The illusion of self and the illusion of free will, explained | Annaka Harris

[@kwest84]

This is literally Buddhist thought with a modern scientific angle. We have focused a lot on studying the external world in recent years, but they already knew this 2500 years ago by studying our internal world with meditation techniques. Enlightenment is simply the eureka moment when, through lifestyle and meditation practice, you finally "get it" and see things as they really are. Introspection is incredibly powerful.

[@Jade15888]

I just had an Eureka moment reading your comment. Life is a funny way to figure out 8 🎶

[@CJ0101]

Things are already the way they are, regardless of meditation etc.

[@AK_00015]

It was there first in Hinduism

[@ToniRios-x6i]

​@@AK_00015 Not quite. While in Hinduism Atman=self plays a big role, the revolutionary aspect of the teaching of the Buddha was that he rejected that view and and taught Anatta=no self.

[@OhBuddhaRyan]

If you look really close, at all modern science right now is Buddhism.

[@synergyesoteric9900]

The fact that we are creatures of habit, the fact that we have to get up for work every day, pay our bills, take care of our loved ones, absolutely we have no free will, but I am willing to understand the fact that some days I don't have to get out of bed some days I don't have to turn my phone on and some days I am able to meditate freely without affecting anyone around me.

[@ZacWilkersonMusic]

When I’m on stage concentrating on lyrics and breathing and chords and picking patterns I don’t have time to be distracted by my ‘self’ and am forced to integrate with the physical world. Ironically, integrating with the physical world outside of my ‘self’ is the time I feel the most “myself”.

[@evgeniio346]

As a musician, can confirm

[@martincarter2324]

I think that’s what people call being “in the zone” ?

[@MelFinehout]

I used to play blues and the only time I really sounded good, I was hearing the music with no experience of playing. I know exactly what you mean.

[@lynlavalight]

Exactly! Artists, Musicians, Poets, etc. live more often in that flow state. What a blessing.

[@annmarieknapp2480]

As a college professor, I can say that when teaching, I am in the present moment and more comfortable with myself than at any other time.

[@roudys]

Once I saw through this illusion I was left only with compassion for me and others. Beautiful.

[@Soulful_Oatmilk]

it really is a misconception that determinism is just "making excuses" because we all had a choice to do the things we did, but that's missing the point entirely. We are the products of the situations we were born into without any decision of our own, that initiates a domino effect that makes us who we are now. If we approach every person this way, it forces the sonder effect, everyone else is the main character in their story, you're forced to empathize more rather than judge because you know there is a cause to their behavior. You were put in each others path by chance, you could at least try to be a good plot point in each other's story.

[@XX-pl9wp]

Careful. Someone can leave him to a total obedience to a crazy religion.

[@MrSub132]

Thats the exact reason the Buddha's teachings are filled with compassion. The Eight Fold Path has been declared for us so that we can turn our Hate/aversion, Greed/Desire and ignorance/delusion into Love, Contentment and Wisdom.

[@CJ0101]

Of course nobody could make that choice.

[@CJ0101]

There's no path; that's just seeking.

[@GabrielRodriguez-co1td]

I’ve done to all of these conclusions through transcendental meditation 😭 it makes me so happy to see this because people think I’m crazy when exploring these concepts

[@davidbailey4327]

what is transcendental meditation? How do I begin to explore this realm?

[@AfroMan-g8u]

Im interested on how you began this typeof meditation. please share more

[@GabrielRodriguez-co1td]

@@davidbailey4327 Transcendental Meditation (TM) is about learning to observe your thoughts without reacting to them. The goal isn’t to suppress your thoughts or fight them-that just keeps you stuck in a cycle with your ego. Instead, it’s about sitting with yourself and letting the thoughts pass, like watching clouds in the sky. Over time, you’ll notice a gap growing between your thoughts, and in that space, you realize you aren’t your thoughts. They just pop in-you don’t choose them. For example, if I told you not to think of a purple elephant, you’d automatically think of one. That’s how the mind works. If you get bored or frustrated while meditating, just remember: boredom is also just another thought. Acknowledge it, let it go, and come back to your breath. Even if you have a thought like “I want ice cream,” as long as you don’t act on it and return to your breath, you’re still meditating. Over time, something amazing happens-you begin to quiet the inner monologue. That constant voice in your head, narrating everything, starts to fade. This allows you to fully live in the present moment. How do you know when you’re present? It’s when you’re fully grounded in your senses-what you hear, see, feel, smell, or taste-but there are no thoughts in your mind. The key is to just start. Meditation is a journey, and it unfolds uniquely for everyone. Don’t give up if it feels hard or if your mind wanders a lot-that’s normal. Keep going, and you’ll discover a freedom and peace you didn’t know was possible. It all starts with the present moment.

[@GabrielRodriguez-co1td]

@@AfroMan-g8u I started meditating when I was 16 during one of the hardest times in my life. My parents had divorced, and I felt completely lost, like I didn’t belong anywhere. I was incredibly introverted and spent most of my time alone, stuck in my own thoughts. I had always been deeply existential, constantly questioning why I was here, what life meant, and why existing felt so uncomfortable. These thoughts consumed me, and I fell into a deep depression, searching desperately for answers. I became obsessed with religion and spirituality, diving into Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. I read the Quran and the Bible, spoke with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and explored every belief system I could find. But none of it gave me the clarity I was searching for, and I felt more disconnected than ever. Life didn’t make sense, and the weight of simply “being alive” felt unbearable. Everything started to shift when I came across a KZbin video by Dan Harris, a news anchor who opened up about his struggles with depression. He explained how, despite his success, he had been using drugs and throwing himself into dangerous situations-like reporting from war zones-just to feel alive. His story hit me hard because I felt the same way. I wasn’t alive in my own life, and I started doing risky things to try and escape that numbness. I went skydiving, pushed myself into things I never thought I’d do, and took risks that scared me-not for the thrill, but because I was trying to feel something. Yet, no matter what I did, that emptiness remained. In his video, Dan mentioned how meditation-just five minutes a day-had changed his life. I didn’t know much about meditation at the time, but I thought, “What do I have to lose?” So, I started. I won’t lie-it was incredibly difficult at first. My mind was chaotic, and sitting still felt impossible. I’d try to focus, but my thoughts would spiral, and I’d feel like I was failing. But I kept going. Day after day, I sat with the discomfort, even when it felt pointless. Over time, something started to change. I got better at observing my thoughts instead of engaging with them. I began to notice a gap growing between my awareness and my thoughts. That’s when I realized something profound: I am not my thoughts. They’re just passing clouds, and I’m the sky watching them. Slowly, I stopped reacting to the chatter in my mind, and I learned to just be. Extraordinary things began to happen as I went deeper into meditation. I experienced a level of awareness and peace I never thought was possible. It’s hard to put into words because it’s not something you can imagine until you experience it. But meditation taught me how to live in the present moment, free from the constant noise of my mind. What I’ve learned is that everyone’s journey is unique, and meditation unfolds differently for each person. The answers you’re looking for will come, but they reveal themselves over time. The key is to just start and keep going, no matter how hard it feels at first. Even when your mind feels chaotic or you think you’re “doing it wrong,” trust the process. Sit with yourself, observe your thoughts without reacting, and let the space between your thoughts grow. Eventually, everything will fall into place, and you’ll discover a freedom and peace that’s always been within you. Just take the first step-you won’t regret it.

[@GabrielRodriguez-co1td]

I’ll leave you with this: for those who need a little extra motivation or logic to get started-ask yourself this simple question: Do you not have the self-control to dedicate just 10 minutes a day to sit in silence and observe your thoughts? It’s not about perfection or doing it “right.” It’s about showing up for yourself, being consistent, and trusting the process. If you can commit to even 10 minutes, you’re taking the first step toward something that can profoundly change your life. So, why not start today?

[@jsvilbert321]

In regard to free will vs determinism, as we cultivate a deeper awareness through meditation we begin to break free from reacting automatically (deterministically) and we start acting deliberately in a manner we actually choose (freely). Meditation sets us free. Mindfulness teaches us that when an event happens, say, stub your toe, there is an instant where we can pause and choose how we will react. To me, that is the difference between determinism and free will. Wonderful talk ❤

[@itoibo4208]

you miss the point entirely 🙄

[@jsvilbert321]

No I don’t. I get the point entirely. I’m stating my own viewpoint. Deal with it.

[@isabt4]

The point is that we do not have the capability to choose freely, it simply feels that way to us. Dr. Robert Sapolski also explains this in his many conferences, interviews, debates, and books he has written. I love him.

[@jsvilbert321]

@@isabt4 This has been a topic of debate for probably thousands of years. People have differing opinions and just because someone disagrees doesn’t mean they missed the point. There are several arguments in favor of free will. One of the most compelling is at the subatomic level, quantum mechanics introduces genuine randomness into the universe. Some philosophers argue that this indeterminacy, combined with the brain’s complexity, allows for a non-deterministic element in human decision-making. While randomness is not synonymous with free will, it undermines strict determinism, leaving room for autonomous choice.

[@stephenholmgren405]

Religion was our first attempt to explain our reality. Science is our 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 1,000th. What a great time to be alive

[@DanielBro42]

maybe it won't be our 1001th attempt, is that possible? we don't know what we don't know there's probably a better method to understand reality and reach "objective truth"

[@arturzathas499]

@@DanielBro42 knowing that we dont know what we dont know, we perhaps are in the right path, you know with science and shit

[@planetfocus911]

Religion creates distraction, limitation, confusion, strife and in my personal view, points to intellectual immaturity.

[@verynicehuman]

Lol. This whole philosophy/study of consciousness and the nature of self and free-will being illusions is the fundamental "religion" of India. Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism are examples of sophisticated spiritual paths developed by the Yogis/Sages of India. Westerners have no idea of Indian "religions", all they have been exposed to is propaganda about India and the notion of jesus being the only true God blah blah blah, and in this process precious knowledge of ancient Indian spiritual/philosophy is ignored.

[@tathagatabala]

This is exactly what is discovered in Meditation. The process quiets the Default Mode Network (DMN) and the brain is calm. Random thoughts are not constantly being fed to the brain. The realization of self begins to fall away as one learns to focus on a single object.

