Thank you for this video, it's cool to hear your thoughts on this fascinating and difficult subject. I'm writing this after I've watched your video twice. I'd argue that even if a process is extremely complex, effectively unpredictable and even self-updating, it can still be totally deterministic. Some computer programs are like that for example, but the same could just as well be true about the human brain. So none of these attributes are really arguments in favor of free will I'm afraid. Regarding the evolutionary argument: the illusion of free will is of course evolutionarily extremely useful for survival but that alone doesn't disprove the fact that free will could be an illusion. You yourself mentioned that colors are technically an illusion, yet we obviously evolved color vision, even though colors don't really exist. So again, I don't think that this kind of argument can really be used in support of free will. Is the definition of free will that you give at 22:00 really useful for the purpose of this video? I think everyone agrees that we are able to act according to our sense of self but that's not really the problem, is it? The question is if have any other choice but to make the choices that we ultimately make. So of course, in the end we do the things that we want but the question (of free will) is: Could we have really chosen something else, given our exact mental state at that moment?
@@DusanPavlicek78 I think we probably couldn't make a different decision. But still choosing with a 'self' is much different from just following instincts and habits. So to say a person 'did not choose' his/her decision is also wrong. Because we make the decisions that we think we want considering all the information we have in that moment. And we avoid decisions we do not want. The reason why I emphasized the definition I gave is because for example Libet (from the experiment I talked about) and many others argued that our consciousness does not or barely influence our actions, which is wrong. Our consciousness is not simply an observer, it has power. Some scientists call it free will, so I joined in, but whether it should be called 'free will' or just 'willpower' perhaps is up for debate.
@@kurotadorii Thank you for the clarification, it was useful! I quite like the name willpower and calling it that rather than free will probably makes more sense because I think by free will people usually mean something different (as I described above). I'm going to check your other videos now 🙂
@@kurotadorii agreed, often it's the semantics of it, but i personally use the term freedom reather than free will, as it usually tends to give the meaning of listing a whole bunch of options like a drop down menu, ranking from the option with the highest probability to be chosen, the tricky bit is when it comes to saying how one can change and improve, hence the concept of free will is missing out on that limitation of the tendency of so and so decision to arise in given scenario, so rather than saying we have free will, it's perhaps even more accurate to say that we can change, we have the playdoh mind, that can be morphed, be it by self improvements, external influence from environment or people, however, it would never be morphing like water does and freeze like ice or evaporate like gas, being able to change doesn't sound very profound, but i think that's the best we've got, and fundamentally, that's the best form of malleability we see in humans
If I want something, to want that want, is to reflect and feel a desire to have that desire. Maybe the quote quoted could instead be: "A man may be able to do what he wants, but he cannot choose what he wants.". An issue remains here. I can choose to have certain wants. I can choose to start enjoying a certain genre of fiction, by reading those kinds of books. Maybe one of them may cause me to become a fan of that genre of fiction.
@@Luis-qr8gc the phrase has the tongue in cheek of the central ¨want¨. but hey, it can be translated in several ways. If you ¨spark¨ your desire for a certain genre of fiction you had to be somewhat interested to begin with to even read that book, and if the book is bad it won´t spark that interest, if it is good it might. it ultimately depends on the book in this case. or a friend that recommended that book. And there is a deeper look into it, desire moves us, but desire is rooted in the unconscious, what we consciously see is the tip of the iceberg.
'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants' - Arthur Schopenhauer 🖐A man can do what he wants, but he cannot choose what he needs. Desires (wants) are different from needs.
Imho is an emergent phenomena, just like most things. So it depends on your frame of reference. Does molecular chemistry exist or is it just electromagnetic atom interactions? Does gravity exist or is it just a by-product of time and space? What about climate phenomenon like Hurricanes, Tornados, etc? One thing doesn’t necessarily negates the other. Sometimes is our logic what lacks depth:
but how does free will work in principle? if you say "i did it because x", it wasn't free. if you say "i chose at random", it's not free either. but those were all the options
The fact that options are not changeable by us does not preclude free will. You have always the decision to make how you will deal with the unchangeable. It seems to me that your definition of 'free' is straining under the weight of the assumptions placed upon it. Either way you are in an intellectual cul de sac that will not yield a philosophy that supports the expansion of consciousness or much else of worth. I know you are smart and I enjoy your videos but this line of thought is a waste of time. We are essentially decision making machines, though some of our fellow humans would prefer otherwise. As I see it our purpose in creation is to decide and evaluate and move forward. Frankly I wasn't even going to click on this video as this idea (no free will) yields little of merit but I do like your channel so I thought I'd tell you why. Cheers🙂🙂
there's an hindu doctrine of kashmiri shaivism that states that freedom , known as swatantrya, is the power aspect of god , being it shiva the god, and swatantrya its capability to recognise itself as pure awareness. so in a way these gods are technically spoken as freedom, consciousness and such other terms in those doctrines, not as figures, but also that, for some reason it is a way for them to be treated as entities, and not just as ideas, the claim for it being that these ideas are too alive in a way.
