just a recorded set of bits (i.e. physical configuration of elementary particles) which determine the evolution of the system. I could claim that the program is constraining the electrons to behave in a particular way to follow its “will”, but that is just a fancy and funny way to describe what is going on at the physical level. (And the design behind the computer program can be seen as simply corresponding to the design used by evolution in living systems, as Keith Frankish said).
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
INTRODUCTORY PREMISE:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
STANDARD DEFINITIONS:
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know.
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
FREEDOM OF CHOICE:
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts.
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph).
ACADEMIC STUDIES:
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE:
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will.
Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!!
Cont...
1:29:47 Keith invents Laplace’s Demon’s God
The 'swerve' was not from Epicurus, but from Lucretius.
Epicurus came before Lucretius
Re what we "know" from quantum physics... is that there is no objective/local reality, and that the wavefunction-collapsed & 4D view of reality only exists in-minds, and only partially for each mind. Starting with the falsified (albeit reassuring) assumption that there is an objective reality won't help one analyze the capacity for will or choice -- which are plausibly fundamental aspects of any mind.
And there's a bigger question here that's generally overlooked. A freedom to choose between apparent options/paths has little meaning unless the chooser has enough information to accurately assess the plausible effects of every choice. Humans almost always lack such information for a large portion of important choices. Hence the freedom to choose is not a capacity to actualize one's will. (Tho it does allow for "moral responsibility" in some cases.)
Really interesting discussion - many thanks for arranging it. It's persuaded me to support you on Patreon though, guys, $10 a month is really a lot, for anyone who has more than one interest! I love to see biologists and physicists challenged by philosophers. I particularly appreciated Keith Frankish's interrogation of Kevin Mitchell's appeal to top-down causation. I'm guessing that Frankish suspects that Mitchell is trying to dress his dualism up in neuroscientific robes? If so, I agree. I hope you have plans to get Robert Sapolsky on the podcast. He articulates brilliantly what I, vastly less clearly, think is true and I'd love to hear him defend his position against friendly but strong criticism from the two of you.
No wonder Kevin mentioned George Ellis. Like George he also does the past-truncated analysis. He says that the thoughts and intents make the neurons do things, but the thought themselves were result of past neuronal activity all the way to the baby and the machinery of building the human brains itself was encoded by evolution in the DNA. Yes we have to go back all the way and build up the theory incrementally. It is like what George Ellis (on a CTT video) says that computer program make the computer do things meaning top down causation. Sure for that leg of the causation. But we cannot stop there. The program was written by a programmer, who thought about it in his brain which developed from childhood and was ultimately build by evolved DNA.....and so on. The software program runs on hardware that was once again build by evolved entities. There is no magic dust that gets injected in computer program to make computer do things. In fact I am very puzzled by this kind of truncated analysis by smart people (unpopular opinion).
It is like saying a wet towel cools the body as water evaporates, thus the water made the body cool. Sure. But how does the water in the wet towel have the properties of evaporation and thus causing cooling. Because of the properties of water molecules and their bonds and so on. Of course my example is about vastly vastly simpler phenomenon but the principle applies.. A towel dipped in only hydrogen or only oxygen may or may not cool the body if at all at the same rate because it has different evaporation rate and the ability to carry away heat. So the specific evaporation rate of water comes about because it is specific to water at normal room temperature.
How is one brain system affecting another free will? Oddly, this very basic question is not discussed.
Yeah because your question makes no sense
Q✅ Mechanics of Learning? Connections of neurons (Learn) and act as neural antennas that receive and transmit information from the universe? #QuantumEntanglement #ESP #LayLines #Computation #NoLimits✅
Can't buy Kevin's claim, way too obscure and assumes strong emergence which from my knowledge hasn't been demonstrated in actual physical systems.
What do you think life is? How can the synthesis of non living molecules produce living organisms?
@@jedser “how can x do y” isn’t argument or evidence. I prefer concrete evidence for a phenomenon that is supposed to be empirical.
@@s-saad7401 Duh. It’s an interrogative meant to elicit some thinking on your part. That the “phenomenon” that living things are made up of non-living things is a strong “argument” for emergence. Atoms on their own are not living things; when bunched up they form into molecules-still non-living; molecules bunch up and interact and together develops into a living single-celled organism; fast forward and you get humans with prefrontal cortex. Is that “empirical” and “concrete” enough for you? So, what’s your argument? Saying that something is “way too obscure” (not really, unless what Kevin was saying is over your head) isn’t argument nor evidence either.
@@jedser ok that’s an argument. Here’s my counter: properties at the “higher level” that seem to not be shared by lower level can be demonstrated through weak emergence. So there’s a reason to believe that life from non life is also a case of weak emergence. There’s no reason to believe life from non life is strong emergence because strong emergence hasn’t been demonstrated.
I called Kevin’s argument obscure because the idea of formulating Kevin’s system mathematically doesn’t make sense to me. Saying this as a person that is academically trained with modelling complex systems through the methods of engineering.
@@s-saad7401 Good. I would say that 'strong' and 'weak' aren't definite scientific terms, unless there are formal ways to measure the threshold of when weak becomes strong. So I kind of think it's a non-point. Here's another line: people aren't machines or products of engineering. We don't really know how the brain works, and neural networks pale in comparison to the human brain's complexity. As a last point, there's preliminary talk that large language models' ability to "converse" is an emergent phenomena. If that's demonstrated to be actually the case, would you change your mind? (Also, are you a non-believer of free will?)
3 parts
Experience
Map or filter
Expression
Put another way
Object
Transject
Subject
it's somewhat weird and disappointing that some philosophers describe kevin's book as 'a robust defence of the reality of free will', despite the heaps of inaccurate, speculative assertions made by kevin about physics. i find it bizarre, at least. let kevin debate sabine hossenfelder, or sean carroll, or any intellectually honest physicist or philosopher of physics, and it'll be made obvious that he built his argument on misunderstandings and/or unwarranted, poorly motivated assertions about what physics tells and can tell us.
kevin is misrepresenting what we can say with quantum theory currently. it's very irritating, it's kinda analogous to a non-biologist confidently asserting that we know that *all* traits of all organisms are 70% a result of genetic drift. it's like, wow, just no, please, no.
he even says certain ideas are "ludicrous on its face and mathematically and physically IMPOSSIBLE", when in actual fact, we just. don't. know. whether big bang conditions were *the* initial conditions, or whether they were conditions such that they determined everything so far since. we don't know and we certainly haven't empirically excluded determinism or indeterminism, or even the existence of causal structure.
so he switches up intellectual honesty and epistemic humility with ignorant incredulity, just asserting a bunch of incorrect statements about our best understanding. why? baffling and irritating.
but at least he acknowledges that his metaphysical speculation just 'fits better his intuitions', and reassures himself that physics hasn't 'proven' explanations he doesn't like. wow.
continuing kevin's shenanigans, in an other interview over at decoding the gurus, he misrepresents sean carroll. sean carroll doesn't endorse "real causation". he's a wavefunction monist, and there's no causation in physics anyway (this is just a fact about how quantum & newtonian physics work), only rigid patterns inferred from observed regularities- empirically adequate, predictively successful models of the humean mosaic. SC is quite clear in his books that causation is a pragmatic heuristic.
I’m😅I no op l