[@coolplay20]

So meditation is like entering a Flow state where you are so focused that the passing of time and external activity are not noticed ?

[@ChildCONTENT0]

My husband has ADHD, depression and was on medication for many years. When we moved and he had to get a new Doctor. Unfortunately because my husband was nearly 68, the Doctor said ADHD medication was not recommended for someone his age and he wouldn't renew his prescription. The Dr didn't even offer to wean him off the meds! He left him with no meds and had him go. God so kind a friend recommended us to mushrooms (psilocybin) precisely. After his experience with shrooms five years ago till now there's no more ADHD, depression and mental disorder. Shrooms are life changing. There is no way you can put into words what it feels like..

[@cemalcanguzel3683]

Hey mates! Can you help with the source? I suffer severe anxiety, panic and depression and I usually take prescription medicine, but they don't always help. Where can I find those psilocybin mushrooms? I'm really interested in treating my mental health without Rxs. I live in Australia don't know much about these. I'm so glad they helped you. I can't wait to get them too. Really need a reliable source 🙏

[@olegkroitory304]

Yes sure, mycologist hamidshade43. I have the same experience with anxiety, addiction. Shrooms can really help break the spell. Whatever spell you may be under.

[@Why444x.]

Certainly, he's an exceptional mycologist, and i highly recommend his expertise.

[@cemalcanguzel3683]

Where do I reach this dude? If possible can I find him on insta?

[@olegkroitory304]

Yes he's hamidshade43. I know few friends who no longer suffer ptsd and anxiety with the help of shrooms. Never had to take shrooms after then.

[@polytechnica]

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” ― George Bernard Shaw

[@JerzyytheCosmic1]

Such nonsense. Someone speaking to an enlightened person, would benefit their life as opposed to what it would have been had they continued to only "communicate" with people of their same level of bruteness. This concept is idiotic, idealistic, and plain false.

[@itoibo4208]

@@JerzyytheCosmic1 I have, many times, seen how people can misunderstand something, including myself, so that the two people leave the conversation thinking they agree and yet they belive two totally different things. I can definitely see how this could be about that. Here is a random example. Person 1, Barry, eats pizza every day. Person 2, Harry, says, "Wow, you eat pizza every day!". Barry says "Yes, I do. I work at a pizza place at night." Harry leaves, believing that Barry loves pizza so much that he eats it all the time and even works with pizza. Barry, on the other hand, does not particularly like pizza, but the job was close to home, available, and getting free pizza suplements his food needs. The two have communicated, but not accurately. Harry goes around telling everyone how much Barry loves pizza, and so they make sure to have it any time Barry is around for a party. 😂

[@sha_heen]

What she calls an "illusion" is what makes agency and autonomy possible. My problem with outlets like Big Think is that they reduce scientific or philosophical debates to the perspective of the speaker who sometimes, like in this case, does not properly consider a counter argument. She is a reductionist who does not even consider fictionalism. As she mentioned, the neuroscience of agency is in its infancy. Words like "illusion" are not helpful in capturing the nuance of mythology and how through narrative and self authorship, we construct a self. Not all humans achieve an integrated idea of self; nonetheless, most do, and that idea of self is as robust as any other abstract notion humans have developed; mythology is what separates us from other biological organisms, and what has made scientific progress and our civilization possible. Having a journalist reduce a 2500 year-old philosophical debate to a simple confusion after reading a few neuroscience articles is not helpful in improving our social discourse. Such oversimplifications only further fuel polarization.

[@xrbk17x]

I am very happy to read this. Frankly, I believe it is unskillful to disseminate these ideas as they are not contained within a greater philosophical/narrative/mythological understanding. Many thanks 🙏

[@Koopsta59]

This realization makes it impossible to hate others. We are all shaped by our environment and experiences. How can anyone be blamed for who they’ve become?

[@lynlavalight]

Yes! Exactly! We would have fewer wars, etc.

[@redditionzyad946]

I used to think exactly that, believe it or not. It’s always fun to look back and see how one’s perspectives can change. This is how I think of it - if people were the helpless playthings of forces forever beyond their control, like this view and its variants suggest, we’d still be running around naked in the Savanah. If we got where we are now, it is because someone stopped at some point and saw that things could and should be different than they were, and then experimented around until his vision became a reality. People are not blind to the consequences of their actions. We can peer ahead and choose what we want it to look like. We can recall events from memory. We can tell which cause led to which result. If you deliberate and conclude that B will happen as a result of A, and that B will make things worse for you along with everyone else, that itself should override your initial “conditioning”. We can make predictions and adjust our behavior correspondingly. Do that a hundred times and you will end up a lot “free-er” than you were before you started. To say that we have “free will” doesn’t mean that we are completely immune to external influences. That’s an easy straw-man. It just means that, as opposed to other creatures, we can bring causal factors to awareness, anticipate their action, and expand our field of possibilities as a consequence. That’s what we do when we “exercise our free-will”. That’s how we see possibilities that no other animal can. To say that you don’t have free-will is a an act of free-will in itself: the choice to remain blind or to take responsibility. That’s a choice we all have to make.

[@bkbland1626]

Humans aren't fond of responsibility. ​@@redditionzyad946

[@decklanquow9709]

Yip. Who we are are shaped by biological and environmental factors.

[@ZeonGenesis]

I dunno, all I need is to hear the horrible stories of pedophiles, serial killers and dictators, and I find a pretty natural urge to throw some hate around. There is a fine balance between environment/genetics and personal responsibility, and within our human and societal frameworks, it IS very important to set boundaries and demand responsibility - or else any bad faith actor will pull the "oh, but I couldn't help it, my environment made me who I am". The difference we're looking for when we consider mitigating factors is action vs reaction - did the person act reasonably within a limited and pressing situation (reaction), or did they make decisions merely to benefit themselves (action)? Be careful not to make people sound like they have no agency or control over themselves and their actions - some will certainly take advantage of such a notion.

[@mr.c2485]

We don’t “think”…we experience thought.

[@lynlavalight]

Yes!

[@ToriZealot]

Who is we?

[@AlexReynard]

That's called thinking.

[@drurybynum9657]

This one statement has given me so much clarity on this topic. Thank you!

[@garywhite2050]

Nailed it.​@@ToriZealot

[@jeffkingston67]

I like to think of people as localized causality generators. The split-brain experiments of the 1970s, which showed how we fabricate plausible reasons for our actions after the fact, and the implications of the observer effect in quantum mechanics, both tie into the ideas explored in this video.

[@peppeniello89]

"embrace this moment, remember: we are eternal, all this pain is an illusion"

[@ToriZealot]

illusion to whom?

[@Ryanhwelton]

other cementers do not have the same TOOL kit 😉

[@outisnemo8443]

Pain is not an illusion, it's a very real phenomenon. Just because free will doesn't exist doesn't mean consciousness somehow doesn't.

[@sajaghendwe9594]

Nope

[@antedox1]

You're a tool 😛

[@ghoulbby]

It's like trying to explain to a random bacteria or cell in your body that it's actually part of a greater whole. Just as those cells are both individuals and inseparable from the greater whole, working to preserve itself _and_ the needs of the greater structure, we too are inseparable and necessary for the greater structure of Life/The One. It's capable of projecting to you a sense of unconditional love and connection to all living things and it is _intense._ Hit me like a truck while cooking as a teenager and to this day it's one of the strongest feelings I've ever felt, even relative to any drugs, familial deaths, finding a spouse cheating, etc... none compare to the intensity of that experience. But it just kind of let's you peak for a moment and it fades off after a minute or so. Never had any experiences in the decades since then but I always remember that moment and it's affected me my entire life.

[@itoibo4208]

if anything, I kind of resent the universe being the way it is. Life is based on animals killing or harming other beings to survive, where that other being is a plant or another animal. The nature of breeding introduces even more violent behaviors in many animals. Animals are often greedy as well. As we see in humans, the greedy are driven to rule and own everything they can get their hands on, and each of us has to struggle to meet our needs. "Beautiful" is not the way I would describe our existence. More like "brutal".

[@kennethcarter1323]

@@ghoulbby Much like Karl Jaspers’ final experience”.

[@commelesfemmes]

Once, under LSD, I have experienced, I have felt a strong delay between my legs moving, and me *consciously* moving y legs. To be clear, it felt like my legs move before I *take a choice* to move them. It felt like there is a very small delay, but because I was in a specific state I was able to inspect reality very closely. It felt extremely terrifying, because I felt like I have no control at all. I was not able to relax and let go, because I was scared of myself committing suicide - there were rain tracks somewhere near. Very interesting experience.

[@AlexReynard]

Comfort yourself with, the fact that you were observing this happen proves there is a self. You are an observation point.

[@PankajKumar6493]

you wouldn't be "scared" if you were not conscious.

[@AlexReynard]

@@PankajKumar6493 Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think that's true. I think the body can absolutely have purely-instinctive fear moments, out of a sense of self-preservation. In fact, if the soul is eternal, the body's fear is probably what keeps us from taking the kind of insanely-dangerous risks we would take if we thought we weren't tethered to mortal physical bodies. Like when teenagers don't fully understand consequences, and they drink and drive, or other risky behaviors.

[@PankajKumar6493]

@@AlexReynard In that case, I would say there is nothing to fear (so to speak) because the feeling of fear is also outside our control... It's not me who is scared, it's just a feeling introduced in me by something else. The more I think about it, the more it sounds absurd to me 😅

[@AlexReynard]

@@PankajKumar6493 If you're the rider, and your body is the horse, and the horse is scared, then you should probably at least pay attention. Because if the horse dies, you ain't got no transportation.

[@olvick]

Amazing video and a great takeaway on relieving the pressure we put on our ‘selves’-something I often reflect on as a cognitive neuroscience student. One thing I find unconvincing in many free will experiments is their focus on simple tasks, like button-pressing or arithmetic, which don’t capture the complexity of real-world decision making. A lot of human decisions involve deliberate reasoning and reflection, which might still be influenced by some type of free will.

[@itsamefkjionn6803]

I think this rebuttal is naive. The point is to show that the final decision is made outside of our view. If the simplest of tasks are not made with free will why would more complicated ones be? Let's say there's more considerations and your brain processes them and is ultimately left with a final decision or a series of small decisions to make. It isn't difficult to see that the big decision or the series probably reflect a "push or not push" decision. Otherwise you must make the positive case for where "freeness" enters the picture.