something like that, ive surely made some errors in talking about it, but i just wanted to get the idea through, i have learned about this from @nishthef1sh
@@HoD999x Free choice means consciousness plays a role in deciding the action that will be taken (choosing between different alternatives) and the identity is also constructed in that process. Prefrontal cortex areas play a role in this, also hippocampus. Whether an animal has free choice might depend on how well developed these (or similar) areas are, also in humans of course brain damage can change the capacity for free will.
@@kurotadorii you imply here that conscious choices are free - but what makes them free? what mechanism sets them apart from the choices of a traffic light?
@@HoD999x I believe it's about 1. having the ability to make choices that are 'new' so not hard-wired, but instead using imagination and randomness to create new mental representations of options. So firstly the ability to come up with new ideas that are not hard wired. Then 2. you also need self awareness and an identity, to report on and play a role in making the decision.
@@kurotadorii i agree that we have this ability (to be the decider or inventor), but i wouldn't call it free will. free will is usually used to describe a magical ability to "could have chosen differently", which we never do. i see myself as a complex traffic light with consciousness. i make decisions (without me = no decision) but what i will decide is already predetermined
@@HoD999x Yeah I can understand that you don't see that as freedom. Though it is at least more free than what a lot of people claim, that our consciousness doesn't influence our actions at all.
How does memory fit in to this? How does information come when we are being directed or judging things? I’m just starting to think. I’m not sure of Evolution’s goals. Interesting video. Carry on.
I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms, I was mostly thinking about if it would be possible in theory, but I'm sure there must be information about it somewhere (if I ever find it I'll share). Or perhaps more research still has to be done into it
Everything is not fake. Reality exists on some level but then there are layers and layers of interpretation that we as living organisms apply. We don't perceive individual sub-atomic particles, we perceive entire objects. We don't perceive vibrations of air, we hear sounds and music. We don't perceive frequencies of electromagnetic waves, we see colors. We don't perceive reality in real time, but rather delayed because of the necessary processing that happens in our own brain. And so on.
That is a misinterpretation of how reality works. Everything is not predetermined. Everything exists all at once, but you have the free will to choose which of those infinite number of paths you want to travel through your life. It's part of theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind's Holographic Principle.
🤔What if consciousness was a mistake? When you look at ants, they are able to live peacefully without a crime ever have been comitted in their ant-colony, which simply is impossible in human society. My theory is that man developed a consciousness to survive in a group & individually. Insects, like ants, are highly specialised, but can't survive on their own because they're dependant on their colony. A soldier-ant can't survive on his own. Man is different, his 'superpower' is that he's highly adaptable to his environment. So much so that because of his adaptability aka technology, the environment adapts to man instead. Which can be a huge problem. It's my personal belief that the pre-historic man lived in harmony with his environment, because he instinctually knows that he's dependant on it. Ancient man still believed that he was part of nature, while modern man believes that he's above nature. Man believes that he's above nature because of his intelligence which caused him to believe that he's created in God's image. Whether one is an introvert or extravert is, imo not the result of a choice but determined at birth. I wanted to explain why there are introverts & extroverts. My working theory is that according the social intelligence hypothesis* early cavemen probably were introverts, because they weren't required to live in large groups. When our intelligence kept increasing we evolved from introverts into extroverts. ☢ *The problem now is that being extroverts + herd-behaviour is a bad combo. Extroverts generally are followers not that much concerned about the philosophy behind their behavior which can easily lead to facism.* 🕵♂Here's my exploration of introverts & extroverts, along with the impact of social intelligence & herd behavior: *Introverts & Extroverts* : *Early Humans & Social Context* : - My theory aligns with the social intelligence hypothesis, which suggests that early humans lived in smaller groups and had less complex social structures. - In such contexts, introverted traits (such as reflection, independence, and deep thinking) might have been advantageous. *Evolution & Intelligence* : - As human intelligence evolved, so did our social structures. Larger communities & cooperation became essential for survival. - Extroverted traits (such as sociability, communication, and adaptability) allowed humans to thrive in group settings. *The Extrovert-Introvert Spectrum* : - It's important to recognize that introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum. Most people exhibit a mix of both traits. - Some introverts can be outgoing, and some extroverts value solitude. *Herd Behavior & Extroversion* : - Herd behavior can be problematic when combined with extroversion. - Extroverts may follow the crowd without critically evaluating their actions, leading to conformity. *Philosophy & Extroversion* : - Extroverts often focus on external validation and immediate experiences rather than deep philosophical reflection. - This can indeed lead to a lack of consideration for broader implications. *Extroversion & Fascism* : - While not all extroverts exhibit harmful behavior, the lack of philosophical introspection can contribute to extreme ideologies. - Facism, as mentioned, often thrives on conformity and unquestioning loyalty. *Balance & Awareness* : - Striking a balance between introverted reflection & extroverted engagement is crucial. - Being aware of our tendencies and consciously evaluating our actions helps prevent harmful outcomes. * *The social intelligence hypothesis* states that social intelligence, that is, complex socialization such as politics, romance, family relationships, quarrels, collaboration, reciprocity, and altruism: (1) was a driving force in developing the size of human brains and (2) today provides our ability to use those large brains in complex social circumstances. This hypothesis claims that the demands of living together is what drives our need for intelligence, and that social intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation for dealing with highly complex social situations, as well as gaining and maintaining power in social groups. Archaeologist Steve Mithen believes that there are 2 key evolutionary periods of human brain growth that contextualize the social intelligence hypothesis. - The 1st was about two million years ago, when the brain more than doubled in size. Mithen believes that this growth was because people were living in larger, more complex groups, and had to keep track of more people and relationships. These changes required a greater mental capacity and, in turn, a larger brain size. - The 2nd key growth period in human brain size occurred between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago, when the brain reached its modern size. While this growth is still not fully explained, Mithen believes that it is related to the evolution of language. Language may be the most complex cognitive task we undertake. Language is directly related to social intelligence because it is primarily used to mediate social relationships. Social intelligence was a critical factor in brain growth. *Social & cognitive complexity co-evolve.* Source: Wikipedia 👉In summary, understanding the interplay between introversion, extroversion, and social dynamics enriches our perspective on human behavior. The difference between modern man and the early caveman is that the early caveman is unable to live in a nation, like the other apes, because the vast majority of the modern man are extroverts. The early caveman would probably be unable to live within a nation, simply because he can't identify everyone in this nation while he can in his tribe. My 2nd proof is that introverts are more likely to be autodidact than extroverts. 🕵♂Let's delve into them: 1. *Brain Size & Evolution* : - Indeed, brain size has evolved significantly over time. Early hominids had smaller brains compared to modern humans. - Our larger brains allow for complex cognition, language, and abstract thinking. This cognitive capacity shapes our behavior & survival strategies. - While primitive survival instincts remain relevant (e.g., fight-or-flight responses), our decision-making involves more than instinctual reactions. 2. *Social Complexity & Cooperation* : - Early humans survived by cooperating within small groups. Trust, reciprocity, and shared resources were vital. - Modern society extends beyond immediate kin. We interact with strangers, navigate diverse cultures, and participate in global networks. - Social structures (laws, institutions, norms) facilitate cooperation, even among large groups of unrelated individuals. 3. *Introverts & Autodidact Learning* : - Introverts tend to recharge by spending time alone. They often enjoy introspection and contemplation. - Autodidacts-those who self-educate-can be found among both introverts and extroverts. However, introverts may have an advantage: - *Focused Learning* : Introverts thrive in concentrated environments. Their ability to delve deep into topics benefits self-study. - *Independent Exploration* : Autodidacts often seek knowledge independently. Introverts' preference for solitude aligns well with self-directed learning. - *Curiosity & Reflection* : Introverts often ponder, ask questions, and seek answers. Their introspective nature fuels lifelong learning. - *Introverts & swimming upstream* : Introverts may indeed challenge prevailing norms and stand by their convictions, even if it means going against the herd. 4. *Extroverts & Autodidact Learning* : - Extroverts, too, can be autodidacts: - *Social Learning* : Extroverts thrive on interactions. They can combine social experiences with self-study. - *Collaborative Exploration* : Group discussions, workshops, and networking contribute to their learning journey. - *Adaptability* : Extroverts adapt well to changing environments, leveraging their social skills. 5. *Complex Societies & Extroversion* : - Our ability to function in large groups involves more than extroversion. Adaptability, cultural norms, and communication skills play crucial roles. - Both introverts and extroverts contribute to our diverse society. Each brings unique strengths, fostering innovation and progress. 6. *Caveats & Fascism* : - I've pointed out that herd behavior, combined with extroversion, can lead to problematic outcomes (like fascism). - Awareness + critical thinking are essential to prevent harmful collective behaviors. 🤐I fear that modern man is more driven by herdbehavior than free (individual) will. Especially when our modern education often emphasizes "what" over "how." And often ignores experience in favor of theory only.