[@itoibo4208]

It is not free will, it is calculating logic. Whether you press a button or pick a button, is all based on your past experiences and current situation. There are so many variables, and so much information that only you can know, and even then there is much information that even you cannot be aware of. (Are you, for instance, afraid of heights? Why? Is it because you know the dangers? Is it because you had a fall once? Is it because you had a fall before you could even remember? Is it just genetic and does not even have an experience that caused it? Think about how that would affect many of your life decisions, from the type of work you would choose to do, or not, and even simple things like whether you will drive over a bridge. I read a story about people who are so afraid of heights, but still need to cross bridges, that they pay other people to drive them over the bridges. They obviously have a strong logical reason to want to cross the bridges in spite of being terrified of doing so.)

[@ondrejsaly749]

@@itsamefkjionn6803 No, the experiments are in fact criticised as meaningless...

[@itsamefkjionn6803]

@ondrejsaly749 the rationale being?

[@Samuel-hd3cp]

So interesting, I think that acting as though we are in control of our will promotes personal responsibility, encouraging us to consciously take ownership of our actions and decisions. A sense of agency and purpose is important as it can lead to greater motivation and resilience in facing life's challenges. Even if free will is an illusion, believing in it helps maintain social order and cooperation by holding us accountable for our behavior.

[@TheMisterGriswold]

It's probably adaptive.

[@PetraKann]

Do you need or want an excuse to be selfish and evil?

[@Pal3stin3ix_Lov3]

​@@PetraKannmaybe he's or she's a left brainer.. I think it's to do with the type of mindset or brain's sides. Left brainers or more of analytical and target oriented while right brainers are creative and compassionate etc😊

[@CJ0101]

Did you choose to have that opinion? If free will is an illusion, there's no choice to believe in it.

[@WhiteMouse77]

Believing Is an absolute opposite to what was described here. You don't get it. Re-think again and better please. This time consider there are many smarter And stronger humans than you who simply don't need what you find important. Grow up from your fears and insecurity first. And leave your idea of how manipulating others will give you what you want. Thank You.

[@importantname]

free, self, conscious. Discussed for over 2000 years. And we still write books about it. Theres just something that we like to discuss.

[@darylbenson9682]

With the math example, I could see myself thinking first which can I do better add or subtract. I’m not sure that would be a top level conscious decision, but it would definitely be me processing the task and then consciously proceeded to solve the problem.

[@abbeydove123]

I tend to agree. I'm not sure this constitutes evidence against free will, at least in the way the study is explained here. It makes sense to me that there would be an evaluative process prior to a decision. Likewise, the fact that a decision is made before it is articulated doesn't seem to me to be evidence against free will, necessarily. But, it's possible I'm not understanding some key element of the study design, since the presenter seems to find this to be very persuasive.

[@pernilsson2394]

@@darylbenson9682 if the participant knew about the task with subtracting or adding the the numbers, they could setcertain criteria for what would result in an addition or subtraction. Example: if only even numbers then add, in all other cases subtract. Or any other criteria for adding or subtracting.

[@katehamilton7240]

It was a relief to realise i cant be ashamed of flaws OR proud of talents, we are given our genetics and given our early experiences. After that we can control our thoughts & emotions to an extent.

[@sethmbel]

I can’t think of a more pivotal channel aside from maybe one other that puts words to the thoughts I have had. I am so grateful to your team for making those of us who may be scoffed at as daydreamers or idealists feel seen by putting these big ideas together. I love you, Big Think; I really mean it!

[@garypippenger202]

The illusions of pain, loss, and grinding poverty within my own illusion of self are the ones I have a hard time with. And free will, well it was a relief to find out THAT was not really a thing.

[@outisnemo8443]

Pain is not an illusion.

[@CollaterlieSisters]

I interpret your sarcasm as pointing out that even if one accepts that free will is an illusion, this is very VERY secondary to alleviation of suffering. If there is a connection between these two things (which I believe there is) please let us move on to the practical matter of reducing suffering.

[@chriswilliams5982]

“I know the axe murderer is not responsible for his actions, but I prefer not to take tea with him”-Albert Einstein

[@Anti79Hero]

I came here for this quote

[@pernilsson2394]

If the axe murderer is not responsible Einstein is not responsible for the discovery that gave him the Nobel prize.

[@chriswilliams5982]

@ exactly! And he said so. He said he had no choice that he was only doing what was beyond his control whether he knew it or not.

[@Andrew_M_Ward]

@@chriswilliams5982 / The tricky part for many who receive this information is what context this new discovery plays in society. No Free Will doesn't mean no accountability

[@chriswilliams5982]

@ I agree, but this has been a long held belief that is what most physicists believe, but don’t discuss a lot openly. Of course we must protect ourselves from psychopaths, but if it’s true then it throws a whole new light on crime and punishment. It’s a deep philosophical issue.

[@afikagift4061]

The realisation of self vs others, this sort of cause-and-effect nature of reality, is unsettling because it made me realise how much I'm usually uncomfortable with people around me. It's usually a feeling of obligation that makes me oversee that and force myself to actually interact with others.

[@brokkolikanone]

This is very Advaita Vedanta. And so important going forward with our human civilization, as well with our ability to love ourselves and others despite all our obvious flaws.

[@MarC-te4he]

I should hope that most of us know that we are not solid, unchanging entities. Everything in this universe shows change... constantly changing, including us.

[@jairofonseca1597]

If Consciousness is an illusion who is being deceived ?

[@altair-x]

If the consciousness is an illusion. what's there to perceive the illusion?

[@AlexReynard]

Yyyyyyup. I love how easy it is to debunk garbage videos like these. It's so convenient for bad, lazy scientists to just decide, "If we don't understand it, that proves it doesn't exist". Rather than actually getting creative in looking for ways to examine a phenomenon that literally everyone experiences every day.

[@scottmerwin2568]

@@altair-x A capacity of consciousness is it can think about itself. Even in meditation there’s a sort of “spy” that is aware of awareness. Just a comment.

[@thesamenumb5437]

@@AlexReynardspeaking of garbage videos, have you looked at the content in your channel. Yikes.

[@YouWinILose]

The self. I prefer to think of it less as an illusion, more as a story. We make narratives of our lives.

[@stephenholmgren405]

I'll never forget the podcast Sam and Annaka did together, one of the great moments was hearing how she made him laugh like a maniac

[@pbandjealous]

I find these *very controlled* experiments with fMRI experiments underwhelming in regards to telling us something about the agency that living organisms do or don't have. It's too easy to say *everything* is an illusion, and as such we gain essentially nothing from the claim. Everything is everything, tautology is tautology.

[@thstroyur]

There's a reason why we speak of the 'soft sciences'. They deal with soft facts.

[@WhiteMouse77]

Please play video again and pay attention. Thank You

[@altair-x]

@@WhiteMouse77 I did, and its even dumber the 3rd time.

[@declup]

What value, if any, do fMRI experiments have in your opinion? Would you advocate for any alternative procedures instead?

[@vipermad358]

I agree. There is very little "science" here, although she talks in that very "erudite" and controlled tone of a "smart person doing a TED talk".

[@kirstenk3791]

Doing a bit of self-inquiry (or maybe a lot) you will soon find that there is some driving force living you and free will is indeed an illusion. But your self-inquiry won't convince the thinkers of academia .....I think she is doing a really cool thing bringing these previously "spiritual" topics into scientific discourse. I love it!

[@itoibo4208]

One problem is that people often decide they will not accept a definition of free will that means actual free will, but they will accept a definition of free will that simply means having autonomy to make decisions. They will insist that this type of free will exists, and it does, but it is "free will light" and does not get to the root causes of WHY we make certain decisions based on biology and environment. What they think of as free will is simply logic, not actual free will, which no one, not even the gods in mythologies, have.

[@theofficialness578]

@@itoibo4208 Wouldn’t even say “free will light” is a thing, “choice” is experienced as a singular moment, which is ultimately the winning out of a myriad of influences. Both ‘internal’ and ‘external.’ Otherwise completely on the same page.

[@itoibo4208]

@ I am saying they do not care about the root cause of the decisions. They only care that they can make a decision. For better or worse, they are comforted by a sense that "I made this decision and I am responsible for my destiny." regardless of the fact that they merely played out a script that was based on causes they have no control over.

[@theofficialness578]

@ yes I certainly understand your point. I guess more or less I was stating a subjective assertion… i.e “It’s not that way for me”

[@PedroMendes-ed2dl]

This video is beautiful! The way she explained things was awesome. Thanks for this

[@brightphoebesays]

I've been lately quite into identifying my emotions and noting them down, almost like a tourist. It really helps, to step back and remember this is just a feeling, it will pass, and also to see what it is that I am really feeling, sometimes my feelings are out of proportion to what's actually going on, and it is good to recognize that.

[@robertsterler7091]

Annaka is a very fine intellect and expresses herself very well. However, I think there is some ambiguity in her talk which needs to be clarified. Specifically, what is the nature of consciousness and/or awareness? *Consciousness is a container for all experience, and not the experience or event itself.* If I experience a sense of self, it is just another event in consciousness, just like an external sound. The external sound or sense of self is a fleeting experience. Consciousness is ultimately deeply impersonal and transcendent. In addition, Consciousness itself is a prior experience to one’s idea of having a self. Telling people that their self is an illusion is not quite accurate. It is more precise to say that consciousness goes deeper than an image or thought of the self. We still hear the external sound, but we do not possess it. In the same regard, we experience a sense of self, but we do not possess it. There is similar ambiguity in Annika's description of free will, but a little different. Annaka cites neurological studies being able to predict one's choices before they are made. These studies are true, however, there is a difference between time and determinism. Determinism does not properly consider the concept of time in relation to consciousness. In a non-dualistic state of consciousness, time is not very apparent or necessary. In non-dual states, causality might seem irrelevant because the focus shifts from "events happening in sequence" to a holistic, indivisible experience of reality. This suggests that the subjective experience of time is not fundamental but rather constructed by the mind. Basically, pure consciousness is outside of the realm of time. It is not that time is an illusion, but that it is not necessarily a focus in pure consciousness. Time is just another event in consciousness. We all have preferences. The best example of preference for human beings is love. Love can easily be unassociated with time. I still love my mother, although she has been dead for more than 12 years. Time does not matter.

[@berczigabor]

There's no proof that the "container" you propose exists. What we know exists is/are the experiences or events. Those exist. But until you prove that there's at least a place for some kind of "container" (ie. there's anything outside of the material experiences and events) it doesn't even make sense to propose there being anything more to consciousness (ie. than some sum of experiences, as you formulated it), let alone making claims about the nature of that thing, for which there isn't even a place proven to exist.

[@robertsterler7091]

@@berczigabor Thank you for your thoughts. I will try to clarify my thinking so as to make it more digestible. The idea of a container is not original to me at all. The first recorded references are in Buddhism and Hinduism. I'm sure it goes back much further than that, but we have very little recorded documentation. A container in this context is not a physical thing, like a jug or bottle. It is more akin to a vessel or medium. We have both dualistic and non-dualistic philosophy. In dualism we have the idea that the mind and body are separate entities, with the mind being nonphysical and the body being physical. Nondualism emphasizes direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondualism emphasizes the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. A container in this context is very much nondualist.

[@berczigabor]

@@robertsterler7091 What I said stands. Until you prove at least that there's a "place": a realm, a dimension, or whatever you want to call it or whatever it is, outside and additional to the material/phyisical world, where consciousness could reside and operate, without being subject to the material world and its strict causality structure, it doesn't even make sense to propose any concept of free will based on that, because the former not only means that we don't know whether your claims is true or how to investigate the truthness of your claim, but we actually don't even have any rational reason to assume that it could be possibly true (as it's based on prerequisites which are also not proven to exist and be there in the first place). Such claims are no different in their validity than any or all the other random or nonsensical "explanations", versus the material cause and effect explanation (devoid of actual free will) which we know at least is based on concepts that we do know to actually exist.

[@robertsterler7091]

@@berczigabor I must say @berczigabor now I'm not quite sure what you are saying or asking. There are many different ways at looking at the phenomenon of consciousness. Annaka wrote a book on consciousness, and describes it very well in many different perspectives. I suggest you read her book, it is a very good and informative read. It occurs to me that you might be talking about *the hard problem of consciousness.* How does subjective experience (qualia) arise from physical processes? At this point in time, we do not have an answer to that question. This gap in understanding suggests there is a layer of "organization" we do not yet perceive.

[@outisnemo8443]

There's no such thing as any "container"; there's only the experience of consciousness itself, a continuous process.

[@Graybeard_]

We are here to experience We shouldn't take others or ourselves too seriously We should try our best and let go of the rest Always give love and pursue fun, as it here where life is best

[@h0tbr0wn]

Annaka's self chose to produce this. My self chose to watch it. Choice can by dissected and understood by subconscious parts, and more deeply by natural law, but still there's a self that chooses. It's maybe not the self people want it to be, but that's just because they haven't yet looked under the covers and made peace with what's there. A brick is mainly empty space when dissected down to particles, but at the human level it's a rock solid brick.

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

Life has tought me to listen for people to proclaim to know stuff, and that throws out claims, but when you start looking at them from other angles, they are simply false. We all have our base beliefs, and we generally tend to construct our life around them. So when this lady speaks, with strong terms like "people never get angry at a tornado" I am like: Really? Sure about that? If I challenge that, I know how plenty of people will completely gaslight me with non-sense, as I cannot be angry at stuff. Happens all the time. But the one thing they never do, is to reflect that they are ready to disclose the beliefset, the tradition, and most importantly, the weaknesses and the obvious flaws this brings. I simply do not place trust in people, who cannot do that, but tells me how everything is supposed to be interpreted, if they cannot answer why. Or seem to use misplaced knowledge, off which they do not have. I could coin expressions like "the illusion of behaviorism", "the illusion of science", and so on. It is so easy to argue based on a different tradition, a different set of core beliefs, to arrive at the negation of a lot of what is said in this vid. It is like an animal: The Bull. It probably holds some truth, if the belief is understood, if the tradition is understood through the right lens, but presented as this, well then it is like that animal. There are totally different ways to describe the false arguments offered here, and that is straight forward an utterly easy. What she claims is not knowledge, not as presented, it is a theory, a philosophy, a way to see things, and to understand the world. It is not knowledge. There just happens to be a ton of other ways to describe the world, that are just as valid, probably way more so, since they are transparent, while this seem straight out deceiving. Would be nice to get this in an honest and truthful presentation, and not a deceiving one, like this one.

[@ThePoint6]

To be honest with you, you definitely just tripped into your own logic trap. What you say the video is guilty of. You are equally, and perhaps more guilty of for presenting.

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

@@ThePoint6 Here we go. Short attacks, no arguments, just the pure attack. The thing is, that flipping an argument back at he sender, can be done in almost any case, particularly if you want to and are willing to twist things. If you red my statement carefully, actually read it, you will see that I don't trust her, given my prior experience, it come across dishonest, given my experience, and then, I actually would like to understand the actual substance of her argument presented in a fair way. Your reply, don't. Not in the slightest. Have a nice day.

[@ThePoint6]

@FrodeBergetonNilsen well it wasn't an attack. It was more of pathway to critical reflection. You should reread what you wrote as well

[@FrodeBergetonNilsen]

@@ThePoint6 Oh boy. You are one these 'I know the "pathway" you need to take.' Sorry. I am not your bunny.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

She is selling a narrative that is built on miniscule facts and details that we don't even understand. In an FMRI they could predict if the subject would do one thing or another in advance. But WHY? They have zero clue. The brain is crazy complex and layered. Can those scientists state with 100% certainty that the person didn't CHOSE that outcome on some level? Also, it is a highly controlled and contrived situation, are they certain the experiment conditions aren't impacting the outcome? No, because we currently have very little understanding of the brain. This would be like someone clueless taking a couple of voltage readings in a computer and then claiming they can predict everything the device will do. But computers are software driven, change the software and the voltage patterns would change. Point is you can't take a couple very small data points and then claim to understand a very complex system. Claiming so destroys her credibility.

[@garyinmarz8938]

True, we do not think, thoughts come to us. Live the life you have been given for this moment. But guard the thoughts who are trying to enter.

[@sandrasaturley9646]

This talk made me more convinced that we are more spirit, soul, than we are concrete entities. We are part of an incredible system of thought/consciousness that is shared. Carl Jungs concept of shared consciousness is making more sense now

[@AlexReynard]

Yeah. This was just, "Science doesn't have the tools to quantify the soul. So rather than build those tools, we'll be lazy and declare that that whole field of study doesn't exist." So convenient!

[@sandrasaturley9646]

@AlexReynard it's too bad that we are afraid of diving into areas that are still considered pseudoscience. Shows how limited our development is.

[@AlexReynard]

@@sandrasaturley9646 Hey, look at the bright side. There's videos like this on KZbin, right? There's three-hour podcasts available with all sorts of frontier thinkers swapping ideas. There was a long conversation I saw with Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins, mediated by Alex O'Connor, where these two titans of belief and atheism actually managed to find common ground by the end of the talk! They were lit up and smiling and excited, like schoolkids! Was absolutely adorable. So there's plenty of hope for us. ^__^

[@nickmagrick7702]

Carl Jung would not say that living things don't have free will.

[@AlexReynard]

@@nickmagrick7702 [Norm MacDonald voice] Especially not since he's dead!

[@fcmiller3]

I’ve read Annaka’s book, Consciousness, twice. As a practicing Zen meditator I am stuck on exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is awareness, but some say consciousness is in everything? A rock is consciousness? Hmmm… more practice is needed!!

[@itoibo4208]

It is a good question. Is there consciousness in all matter, even if only a tiny bit? Since that parts of our brains create a conscious self, what is the result of billions of humans interacting? (and all animals interacting) Is there a higher consciousness created by us, that we are unaware of? I think, logically, there should be. I am just unclear on what it would look like. Is it even aware of itself? Is it aware of us? Does all life in the universe combine into one giant brain, or do the beings have to be within close proximity to be included? One thing we do know is that being with others highly affects our behaviors. What we think and do, alone, is not the same as when we are with our loved one, or family, or at work, or in a crowd.

[@fcmiller3]

⁠@@itoibo4208great thoughts. With the 6 senses that interact with the entity called ME I can only say I Have No Idea if the desk I’m sitting at is conscious. Logically my reasoning assumes it’s not. However, it’s said we only use…10% of our brain. So it’s possible I’m just not seeing the consciousness that’s all around me!!

[@johnstephens1272]

Don't be confused into thinking the idea of free-will has been disproven based on this video, there's a number of things wrong with her argument. If she is referring to the Haynes study with the subtraction and addition and MRI prediction, she conveniently left out the accuracy of the test being about 10% better than a coin flip. This is far from showing our choices are decided for us. It may imply certain basic choices are/can be reflexive but it is far from saying that our higher level choices are just illusions (if this can't even be proven for a basic partially reflexive case). I am also not sure who she is arguing against when she says that we believe people are unchanging identity-less wills. Most free-will believers believe you can change who you are based on your choices, and the way you act does in fact chance you. It is almost like assuming complete naturalism allows you to conclude there is no free will...

[@jeffcd3559]

It's easy to see unfree-willistic action outside of ourselves because it is outside of ourselves. We can't see it in ourselves because the aspect we are attributing it to is ourselves and we can't get outside that.

[@ak2n218]

I have been considering free will and its illusion for years. It is an incredibly interesting phenomenon, Annaka does a great job explaining it and how illusory it is. Thank you.

[@TimeGhost7]

I use free in free will to denote my freedom from other wills. Annaka denotes free as freedom from cause and effect in the process that makes up will itself. I recognise for example my beliefs are prior to my will process, thus constraining my will, but I don't feel the need to call free will an illusion, due to knowing its a causal process. With respect to our selves, in any single interaction we store a relation to an action, which presumes ourselves static, as our sense of self is likely added to the recollection of a memory relation (and we make those memories distant if they don't compile well). The illusion can be when we enter the mode of self-affirmation with our words, as a story to stabilise our mind. I consider our sense of self a pragmatic barrier, and seeing past it by naming it "illusion" will not dispell it, yet affords insight. The illusion I find fine to name here, as taking it too seriously, should go past the value of naming things, to self-correct what "illusion" means.