is it still free will/ desire if we are to say, make a choice to not do the bad thing? Given the desire already arise, (importance here is not on finally acting on that desire or not), then one doesnt really have the free will to be free from ever having that desire, as choosing B (to not act on it) is subjected to having the desire to do A in the first place, and no matter what one chooses in place of that desire A is but subjected to choose upon this desire, kinda like life just throws a bunch of beanbags at us, but we don't get to be subjected to not have beanbags thrown at us, but only to choose whether i deflect this particular beanbag here, kick that one off to another direction. The key here lies in inaction, which would perhaps result in greatest sense of being free from desires, like how Buddhist monks become detached with the material, they are not free from sexual desire their entire life, but they choose to live celibately, and this choosing is inherent to being subjected to choose, subjected to any single desire hence not really free will. And if we take a step back, looking at how we regard people to have free will, we often would describe them as not having to worry this, or quitting smoking overnight (kinda unrealistic), though tbh I think research has shown by activating certain regions of the brain, we can inhibit thoughts and motor control, but still the will here is very dependent on what is already making up the brain to be the way it is, perhaps we could imagine what exactly does an ideal person with ideal free will looks like, which doesn't necessitates moral decisions, sorry for this long rambling
BTW a Buddhist monk's goal is to live free from desire as a part of their spiritual journey, right? 🧠But isn't the desire to be free of desire not also a desire? IMO Buddhism becomes morbid when they refuse to eat, because they view food as an attachment to the material world.
🤔Uhm, isn't a Buddhist striving for enlightenment the same as striving for perfection? In other words an unattainable goal, where the journey is more important than the destination? 🧠I must admit that because of my own personal journey the increasing understanding of the world and my selfknowledge only increases my awareness, but my decreasing ignorance only results in more existential depression: the more I understand about the world and myself, the more I become aware of its complexities & challenges. Like growing pains, this often is overwhelming & disheartening.
We don't have freewill in the sense that we can do whatever we want or that we are always in control. Freewill is just a bad and antiquated word. We are highly complex biological machines that have a range of behaviors determined by millions of years of evolution. We cannot do anything that isn't genetically programmed into us. Under certain circumstances we can behave one way and under different circumstances we can act another way. Freewill is illusionary basically. We are constrained by our biological forms and everything that has happened in earth’s history to create us. To break it down further there's nothing in known existence that is self activating. When you move your eye you think that's you moving it but there's muscles and neuroconnections at play as well all of the millions of years of evolution that gave you eyes to move.
When you got etherical experience, you will easely knows that it doesn't exist. Exist in your illusive reality and thoughts, in our life experiences and trauma, but not in the linearity of time and space. If time is an eternal present, offcourse free will doesn't exist. Despite modern thoughts, sometimes a simple Aristotelian syllogism could still work, in his meaning.
No free will! No choice to be here on earth! No choice to be an organism called human! No choice in the conditioning and programming! No choice what genes, no choice what parents, teachers, time and circumstances of our existence - yes, we are slaves, infinitely limited with only one destiny... the end.
I can't hear you, sadly. But no, complete free will does not exist, at least not until you make a conscious effort to bring your automatic will into line with your slower conscious process. Over time we might have the ability to change our automatic processes to take control of them so that something more like true free will exists. I hope that is something along the lines of what you were saying but please adjust your audio settings.
@@kurotadorii I'm sorry but I don't know anything about youtube video. On my phone the video is quiet but with effort it is comprehensible. On my PC it is unusable.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this video, it's cool to hear your thoughts on this fascinating and difficult subject.
I'm writing this after I've watched your video twice.
I'd argue that even if a process is extremely complex, effectively unpredictable and even self-updating, it can still be totally deterministic. Some computer programs are like that for example, but the same could just as well be true about the human brain. So none of these attributes are really arguments in favor of free will I'm afraid.
Regarding the evolutionary argument: the illusion of free will is of course evolutionarily extremely useful for survival but that alone doesn't disprove the fact that free will could be an illusion. You yourself mentioned that colors are technically an illusion, yet we obviously evolved color vision, even though colors don't really exist. So again, I don't think that this kind of argument can really be used in support of free will.