[@RobinMayGuitar]

When Annaka is trying to be clear about complex topics, I wish she would be clearer in her use of language. Thoughts are not feelings. "We feel like.." is incredibly wishy-washy language to decribe a strongly held belief. Feelings are always real - physical sensations within our bodies. Thoughts are often completely false.

[@ToriZealot]

Exactly, non-scientic babbling from her side

[@jonathanmitchell8698]

​@@ToriZealot Viewed from one angle, thoughts are "about" the world and may be "false". Viewed from another angle, thoughts are objective/real occurrences in the mind which we can observe just as we can observe feelings. I do think Annaka Harris is using "feel like" in a broader sense than the hedonic-tone sense of feeling (e.g. pleasure/pain/desire/aversion), but I don't think her usage is necessarily wrong. I think she is using it to refer to something like the "qualia" involved in our engagement with thought. Thoughts, as I mentioned above, can be viewed as events in the mind, in which case our choice to engage with them as pointers to "truth" in the external world is driven by something more fundamental: a propensity to act as if thoughts point (whether rightly or wrongly) to facts about the world. That propensity is external to the thought itself (and thought's role as a pointer), and - I think - is indistinguishable from the qualia associated with the processes that give rise to thought; in other words, we end up treating thoughts like pointers to facts in the external world exactly *because* we feel (in the "qualia" sense) that they bear some relation to the external world. The chain of thoughts terminates in qualitative feelings.

[@ToriZealot]

@@jonathanmitchell8698 thank for the long response, but who receives the illusion? What is your true nature?

[@Anti-Patrocinio]

It is also helpful to include our equally distorted notions of time simultaneously with these two ideas because it intimately affects the false sense of localized separate or finite "realities" that we habitually tend to assume .

[@supernormalizedpodcast]

The A-ha moment comes when one realises that the authentic self is all there ever is/was before the narrative scripts of life pile on to distort that truth.

[@lynlavalight]

Yes!

[@AlexReynard]

Yep. so think about what kind of person would tell others such an enormous lie as, 'There is no self'. She literally couldn't tell a bigger lie.

[@VermontScaleCustoms]

I think it's pretty essential to walk around and think about the Earth being a sphere. Imagining time and your own relevance in that scale helps place you. If you think in terms of the Earth being flat and time is a constant in a plane, you deny yourself and others knowing that everyone is experiencing time together. "Be the ball, Danny, be the ball." - Caddyshack Proverb

[@caricue]

I had to wait for the very last line to get the real truth. If you were raised with unbearable guilt, that's something you need to work on inside yourself, there is no need to try to destroy society to try to help yourself.

[@vipermad358]

Why not?😂

[@caricue]

@@vipermad358 I know you are being sarcastic, but egotists like this woman and her husband will never look inside and admit that they are the very thing they are fighting so hard against. Peace.

[@lynlavalight]

Absolutely agree. We learn to release the trauma stored in our body minds and the view of what is gets clearer and clearer. You can start to travel lighter in this life.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

Brains can malfunction having chemical or structural issues and that isn't the fault of the individual. But those are defects to be researched, treated and hopefully cured in the future. Does not mean people don't have agency and aren't responsible for their choices. Her claiming that seems to be her wanting to give people a plausible excuse not to feel responsible. But that is irresponsible BS.

[@Dalabombana]

@@Me__Myself__and__Ii wonder if both ideas can be true? Though I feel we are a product of our circumstances and if say childhood trauma damages the neural networks in the brain whilst it is growing, it’s logical to consider that upbringing has a bearing on outcome as a ‘successful adult’. It’s harder to make healthy decisions with a damaged brain. Trauma, environment, community and availability of opportunity all contribute to a person’s ability to make positive choices. I don’t think having empathy or understanding why something is likely to happen is excusing it. However I do feel things would be better for a humans with less judgement and more compassion. Less trauma. Healthier minds. Fewer wars. Our world is a pretty harsh environment for so many and a lot of societies are toxic.

[@f_lawless7689]

Fun subject to talk about, that is to say, who's talking or listening nevermind the details. Thank you x

[@jerryqu4998]

Although it very well may be true, no one can prove our decisions are just an emergent property of complex physics. Our understanding of physics is incomplete and largely based on statistical observations. For all we know our underlying reality could simply be consciousness.

[@declup]

It could be. Should we act differently if it is? Can we act differently if it is?

[@jerryqu4998]

@@declup Not sure, perhaps we should/could in the future if we gain more understanding

[@rbferreira85]

In advanced buddhist meditation it’s possible to perceive that the underlying reality is consciousness and this realization changes the mind profoundly in the direction of ultimate freedom from suffering. So yeah id say its really relevant

[@jerryqu4998]

@@rbferreira85 Why does it lead to freedom from suffering?

[@DendrocnideMoroides]

It’s very unlikely. If we had some magical consciousness or soul, then why do brain injuries and diseases affect our personality (and literally everything else about us)? Why do different regions of our brain activate when we think about different things? There are even technologies that can predict what we are thinking based on our brain activity (though they are still primitive). Why can electrical stimulation of brain regions create vivid experiences? How can hallucinogens create vivid experiences? The soul theory of consciousness is like saying rockets only fly because of magic; however, if there is even a slight imperfection in the design, the magic will not work. The design has to be precisely such that science allows it to fly, but ultimately, it will fly because of magic.

[@planetfocus911]

I find that true insight is hardly reached by delving into our innermost mental recesses (not to mention the dark recesses of the psyche) for enlightenment, but rather by forgetting about the self and by acknowledging our part in a wider scheme and a greater reality- however one is capable to perceive such reality. This may lead to inner peace anyway. To put it more philosophical: "Before the study of Zen waters are only waters and mountains are only mountains. With the first flicker of insight into Zen, waters become more than only waters and mountains more than only mountains. With true enlightenment waters once again become only waters and mountains only mountains. - Unknown Zen philosopher

[@patikrysiuk6683]

Free will is something like driving a car. It's a metaphor, in case someone doesn't understand. First, someone drives you, and you sit and watch. Then someone teaches you and checks you so you don't have an accident. And then you drive yourself. Of course, everything within the rules of the road, physics, and so on. But the degree of freedom is already much greater than at the beginning, when you were sitting on the sidelines. So we can say that the so-called free will is not a specific level, beyond which someone has it. It is a certain axis, along which we move sometimes towards greater autonomy, and sometimes towards less. Our brain uses restrictions and freedom at the same time. So in one area you can move towards autonomy, and in another you regress and part of your brain acts for you as an autopilot. It is hard to assimilate this, which is why people programmed for black-and-white thinking can only think that either something is or something is not. And this is a mistake. Just primitive splitting. Look at free will like a program that is turned on and off for some tasks. It is turned on by other programs. Your Self is one of the programs that can turn it on. But Self itself can't operate without other programs in the background. They all are interconnected.

[@anukpersad4808]

Is the word free will superlative that is to say it is not applicable in the contex of isit or is it not free will is applicable in the contex of

[@kelleyrc5671]

Excellent explanation, thanks

[@berczigabor]

The actual autonomy you have in the world is zero in the sense you mean it. When faced with any decision with multiple possible outcomes, you will and can only pick one - which is determined by past decisions and past events. You have no actual free will to determine which to pick, you'll always pick the one you think is the best to achieve your goals and meet your priorities - whatever those are, but which are also determined and ready-made at that point in time. You literally can not make a choice or decision othen than what's dictated by your past and the past of the universe, as cause.

[@richardmccabe2392]

How can you have any control whatsoever if, at any point, the brain can completely override you with its automatic decision making? It just shows that most of the time when we are doing and acting in everyday life, we already are in autopilot mode, but we mistakenly believe we are in complete control, like a child on a father's lap who thinks they are the ones steering the driver's wheel. It's only when you get into situations where the more automatic habit circuitry takes over that you see the body fully and completely doing things on its own that it feels like the brain has "temporarily" taken over. No, it was always in control. The body and mind does not need your sense of self manually doing things for it.

[@thatpsychologyguy]

I love to listen to Sam & Annaka through their app. What a phenomenal experience - to dissolve all existing constructs and experience the totality of everything.

[@michaelnice93]

I didn’t know that she works with Sam Harris but while she was speaking it sounded just like him. He’s made a set of assumptions and is working to try and justify them scientifically so there are a bunch of leaps scientifically and logically that must be made to follow along. This is not science it’s spiritual speculation wearing a scientific beard.

[@xpndblhero5170]

I think my biggest eye-opening experience was a Heros Dose situation where I lost all control of "self" and realized we're all living in a facade of humanity and that broke my brain.... It was terrifying but I suggest everyone to do it at least once in life. 😊

[@newpilgrim]

Buddhist meditation techniques, and I'd wager Hindu techniques can also 'get you there'.

[@eugenezdziennicki1638]

Been there. Many times lol 7,8, 16 grams. Outta here

[@c.t5136]

Free will exists, it is not an illusion but comes from a place of absolute need or bravery. Many have not been in those places so wouldn't understand it. That's where the biology/ 'nature' kicks in. When one is put in a position where one needs to survive or die, then the self really appears, and as I previously said, many are privileged to have not been in that position. Knowing thyself is the most enlightening and powerful place to be in.

[@Allaboutdualipa]

So true!

[@Gato.Cabide]

The Spontaneous Self is a great book that talks about this, it changed my view of the world

[@StevenGatleySr]

I'm glad you made this video it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $34k monthly and a good daughter full of love...

[@MohammedTheodore]

wow this awesome I'm 47 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@SantiagoChrisley]

Wow 😲 have heard a lot of wonderful things about mrs Elizabeth Regina nelsen on the news but didn't believe it until now. l'm definitely trying her out😇

[@SergeantmajorPhilip]

What I fancy most about her is that, she communicate to you your progress every week. I wonder how many clients she's got and how she keeps up with the weekly update to every single one,

[@LusshweleFarmington]

Such information we don't get from most KZbinrs, how do I connect her?

[@jamesliamedward5915]

Omg 😳 This is the kind of information that we don't get from most KZbinrs I will get in touch with her right now

[@calmxi]

Anger is temporary insanity, never appropriate, never useful, never the wise response

[@eunomiac]

I don't buy it. 1) It's unclear what exactly you're arguing. On one hand, you say self-awareness and free will are illusions. But then you discussed at great length things that really don't counter these ideas: Fine, the brain is a process. Fine, we aren't fully aware of everything going on inside our skulls. Fine, our brain blurs our perception of time. But none of this suggests that belief in free will is analogous to believing in a Flat Earth --- it simply means that our understanding of consciousness and free will is still in its infancy. Which brings me to my next point: 2) We do not understand our brains. Period. The human brain is, by a significant degree, the most complicated ordered system we know of in the Universe---and the phenomenon of conscious self-awareness seems to be its core feature. There is insufficient evidence to conclude much about its properties or how they relate to known physical laws like cause and effect---certainly not enough to overturn the evidence of our senses and experience (unlike a Flat Earth). Being well beyond the frontiers of our understanding, it is well within the realm of possibility that consciousness behaves counterintuitively, in ways that seem to violate even a principle as fundamental as cause and effect. Hell, both relativity and quantum physics already do that, and they aren't nearly as mysterious or poorly understood. 3) Regarding the FMRI scans of people making decisions: I don't buy this as evidence against free will. It simply shows that making a decision isn't instantaneous, but a process that takes some four seconds. You say as much yourself. What you _don't_ say is how this undermines the concept of free will or self-awareness, because it doesn't.

[@bavingeter423]

Beautifully said, and a complete slam dunk. Sam and Annaka Harris have both made careers out of this gaslighting. It’s honestly disgusting, especially since I’ve heard many stories of people who were mentally unwell who suffered mental or schizophrenic breaks due to listening to Sam’s waking up app about these topics.

[@eunomiac]

@@bavingeter423 Whoa there, simmer down. Sam Harris is one of my favourite intellectuals, and one of the few serious scientists interested in exploring the real frontiers of consciousness, whether it be his empirical presentation of meditation or his support for therapeutic psychedelics. I disagree with him on the subject of free will, but I find his arguments as reasonable and as cogent as they always are (I just think he's missing point #2 in my objection). I didn't even know who Annaka was until you just made the connection for me. She doesn't strike me as quite the same level of intellect :P

[@bavingeter423]

@@eunomiac they’re both clever to be sure, but personally I can’t stand them and I’ll tell you why. They found their grift years ago and have been preaching the same message ever since, and it’s because it’s what sells their books and gets them podcast appearances. Sam Harris eliminates free will and annaka focuses on the “non-existence” of the self primarily. To go further, they’re both philosophically illiterate apparently. They extrapolate very liberally and realllllly stretch the data from the neuroscience to support these claims. There are quite a few other people in this area who are just as, if not smarter than they are, who know the same things they do, and who reach very different conclusions of the data. I’m sure they’re decent enough people, they strike me as being thoughtful individuals who live an honest life for the most part, not to mention that they’re parents and I appreciate that. But…they are “public intellectuals” all the same whose money making capabilities depend on them not changing their views and spewing the same grift over and over and over again. Normally I wouldn’t care, but this particular grift is really harmful like others have said. I know of too many stories of people who were on the edge of sanity, or suffering from mental health problems who crossed over into schizophrenic breaks due to listening to Sam harris’ waking up meditations about free will and the self. And for a last point, I also just find all their talking points about this subject to be completely useless. Literally, what benefit does a person who lives a normal life receive from this?

[@eunomiac]

@@bavingeter423 I think you've let your disagreement with Harris about Free Will (a disagreement I share) overly color your opinion of the man. After all, this topic is a relatively small part of Sam Harris' body of work -- and in every one of his debates on the topic, he's very careful and circumspect about the way he distinguishes what he knows and what he believes. For example, not a whiff of it is mentioned at any point in his guided meditations --- quite the opposite, they're _all about_ being aware of the self, of thoughts, of sensations. There's nothing ascientific, pseudoscientific, "New Age", or anything to them. So I find it very hard to believe _multiple_ people in your life have been driven to insanity by Sam Harris' series of "Waking Up" meditations. Honestly, you should try the free 8-min one that's been up on KZbin for years --- go in with an open mind, and just follow the instructions. I will be _shocked_ if you find something not to like. It's great. Like taking a mental shower.

[@bavingeter423]

@ I don’t know these people personally, I’ve just read many accounts online as well as followed psychotherapists who specifically dealt with several people who had mental breakdowns due to Sam Harris’ meditations and other like-minded meditation teachers, but very specifically Sam Harris and the waking up app were discussed. I don’t necessarily disagree with Harris about his opinion on free will, I’m agnostic about free will. I think discussion about it is pointless and a total waste of time and energy, for many reasons. The reason why I don’t like Sam Harris is because i genuinely think he’s a grifter and is nowhere near as intelligent as he wants you to think. I can appreciate his attempts to bridge morality to a modernist paradigm, as well as Buddhist teachings in a way that he thinks will be helpful to people. I just can’t stand his unfounded intellectual arrogance, that’s all.

[@biglightball]

This is the best take on the subject of "free" will and deterministic world that I've seen in a few years since I'm almost fanatically interested in this subject. I suppose that it may even be the the best among all of the future takes that I'll ever encounter. Thank you so, so much for this.

[@ToriZealot]

Illusion to whom? What is we? Did you really understand?

[@biglightball]

@ToriZealot ?

[@ToriZealot]

​@@biglightballwhat?

[@biglightball]

@@ToriZealot is your comment related to mine?

[@AlexReynard]

All she did was the equivalent of saying, "We know that a computer is a machine. We know how it works. Therefore, the user interacting with it does not exist."

[@luischang2566]

This is what Alan Watts talked about.

[@lynlavalight]

And what practicing Buddhists and Hindus and Christian mystics have known for centuries.

[@martingoldfire]

Because of how I live, I notice changes in who I am regularly. For 6 years I have actively gone all in on changing who I am, using my knowledge of psychology, philosophy, and taking huge, regular doses of psychedelics. This allows me to recognize, quite often, that I react and think differently in every day situations, as if decades and not weeks have passed. I'd love to take an FMRI to see if my peculiar lifestyle has left its mark on the old noggin🧠

[@AndreideLosSantos]

Mushrooms?

[@martingoldfire]

@AndreideLosSantos Once in a while, but for use as a tool I prefer LSD, like today💨👍

[@shadw4701]

Did they ever account for the fact we spend most of our lives on autopilot? This could easily skew the test results. There is a spectrum of awareness from autopilot to lucidity. Practicing mindfulness will make you better at judgment and decision making. There's also lucid dreaming which if free will is real is the ultimate expression of it. With lucid dreaming you can do practically anything if it's a controlled lucid dream and you know how to manage your subconscious schemas

[@user-hb5qs7sy2v]

So what drives you towards such control. Why do you want it.

[@user-hb5qs7sy2v]

So what drives you towards such control. Why do you want it.

[@shadw4701]

@user-hb5qs7sy2v Nothing. I just like dreams in general and lucid dreaming is another way I get to explore them

[@shadw4701]

Nothing. I just like dreams in general and lucid dreaming is another way I get to explore them

[@petrucho130]

This is exactly what she said about the default mode of our brain.

[@theWinterWalker]

The Illusion of Self and lack of free will needs to be taught to children. They NEED to know how they interpret and process information. Because despite Anikas opinion that we should put this information in the background is directly what leads to selfish, narcissistic behavior. It's what allows you to participate in a reality based on artificial scarcity and manufactured competition that sacrifices the most VULNERABLE human beings among us. We are a single unified organism that each are a conscious agent recording our perceptions of the physical world. Our collective experience is the collective unified consciousness.

[@atharchaudhry5725]

Madam you described and explained the complex phenomenon so well 👏

[@Simulera]

How you describe the plant “choices” for a plant wrapping itself around something is much better described using Euler-Lagrange sorts of formalism and the idea(s) of least effort than adding an unexplainable/unobservable homunculus having free will. As you use free will in that case, it becomes “folk science”-style and is a conceptual dead end for the idea of free will eventually finding really any scientific future. Just as least refracted light paths travel on least effort lines that, folk-science style, seem to involve photons making choices, the light paths are totally accounted for by variational accounting of energy without an internal personality to define “choosing” those paths. No choosing or decisions are actually required of the photons although, casually, it sure sort of looks that way. There are uncountable such examples. The principals of energy and the associated formalisms of variational methods are, together with associated thermodynamics, broadly general. Even ubiquitous. They apply across topics and situations to the extent that it is hard to imaging physical description of much of anything without them. And they are both explanatory in the sense formalizable, theoretically consilient, and testable; moreover, they are predictive and practically useful across real world situations. There remain phenomena that connect to energetics but cause complications, e.g., the complexity issues of chaotic processes arise in the plant illustration as well as many others and are not absolutely, totally figured out, although there is a lot known. Also there are situations in the world where indisputable decision-making is causal and, in those, I would personally say that the free-will question remains and is vexingly not understood or even characterized properly as a question to theoretically and rigorously understand. Yet. But I don’t think it means we must then specifically just say that means there is free will in chaotic processes, per se. However it seems clear enough that agency and causal decisions do exist in natural forms and deserve respect, even if we don’t yet fully know what that means. But the plant example, as I see it, goes down a bad path in the name of intuition-building examples of a something out there we might want to mythologize and just call free will. Respectfully, I think doing that actually confuses the issue considerably rather than clarifying it. That is, to my mind, indeed the best description of the actual associated illusion.

[@alst4817]

I’ve been thinking about this for years, and in general I lean towards lack of self and free will, however I still think there are problems with the thesis: if we have no free will, why are we unhappy if we have to do something we don’t want to? Why are we happy when we follow our ‘will’?

[@WolvesOfApollo]

Aristotle never used the term free-will. This is an academic term invented during what Strauss called the modern scientific development. The better thinkers simply talked about volition versus non-volition, but then integrated choice with pleasures and pains, which is sort of what you are naturally deducing as well. Good job!