Is the definition of free will that you give at 22:00 really useful for the purpose of this video? I think everyone agrees that we are able to act according to our sense of self but that's not really the problem, is it? The question is if have any other choice but to make the choices that we ultimately make. So of course, in the end we do the things that we want but the question (of free will) is: Could we have really chosen something else, given our exact mental state at that moment?
@@DusanPavlicek78 I think we probably couldn't make a different decision. But still choosing with a 'self' is much different from just following instincts and habits. So to say a person 'did not choose' his/her decision is also wrong. Because we make the decisions that we think we want considering all the information we have in that moment. And we avoid decisions we do not want. The reason why I emphasized the definition I gave is because for example Libet (from the experiment I talked about) and many others argued that our consciousness does not or barely influence our actions, which is wrong. Our consciousness is not simply an observer, it has power. Some scientists call it free will, so I joined in, but whether it should be called 'free will' or just 'willpower' perhaps is up for debate.
@@kurotadorii Thank you for the clarification, it was useful! I quite like the name willpower and calling it that rather than free will probably makes more sense because I think by free will people usually mean something different (as I described above).
I'm going to check your other videos now 🙂
@@kurotadorii agreed, often it's the semantics of it, but i personally use the term freedom reather than free will, as it usually tends to give the meaning of listing a whole bunch of options like a drop down menu, ranking from the option with the highest probability to be chosen, the tricky bit is when it comes to saying how one can change and improve, hence the concept of free will is missing out on that limitation of the tendency of so and so decision to arise in given scenario, so rather than saying we have free will, it's perhaps even more accurate to say that we can change, we have the playdoh mind, that can be morphed, be it by self improvements, external influence from environment or people, however, it would never be morphing like water does and freeze like ice or evaporate like gas, being able to change doesn't sound very profound, but i think that's the best we've got, and fundamentally, that's the best form of malleability we see in humans
Great vid 👏🏻
'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants' - Arthur Schopenhauer
If I want something, to want that want, is to reflect and feel a desire to have that desire. Maybe the quote quoted could instead be: "A man may be able to do what he wants, but he cannot choose what he wants.". An issue remains here. I can choose to have certain wants. I can choose to start enjoying a certain genre of fiction, by reading those kinds of books. Maybe one of them may cause me to become a fan of that genre of fiction.
@@Luis-qr8gc the phrase has the tongue in cheek of the central ¨want¨. but hey, it can be translated in several ways.
If you ¨spark¨ your desire for a certain genre of fiction you had to be somewhat interested to begin with to even read that book, and if the book is bad it won´t spark that interest, if it is good it might. it ultimately depends on the book in this case. or a friend that recommended that book.
And there is a deeper look into it, desire moves us, but desire is rooted in the unconscious, what we consciously see is the tip of the iceberg.
'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants' - Arthur Schopenhauer
🖐A man can do what he wants, but he cannot choose what he needs.
Desires (wants) are different from needs.
This is a really cool thought process you are presenting!
Imho is an emergent phenomena, just like most things. So it depends on your frame of reference.
Does molecular chemistry exist or is it just electromagnetic atom interactions?
Does gravity exist or is it just a by-product of time and space?
What about climate phenomenon like Hurricanes, Tornados, etc?
One thing doesn’t necessarily negates the other.
Sometimes is our logic what lacks depth:
Yes of course, just because many actions are automatic and many people choose to live without agency does not mean there is no free will.
but how does free will work in principle? if you say "i did it because x", it wasn't free. if you say "i chose at random", it's not free either. but those were all the options
The fact that options are not changeable by us does not preclude free will. You have always the decision to make how you will deal with the unchangeable. It seems to me that your definition of 'free' is straining under the weight of the assumptions placed upon it.
Either way you are in an intellectual cul de sac that will not yield a philosophy that supports the expansion of consciousness or much else of worth.
I know you are smart and I enjoy your videos but this line of thought is a waste of time. We are essentially decision making machines, though some of our fellow humans would prefer otherwise. As I see it our purpose in creation is to decide and evaluate and move forward.
Frankly I wasn't even going to click on this video as this idea (no free will) yields little of merit but I do like your channel so I thought I'd tell you why. Cheers🙂🙂
there's an hindu doctrine of kashmiri shaivism that states that freedom , known as swatantrya, is the power aspect of god , being it shiva the god, and swatantrya its capability to recognise itself as pure awareness. so in a way these gods are technically spoken as freedom, consciousness and such other terms in those doctrines, not as figures, but also that, for some reason it is a way for them to be treated as entities, and not just as ideas, the claim for it being that these ideas are too alive in a way.
something like that, ive surely made some errors in talking about it, but i just wanted to get the idea through, i have learned about this from @nishthef1sh
I think there's a scientific way to determine this. Stewart Bell proved no hidden variables at quantum level, I think we can do this for free will
i think you skipped an important point: what is the definition of "free choice"? what does a minimal machine that has free will look like?
@@HoD999x Free choice means consciousness plays a role in deciding the action that will be taken (choosing between different alternatives) and the identity is also constructed in that process. Prefrontal cortex areas play a role in this, also hippocampus. Whether an animal has free choice might depend on how well developed these (or similar) areas are, also in humans of course brain damage can change the capacity for free will.
@@kurotadorii you imply here that conscious choices are free - but what makes them free? what mechanism sets them apart from the choices of a traffic light?
@@HoD999x I believe it's about 1. having the ability to make choices that are 'new' so not hard-wired, but instead using imagination and randomness to create new mental representations of options. So firstly the ability to come up with new ideas that are not hard wired. Then 2. you also need self awareness and an identity, to report on and play a role in making the decision.
@@kurotadorii i agree that we have this ability (to be the decider or inventor), but i wouldn't call it free will. free will is usually used to describe a magical ability to "could have chosen differently", which we never do. i see myself as a complex traffic light with consciousness. i make decisions (without me = no decision) but what i will decide is already predetermined
@@HoD999x Yeah I can understand that you don't see that as freedom. Though it is at least more free than what a lot of people claim, that our consciousness doesn't influence our actions at all.
we do have free will, but we only exercise it with will power
How does memory fit in to this? How does information come when we are being directed or judging things? I’m just starting to think.
I’m not sure of Evolution’s goals.
Interesting video. Carry on.
I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms, I was mostly thinking about if it would be possible in theory, but I'm sure there must be information about it somewhere (if I ever find it I'll share). Or perhaps more research still has to be done into it
@@kurotadorii thank you. I look forward to your thoughts.
If everything is fake, then is fake the only real?
Everything is not fake. Reality exists on some level but then there are layers and layers of interpretation that we as living organisms apply. We don't perceive individual sub-atomic particles, we perceive entire objects. We don't perceive vibrations of air, we hear sounds and music. We don't perceive frequencies of electromagnetic waves, we see colors. We don't perceive reality in real time, but rather delayed because of the necessary processing that happens in our own brain. And so on.
💗
the only answer to this is: it doesnt matter and will always be a waste of time to question.
That is a misinterpretation of how reality works. Everything is not predetermined. Everything exists all at once, but you have the free will to choose which of those infinite number of paths you want to travel through your life. It's part of theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind's Holographic Principle.
can you demonstrate this?
I think for INFJ's, the probability of an outcome and patterns, determine our direction and actions 😅 - We are like robots 🤖 (0 is bad, 1 is good 😂.)
🤔What if consciousness was a mistake?
When you look at ants, they are able to live peacefully without a crime ever have been comitted in their ant-colony, which simply is impossible in human society.
My theory is that man developed a consciousness to survive in a group & individually. Insects, like ants, are highly specialised, but can't survive on their own because they're dependant on their colony. A soldier-ant can't survive on his own. Man is different, his 'superpower' is that he's highly adaptable to his environment. So much so that because of his adaptability aka technology, the environment adapts to man instead. Which can be a huge problem.
It's my personal belief that the pre-historic man lived in harmony with his environment, because he instinctually knows that he's dependant on it. Ancient man still believed that he was part of nature, while modern man believes that he's above nature. Man believes that he's above nature because of his intelligence which caused him to believe that he's created in God's image.
Whether one is an introvert or extravert is, imo not the result of a choice but determined at birth.
I wanted to explain why there are introverts & extroverts. My working theory is that according the social intelligence hypothesis* early cavemen probably were introverts, because they weren't required to live in large groups. When our intelligence kept increasing we evolved from introverts into extroverts.
☢ *The problem now is that being extroverts + herd-behaviour is a bad combo. Extroverts generally are followers not that much concerned about the philosophy behind their behavior which can easily lead to facism.*
🕵♂Here's my exploration of introverts & extroverts, along with the impact of social intelligence & herd behavior:
*Introverts & Extroverts* :
*Early Humans & Social Context* :
- My theory aligns with the social intelligence hypothesis, which suggests that early humans lived in smaller groups and had less complex social structures.
- In such contexts, introverted traits (such as reflection, independence, and deep thinking) might have been advantageous.
*Evolution & Intelligence* :
- As human intelligence evolved, so did our social structures. Larger communities & cooperation became essential for survival.