[@marcusaurelius8303]

A person's emotional state has nothing to do with the concept of free will. Emotions are an evolved mechanism designed to guide organisms toward behaviors that enhance their chances of survival and reproduction - essentially, to pass on their genes to the next generation. For example, we feel good when eating fatty and sugary foods because, in the environment of our ancestors, such high-energy resources were scarce and vital for survival. However, in modern Western societies, where food scarcity is no longer an issue, consuming these excess calories can harm our health. These emotional responses are rooted in evolutionary psychology, not free will.

[@chewbrocka6833]

Because we are evolved machines. Our bodies adapt they aren't 100% powerful. They also make mistakes and are not 100% predictive machines.

[@alst4817]

@@marcusaurelius8303 not sure how that answers my question! I’m well aware of evolutionary adaptive theories of emotions. It doesn’t explain why I am unable to, for example, adapt to being imprisoned and be just as happy as if I were living freely. If I had no self and no free will, surely any outcome would be as preferable as any other?

[@marcusaurelius8303]

@@chewbrocka6833 We are evolved "machines" with limitations, but those imperfections don't imply free will. Emotions and desires stem from evolutionary mechanisms, not agency. Mistakes and unpredictability reflect our biology's complexity, not free will existence.

[@mwarnas]

This means absolutely nothing to me. Amazed to read the comments. There really is a sucker born every minute.

[@Insight0109]

Freedom that does not affect the rights of others is true freedom; freedom that violates others is hidden ego.

[@WhiteMouse77]

... you should watch more documentary about wild nature

[@Fab666.]

@@WhiteMouse77we hold higher standards

[@WolvesOfApollo]

@Fab666. We hold them as much as we can but then they get dropped a lot

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

​@@WolvesOfApolloBecause some individuals choose to favor themselves and their egos even if they know it harms others.

[@joshchapman4753]

I think she’s just trying to say we are organic algorithms and I agree. We (A) interacts with B, and does C and it moves up in complexity. Just like her description of the pea tendril moving to wrap itself around the vine or whatever, A (pea tendril) interacts with B (Vine) and does C (wrap itself around it. The study that proves a decision is made before we think we’ve made it. Just goes to show our consciousness is just a tool basically to cofabulate a story to explain to ourselves where we are. Like when we walk into a room and have forgotten why so we come up with “oh it was to grab some water”. We do what we do below those thoughts because we are just organic algorithms like plants and all the other animals. The difference is we can record things and store knowledge for later use. So we build complex things through collaborations of information, but we are still forced to only act within the parameters allowed by the organic algorithms. I can’t choose to build a steam engine having never seen or heard of one, nor have access to the tools to build it. But I can go outside and kick a spherical sac of air around because the other kids are doing it. If someone asked me what I was doing I’d say football.

[@Nopse6]

Unfortunately, the world is still running on "the brain works magically"!

[@lfcrags9715]

It does. That’s the point of this video. Is in automation. There’s nobody controlling or doing the brain, it just functions, you could call it magic or just life flowing

[@mikemo4252]

But it does. It's only the definition of "magic" which varies.

[@TaliaMellifera]

thankyou for reminding me! ❤

[@sardonicsisyphus]

Sam is one lucky man, not only is she as intelligent as he is. she's beautiful, articulate and easy to listen to. I have read his books now I will definitely read Annaka's.

[@munchinkin]

counciousness havent even been explained or "discovered" as there still the existence of the hard problem of counsiousness and nothing proves anything for or against free will ... thus all these videos of free will vs no free will are just discussions and not relevant without any hard real proof on either sides ... this is only speculations

[@Soulful_Oatmilk]

I suppose consciousness could be in the discussion of free will, but so far as which proposition has the burden of proof, I would argue that it's on the claim of free will rather than determinism. We can trace conscious decision making to a source or experience with exploring, and brain chemistry but free will would imply that it is free of causation that originates from the beginning of the universe. That's difficult to prove.

[@CarlKeeling1881]

💯

[@shadw4701]

I think free will is a spectrum. You can have free will for example by practicing mindfulness. During these mindful states you're more attentive and make better judgements. During autopilot you're at the other end of the spectrum

[@petrucho130]

The brain scan during decision making are quite close to legit prof and I cannot call them speculations.

[@joeseabreeze]

@@petrucho130Exactly

[@Jade15888]

This is something I started to see on myself. I started to recognize my allergic reaction on my body/skin particularly, in my case. I didn't realize it's coming from the situation that can be regarded as an "abuse". Doesn't the same thing can be applied to our authentic self? My authentic self/higher self/the number 9(in my thought) is the new perspective for only people who experienced the enlightenment naturally. I am not entirely sure in regards of psychedelics, even microdosing, but from what I can suspect; I wouldn't try any psychedelics without specialist. 🤨😱😢🧐🤑🤯🙈🙉🙊🤷

[@freesk8]

We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process is deterministic. We have free will even under conditions of causal determinism.

[@bubbleworld4172]

What do you mean by "we"?

[@freesk8]

@@bubbleworld4172 I mean you and I mean me and I mean all other functioning human beings.

[@TimotheeHowland]

You may be conflating free will with responsibility/agency. Loss of responsibility is often what people fear when they cling to free will. I very much understand your first statement. However, the fact that we are the process of decision making points only to agency in decision making. That our decision making is an outcome of what we are points to determinism and thus away from freedom. A machine IS the process of whatever it does. It is therefore fully responsible for what it does. (In the sense that another machine cannot be blamed. ... unless it affected the first machine in some way... ) It still does not do it freely.

[@freesk8]

@@TimotheeHowland I'm a compatibilist. I think that subatomic particles interact in deterministic ways. If we could know the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at any one time, to perfect precision, we could predict any condition in the future at any time. We are a very complex process that produces our decisions. We DO that, even if we do it at an unconscious level. That is the sense in which I think we have free will. We are therefore responsible for our actions, even if they are totally determined.

[@TimotheeHowland]

@@freesk8 So I did correctly call out the conflation, which you repeated. And that is indeed what most determinists hold against compatibilists: the redefinition of free will. That said, I do agree with you on all the science and ethics. One could and should act as if responsible for one's actions, and society should hold individuals accountable. The questions are then "what do we mean by responsible? Deserving of punishment? Deserving of training? What do we mean by holding accountable? Taking something away from an offender (money, time) because of something his molecules lacked? Locking up dangerous ones to protect others?" I've heard/read comptabilist Daniel Dennett and determinist Sam Harris go back and fourth, and I find Sam Harris to do a better job explaining how ethics and society do not require free will, and how acknowledging that we have no free will - but do have the ability to choose - will make a better society, more compassionate and rehabilitating rather than only punative and shaming.

[@tswierczek]

It's quite freeing to realize that we are nothing but biological things in a universe of may different things, and we aren't special in any way. None of us chose a single thing about our lives.

[@katehamilton7240]

We didn't choose our genetics or early experiences but after that we can have some control our thoughts & feelings

[@mattiasberggren2050]

Presenting subjective opinions like they were objective truths. In my opinion: Free will & "the self" are not illusions, they are emergent phenomena.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

Agree 200%. There is very little factual in this video and the few tiny facts presented are extrapolated shamelessly to tell her desired narrative. Crap like this is why the public is losing respect for science

[@davidagiel8130]

I feel like that experiment doesn't really answer much. Basically, the signal fired for adding and subtracting are different, so as soon as you see where the signal is coming from or it's frequency, then you know what they are going to do. But, that's just the signal of the choice, it doesnt mean there was no choice.

[@Jade15888]

I was trying to discuss about this with my kids yesterday. They didn't get it at all.

[@WolvesOfApollo]

They have not been introduced to doctrines of mommyocracy yet

[@Jade15888]

@WolvesOfApollo 😂

[@kap4020]

how old are they? obviously age is important. The app _Waking Up_ has a kids / youth section. it takes a fair amount of self-awareness and meta-cognition to "get it". this idea doesn't make sense to most adults, let along kids. here's a simple kid-friendly example: having a song stuck in your head. most of us (everyone?) have had this happen to us. did you pick what song got stuck in your head? no, of course not. can you get it out of your head? no, that's why it's stuck in there. well, if your brain is randomly deciding which song to obsess over, and for how long, imagine all the other things it's doing you're not even aware of, and what effects it's having on your "decisions". I also like this "self-experiment": think of a movie, any movie. take a minute to really think about it, there's no time pressure. do it again, and this time, notice how the process goes. first, your mind probably zooms through a hundred different movies. then you pick one or two. "hmm, not in the mood for action. I'll go with drama." I picked _Shawshank Redemption_. if there's such a thing as free will, you gotta be able to find it here. there's no time crunch, no one is pressuring you. however, did you really pick those two movies? how? did you control which two movies your roulette wheel of a brain picked? you do this experiment enough times, and you realize you don't know how or why you pick a movie. extrapolate from there: if you pay attention to your thoughts, you'll notice you don't control which thoughts pop up. they just appear, seemingly out of nowhere. "I'm in the mood for BBQ pulled pork tonight." most of our decisions, however, are not as clear cut as the movie example. you're in a rush, hormones are pumping, we're stressed out, tired. I'll shut up now ;)

[@vipermad358]

Because it makes no freaking sense. Kids are smart.

[@vipermad358]

@@kap4020You should have shut up earlier and saved the effort. Your silly response is fact free!

[@LoreFriendlyMusic]

Free will is not an illusion. It is literally your own will. You can't choose what you want but you are still free to want it. Free will. Yes, you are bound to choose what the many parts of you ultimately believe is best for you... but would you really have chosen otherwise? Even if you decided to do something stupid, just to prove that you don't always do what you deem best... in that moment you would deem doing that stupid decision the best to satisfy your anxiety of being bound to make the best choice. There is no escaping it, yet you have perfectly free will. Thinking otherwise is seeing only half the truth.

[@DexterGraphic]

So there's no self, no volition, no responsibility, and no purpose to our existence! What a wonderful philosophy! Essentially you're telling people that life is meaningless. I wonder what consequences that will have on society?

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

Exactly but also that people are not responsible for their choices and actions. Commit a violent act? Oh you poor soul, you deserve sympathy because you had no choice. Dangerous BS pseudo-science is what this is. She should be ashamed, but maybe she's one of the 2% that are psychopaths.