- Extroverted traits (such as sociability, communication, and adaptability) allowed humans to thrive in group settings.
*The Extrovert-Introvert Spectrum* :
- It's important to recognize that introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum. Most people exhibit a mix of both traits.
- Some introverts can be outgoing, and some extroverts value solitude.
*Herd Behavior & Extroversion* :
- Herd behavior can be problematic when combined with extroversion.
- Extroverts may follow the crowd without critically evaluating their actions, leading to conformity.
*Philosophy & Extroversion* :
- Extroverts often focus on external validation and immediate experiences rather than deep philosophical reflection.
- This can indeed lead to a lack of consideration for broader implications.
*Extroversion & Fascism* :
- While not all extroverts exhibit harmful behavior, the lack of philosophical introspection can contribute to extreme ideologies.
- Facism, as mentioned, often thrives on conformity and unquestioning loyalty.
*Balance & Awareness* :
- Striking a balance between introverted reflection & extroverted engagement is crucial.
- Being aware of our tendencies and consciously evaluating our actions helps prevent harmful outcomes.
* *The social intelligence hypothesis* states that social intelligence, that is, complex socialization such as politics, romance, family relationships, quarrels, collaboration, reciprocity, and
altruism:
(1) was a driving force in developing the size of human brains
and
(2) today provides our ability to use those large brains in complex social circumstances.
This hypothesis claims that the demands of living together is what drives our need for intelligence, and that social intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation for dealing with highly complex social situations, as well as gaining and maintaining power in social groups.
Archaeologist Steve Mithen believes that there are 2 key evolutionary periods of human brain growth that contextualize the social intelligence hypothesis.
- The 1st was about two million years ago, when the brain more than doubled in size. Mithen believes that this growth was because people were living in larger, more complex groups, and had to keep track of more people and relationships. These changes required a greater mental capacity and, in turn, a larger brain size.
- The 2nd key growth period in human brain size occurred between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago, when the brain reached its modern size.
While this growth is still not fully explained, Mithen believes that it is related to the evolution of language. Language may be the most complex cognitive task we undertake. Language is directly related to social intelligence because it is primarily used to mediate social relationships. Social intelligence was a critical factor in brain growth.
*Social & cognitive complexity co-evolve.*
Source: Wikipedia
👉In summary, understanding the interplay between introversion, extroversion, and social dynamics enriches our perspective on human behavior.
The difference between modern man and the early caveman is that the early caveman is unable to live in a nation, like the other apes, because the vast majority of the modern man are extroverts. The early caveman would probably be unable to live within a nation, simply because he can't identify everyone in this nation while he can in his tribe.
My 2nd proof is that introverts are more likely to be autodidact than extroverts.
🕵♂Let's delve into them:
1. *Brain Size & Evolution* :
- Indeed, brain size has evolved significantly over time. Early hominids had smaller brains compared to modern humans.
- Our larger brains allow for complex cognition, language, and abstract thinking. This cognitive capacity shapes our behavior & survival strategies.
- While primitive survival instincts remain relevant (e.g., fight-or-flight responses), our decision-making involves more than instinctual reactions.
2. *Social Complexity & Cooperation* :
- Early humans survived by cooperating within small groups. Trust, reciprocity, and shared resources were vital.
- Modern society extends beyond immediate kin. We interact with strangers, navigate diverse cultures, and participate in global networks.
- Social structures (laws, institutions, norms) facilitate cooperation, even among large groups of unrelated individuals.
3. *Introverts & Autodidact Learning* :
- Introverts tend to recharge by spending time alone. They often enjoy introspection and contemplation.
- Autodidacts-those who self-educate-can be found among both introverts and extroverts. However, introverts may have an advantage:
- *Focused Learning* : Introverts thrive in concentrated environments. Their ability to delve deep into topics benefits self-study.
- *Independent Exploration* : Autodidacts often seek knowledge independently. Introverts' preference for solitude aligns well with self-directed learning.
- *Curiosity & Reflection* : Introverts often ponder, ask questions, and seek answers. Their introspective nature fuels lifelong learning.
- *Introverts & swimming upstream* : Introverts may indeed challenge prevailing norms and stand by their convictions, even if it means going against the herd.
4. *Extroverts & Autodidact Learning* :
- Extroverts, too, can be autodidacts:
- *Social Learning* : Extroverts thrive on interactions. They can combine social experiences with self-study.
- *Collaborative Exploration* : Group discussions, workshops, and networking contribute to their learning journey.
- *Adaptability* : Extroverts adapt well to changing environments, leveraging their social skills.
5. *Complex Societies & Extroversion* :
- Our ability to function in large groups involves more than extroversion. Adaptability, cultural norms, and communication skills play crucial roles.
- Both introverts and extroverts contribute to our diverse society. Each brings unique strengths, fostering innovation and progress.
6. *Caveats & Fascism* :
- I've pointed out that herd behavior, combined with extroversion, can lead to problematic outcomes (like fascism).
- Awareness + critical thinking are essential to prevent harmful collective behaviors.
🤐I fear that modern man is more driven by herdbehavior than free (individual) will. Especially when our modern education often emphasizes "what" over "how." And often ignores experience in favor of theory only.
is it still free will/ desire if we are to say, make a choice to not do the bad thing? Given the desire already arise, (importance here is not on finally acting on that desire or not), then one doesnt really have the free will to be free from ever having that desire, as choosing B (to not act on it) is subjected to having the desire to do A in the first place, and no matter what one chooses in place of that desire A is but subjected to choose upon this desire, kinda like life just throws a bunch of beanbags at us, but we don't get to be subjected to not have beanbags thrown at us, but only to choose whether i deflect this particular beanbag here, kick that one off to another direction. The key here lies in inaction, which would perhaps result in greatest sense of being free from desires, like how Buddhist monks become detached with the material, they are not free from sexual desire their entire life, but they choose to live celibately, and this choosing is inherent to being subjected to choose, subjected to any single desire hence not really free will. And if we take a step back, looking at how we regard people to have free will, we often would describe them as not having to worry this, or quitting smoking overnight (kinda unrealistic), though tbh I think research has shown by activating certain regions of the brain, we can inhibit thoughts and motor control, but still the will here is very dependent on what is already making up the brain to be the way it is, perhaps we could imagine what exactly does an ideal person with ideal free will looks like, which doesn't necessitates moral decisions, sorry for this long rambling
BTW a Buddhist monk's goal is to live free from desire as a part of their spiritual journey, right?
🧠But isn't the desire to be free of desire not also a desire?
IMO Buddhism becomes morbid when they refuse to eat, because they view food as an attachment to the material world.
🤔Uhm, isn't a Buddhist striving for enlightenment the same as striving for perfection?
In other words an unattainable goal, where the journey is more important than the destination?
🧠I must admit that because of my own personal journey the increasing understanding of the world and my selfknowledge only increases my awareness, but my decreasing ignorance only results in more existential depression: the more I understand about the world and myself, the more I become aware of its complexities & challenges. Like growing pains, this often is overwhelming & disheartening.
We don't have freewill in the sense that we can do whatever we want or that we are always in control. Freewill is just a bad and antiquated word. We are highly complex biological machines that have a range of behaviors determined by millions of years of evolution. We cannot do anything that isn't genetically programmed into us. Under certain circumstances we can behave one way and under different circumstances we can act another way. Freewill is illusionary basically. We are constrained by our biological forms and everything that has happened in earth’s history to create us. To break it down further there's nothing in known existence that is self activating. When you move your eye you think that's you moving it but there's muscles and neuroconnections at play as well all of the millions of years of evolution that gave you eyes to move.
When you got etherical experience, you will easely knows that it doesn't exist. Exist in your illusive reality and thoughts, in our life experiences and trauma, but not in the linearity of time and space. If time is an eternal present, offcourse free will doesn't exist. Despite modern thoughts, sometimes a simple Aristotelian syllogism could still work, in his meaning.
But who would have this free will ? That's the real question .
Even if you know the truth you are free to ignore it. I guess that "free will" has its role when there is something unclear.
cools
No free will! No choice to be here on earth! No choice to be an organism called human! No choice in the conditioning and programming! No choice what genes, no choice what parents, teachers, time and circumstances of our existence - yes, we are slaves, infinitely limited with only one destiny... the end.
I can't hear you, sadly. But no, complete free will does not exist, at least not until you make a conscious effort to bring your automatic will into line with your slower conscious process. Over time we might have the ability to change our automatic processes to take control of them so that something more like true free will exists. I hope that is something along the lines of what you were saying but please adjust your audio settings.
@@M2Texas How come I can hear the video then but you can't? Not sure what settings change could fix that?
@@kurotadorii I'm sorry but I don't know anything about youtube video. On my phone the video is quiet but with effort it is comprehensible. On my PC it is unusable.
the only logical premise is 0, so theres no logical reason for logic, so theres free will
the hardcore content was still in the works .. lol jk..
No.
Hjk
You are beautiful
Free will? What a joke!