[@DexterGraphic]

@@Me__Myself__and__I It's not even that much. There's simply nobody there. Complete emptiness. Nihilism.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@DexterGraphic Maybe. I totally don't understand this defeatist, loser mentality of shirking all responsibility and denying self control.

[@picmanjoe]

Yeah, pretty much bollocks.

[@DexterGraphic]

​@@Me__Myself__and__I Who knows why some people go insane. Maybe it's a mind virus that infects the souls of those who don't have a firm grip on reality?

[@ZeonGenesis]

I think we can have a sense of Self, a sense of being, of experiencing, of existing, that ISN'T separate from the physical world. We know we have it, intuitively; the origin of this Self, the experiencer, is pain - we feel pain which ought to be just a processing of data but it isn't. We know that we're purely physical beings (flesh robots) and yet something as illogical as being someone who can experience still exists. We start out in the world accepting this one unverifiable fact that we are here, experiencing. Those that don't, well, they tend to veer off into psychosis. Theoretical physicists are exploring the idea of quantum mechanics being a part of consciousness, which would actually allow for the existence of 'free will'. Consciousness could very well be the golden ratio between quantum probability and determinism, much like everything in the universe seems to be made out of contradictions, even at the atomic level (opposite charges). I like to distinguish between two realities, the conceptual human experience made out of narratives and actual reality made of the laws of physics and cause and effect - the second can be experienced if you lack dopamine and do a 'hero dose' of shrooms where all meaning is removed from the world, all pleasure, sadness, etc., where the world just becomes cold hard facts, the result of locality. It's a quite torturous experience compared to the human experience. We need meaning the way we are programmed in order to thrive, but it is possible to embrace true reality - and all the universe's unknown potential mysteries - even within our comfortable world of narratives.

[@jonathanspear850]

Everything is a process. Self awareness of decision making or perceptions or other mental processes takes time so we need imagination to predict those processes and experience life in real time rather than lagging. The experiment proved that we take time to make, communicate and implement a decision. Most of this process is unconscious but will is involved. Free will appears nonsensical given we have real world constraints and limited information to inform our decisions. But most likely we do have will. Otherwise we are merely automata and passengers without responsibility or the capacity to learn, adapt and evolve.

[@Faenwolf]

Once I rose above the noise and confusion Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high... [Carry On Wayward Son by Kansas]

[@rdkuffel]

Your comparison of our “free will” to other natural phenomena, such as a wave, is so graspable and compelling. It is the clearest, most relatable explanation I have heard. Thank you.

[@vipermad358]

Also, makes no sense. She literally compared a CAT to a WAVE. Very different things.

[@BIIOTLABS]

They are not glitches but they are part of creativity of the brain. Certain times if you are organized you don't want a chaos out of someones creativity unless it benefits you. Just because you are given freesom of choice you can't keep saying wrong things smiling like a lunatic.

[@TraianoLiberatore]

Only our rulers are allowed free will and identity.

[@granitfog]

I would have like the speaker to have said more to contrast the Default Network (DN) from the Task Positive Network (TPN), but that may have been beyond the time allowed. It is the DN (earlier called the Default Mode Network) that manufactures the sense of self, is primarily involved with self-referential thinking (everything about or concerning me) and often referred to as internally directed, vs the TPN that about sensing and respond to the external environment in the usual form of tasks, and often referred to as externally directed. The two networks are anticorrelated under most cercumstances, meaning the more active one is the less the other is activated, (like the single speaker knob controling where the sound goes). Excess activation of the DN is one of the causes of anxiety and depression, as well as other maladies. Meditation, which is inovlves concentrating impersonally, deactivates the DN in favor or the TPN, and is associated with a more tranquil (and less self conscious) state.

[@IcarusFlyby]

Annaka Harris provides us with the illusion that what she is saying makes sense. It does not. mostly a word salad of subjective terms 'illusion' 'self' and 'free will' concatenated with random references to neuroscience, 'loaded' terminology and some pretty pictures - she does have a nice smile and we are preprogrammed by biology, culture, epigenetics etc that influence the choices we make - but we make choices

[@AKnittersHomestead]

absolutley amazing!

[@shan80luvs]

When are we going to start teaching this to our first graders in a way that they can understand and use it through throughout life this should be a class in every education educational system for every grade level. If this is reinforced, our society could be so much better.

[@WhiteMouse77]

When? As soon as we give up on being planet of oppression and slavery.

[@kenhoover1639]

Wow! You just blew my mind!

[@AaronMartinProfessional]

Annaka Harris seems to have a very lighthearted way of using the word “Truth”. Saying, “because atoms obey the laws of cause and effect we cannot have free will” is making a category error. We do not explain the movement of the free markets through the laws of physics. We explain it through our understanding of economy. We do not explain evolution in terms of physics, we explain it with our understanding of natural selection. Saying “natural selection occurs, because atoms.” isn’t actually explaining anything. That is like saying, “I should eat ice cream for dinner, because atoms.” They are two different categories - morality (the problem of what to do next) and physics. Just because one is a good explanation of parts of the world, it does not mean it can explain everything - like Gödel proved in mathematics. Good explanations are at the heart of understanding the world. I believe David Deutsch puts it well when he says (paraphrasing) that we can’t disperse of concepts like Free Will or Consciousness easily, as long as we haven’t solved the problem of Creativity. With quantum computation working, we have to accept that the many worlds interpretation is the best explanation we have of reality so far. And if there are uncountably many multiverses, then what influences which multiverse we are currently experiencing? “Choice” is one answer. If choosing affects our place in the multiverse, then it is an integral part to understanding how we move through the multiverse. Doing away with something as important as “Choice”, just because I can have an inner experience of “Something else is choosing” isn’t logical. I can have the experience of floating through the universe, even though I’m just in a sensory deprivation tank, imagining things. Using first person experience is not a valid way of confirming truth. It seems a lighthearted use of the word truth can justify many imaginative theories.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

Agree. This video is little more than pseudo-science. She takes a few data points and extrapolates a narrative. There is so much even physicists don't currently understand. There was discussion of potentially reverse casualty in that maybe some quantum outcomes are influenced by future events. Real physicists were positing that. So if we don't even understand atoms to that level currently then inferring we don't have free will because of physics is pseudo-science.

[@ToriZealot]

I doubt she understand anything.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@ToriZealot Oh I bet she does. There are sadly a lot of people who do understand but CHOSE to twist the facts and gaslight people for their own benefit. I'm not familiar with her but I'm sure she has books to sell, or grant money to misuse, etc.

[@mjrnsvesgigaard1815]

People conflate business success with academic success nowadays, academically she has done nothing to prove any of her assertions, she is just a writer people buy books from. She constructs argument neither in the way of analytic philosophy, nor in the continental philosophy way, just the catchy "edutainment" way which is neither science, nor philosophy nor art.

[@AlexReynard]

"Saying, “because atoms obey the laws of cause and effect we cannot have free will” is making a category error." It's also simply wrong. Think about a Plinko game. You can see the whole board. You can see every single path that Plinko disc might take on its way down. But until you release the Plinko disc, absolutely no one can predict the path the disc will actually take. And if the disc was sentient and could choose to shift its weight and aim, there'd be even less chance of prediction. *The world can be deterministic, and still, elements within it can be chaotic.* Like the three body problem.

[@Positive_psych]

the ancient wisdom:"Im not the body,im not even the mind"... see this mantra confluences perfectly with this video

[@robertlemar8518]

If the self is an illusion, what's having the illusion?

[@reluginbuhl]

This was a very nice video. I would have liked it if she took just a bit more time and went deeper to fully expound on the points she made and to tie it all together. A beautiful video though.

[@ondrejsaly749]

For me it´s rubbish. Though I studied philosophy. So "commercial"

[@JulianBennett-Philosopher]

Ok, let's play the word game, proposed us by Annaka Harris. Assume that self is an illusion. Who does have this illusion? Who is obsessed with it? Another self? So we get a vicious recursive infinity. What's next? How does this infinite recursive structure (which she calls self) align with natural science theories?

[@WhiteMouse77]

Deniers play word games.

[@altair-x]

@@WhiteMouse77 what about religous zealots?

[@khakibishop]

She rather says that a solid self is an illusion. So you have an answer: a volatile self has an illusion that it is a solid self. To be more specific (at least to a degree you can be with these notions using natural language and not playing word games): imagine that at this moment you have a feeling of being some constant self that experiences life as perceived by some human body, that was experiencing it in the past (since the body's birth), and will be doing it in the future (until the body's death). I mean, you probably don't have to imagine this, as this is what we all feel. And here's the (potential) illusion: you experience it now, and you experience now some memories of how it was in the past, and you experience some expectations of how it will be in the future. But you actually were not experiencing this past when it was the present back then - it was some other self, and you now just have an access (through the brain memory) for invoking these images from the past and experience them now as the self, and have an illusion that it was you (the self) back then too. And the same for the future. Of course this is just a speculation, but it actually seems to be more aligned with natural science to postulate such self as a momentary experience of being someone (another type of experience, like seeing color, or hearing sound) than to postulate some solid entity that would have to be somehow inside the brain (or be connected to it somehow), while being substantial in a sense of preserving identity through time, and even through whole lifetime. And of course we have a pretty traditional notion and a common word for this type of self: a soul. The problem is that you cannot experience it as such - neither objectively (as a scientist), nor subjectively (as a phenomenologist, so to speak). You also don't need it to explain what we know about the brain, and what we experience as the mind. And you also cannot fit it into a materialistic description of the world - just because of this reason that you would have to have a substantial self identity, you basically need some kind of dualism (like Descartes needed). So if you want to avoid it, you need to accept the solid self as the illusion - in a sense that it is just an experience as any other qualia.

[@altair-x]

@@khakibishop Sounds pseudo-religious to me. Not to mention that memories are very unreliable. Which begs the question. Was my self back then a different self, or do I remember a self that never existed? How would one even prove this?

[@khakibishop]

@@altair-x It's not merely about the lack of proof, or even the possibility of one. You cannot prove that the world existed 5 minutes ago too. But it is not a good reason to assume that it did not, as it just makes more sense (as a coherent and justified picture) to state that it is much older. And here the thing is not only about the fact that you cannot prove that solid self (soul) exist, but that the volatile self just much better aligns with what we know about the world.