Brian Greene and Neil degresse Tyson talks about Free Will

Brian Greens talks about Why free will is an illusion.

[@dominic9517]

There is a unique way in which Prof Brian Greene speaks, it demands us to be attentive

[@colinjava8447]

I agree, he explains stuff so well and it makes sense. Neil is surely a smart guy but he totally butchered his explanation of infinity on the Joe Rogan experience so he's not quite as good as people think. He also keeps talking over people, it made Joe Rogan annoyed.

[@spridle]

Brian Greene is a teacher, Neil is a lecturer. He lectures you from authority which isn't as enjoyable to listen to or learn by.

[@ZiplineShazam]

@@colinjava8447 Yep !!!! Neil DeGrasse Tyson is incredibly annoying in this clip. Constantly interrupting others, getting up walking around and joking over the guest speaker. Narcissistic behavior.

[@isavedhollywood7547]

Definitely a very good ability for a professor.

[@Dollapfin]

@@ZiplineShazam you guys need to stop lmao

[@AmanB777]

am i designed to be a procrastinator from the time of big bang?? omg

[@GoatzAreEpic]

Yes

[@blcrlink3d138]

Yes but it would be predetermined also to stop being it now you realized it

[@gulugul78]

Same

[@xsuploader]

no actually because of quantum randomness

[@axismundi2142]

@@xsuploader Quantum randomness as we understand it, doesnt have the ability to direct any behavioral changes, and it couldn't be free either, as it would be random. Brian dismantled Tysons faulty reasoning to the tee

[@prisonss]

When Brian greene talks I click to listen....awesome thank you

[@lroche3262]

Great debate!!! It showed on my suggested videos, determined by algorithms.

[@wmrajput]

I didnt know Bill Maher was interested in science

[@collinsmcrae]

He doesn’t look or sound a thing like Maher. You and the other 27 people need to get your eyes checked.

[@u2bgeye679]

@@collinsmcrae secondly it was a horrible joke, lil since when has Bill not been interested in science

[@estudosdefilosofia2135]

I don't know if there is free will or not, but Brian Greene's arguments are completely contradictory.

[@shawnmunck7412]

I would have to disagree. He basically said that the laws of cause and effect exist within the boundaries of what free will is. We have the illusion of free will (the effect) based off of external stimuli (the cause) and that leads us to the choice we make. We didnt come to this discussion because we chose to, but because we wish to understand why we made that choice. Previous events led us upto the very moment we "decided" to click play on this video. It is still very much our responisbility in life to alter our predeterministic outcomes by influencing the external stimuli previously, similar to the suggested video algorythm youtube has, based off of all the videos you have watched already, in what quantum physics call the self correcting error code(thanks to Dr James Gates). So its not that we want to know if we have the power to make a choice, because that choice is already made for us thru the laws of cause and effect, but we are trying to understand why we made that choice and how to influence these types of outcomes so that we have an even greater control over the future than what fatalists would have us believe.

[@posadist681]

you never explained how they were contradictory..

[@saurabhchand6475]

In quantum mechanics our act of observation is playing role in outcome.

[@sidcb9926]

Myr If everything is predetermined then they debating about whether them debating about determinism and free will is predetermined was predetermined. Well fuck it....

[@mathieugagnon7989]

I love the mixing of levels of descriptions in these discussions. E.g. '' You and your particles''. If we are using the particle level of description there is no YOU there, just particles. So the sentence ''you and your particles'' means absolutely nothing. There are no particles that belong to you. There is no place where You AND your particles get to be on a equal level of abstraction. You can't talk about both as existing on the same level. The trouble comes from the fact that humans can think about reality from different levels (subatomic, molecular, cellular, individual, social, etc.) AND tend to jump from one level to the other when making arguments. Even super smart scientific people do that. So you can either say ''particles reacted and caused changes in other particles'' OR ''I chose the cheesburger''. Both are correct statements at different levels of abstraction. No mixing of levels. Another example is ''my brain chose that before I did''. That sentence litteraly makes no sense. If you wanna talk about it from a neuronal perspective, then there are just neurons and no You. There are no neurons that belong to you. So you can either say '' Neurons responded to inputs they got by firing in this specific way'' OR '' I responded to the input I got''. No mixing of levels allowed.

[@Maheep_Infinity]

HENCE THE QUESTION THAT IS NEEDED TO ASK IS "WHO AM I? "

[@YoomDeco]

yes, you are absolutely correct. To my mind, fundamentally, everything is just laplacian patterns. That's all there was, is and ever will be. Therefore any human talk of concepts / abstractions beyond this such as meaning, purpose, immortality, God etc are bound to be nonsensical and absurd. Beyond this fundamental level, one must pass over in silence.

[@Maheep_Infinity]

@@YoomDeco so who typed this comment... You or your particles??? @Mathieu Gagnun And if its not allowed to jump between levels... Then what is the reality? What's the difference between living and nonliving?? And you said " MY MIND"... What or Who is this ME/I ???

[@YoomDeco]

@@Maheep_Infinity you can jump between levels, its a way of talking as human being (its allowed, read book by Sean Carrol). You can talk about baseball, about money, about love etc. But you are not allowed to jump around between levels while constructing an argument to reach a certain metaphysical / ontological conclusion.

[@YoomDeco]

@@Maheep_Infinity you are an Indian, Indian Philosophy usually regards this I / ME (self) as an illusion. I think you know better than I do about this matter.

[@christopherfrancis3598]

Watching how eccentric they all are makes me feel less crazy and alone 😂enthusiasm gives me LIFE

[@justanormalyoutubeuser3868]

Brian Greene is a treasure.

[@spawncampe]

I think we have an illusion of free since we're allowed to do what we want, and desires usually lead to pleasure. It's still our own will, it's just under natural determinism. Like an AI that acts by itself, it's still under a programming

[@madisampi2770]

not a bad comment

[@Ah_Yote]

Im other words it’s not free will, the illusion aspect comes in with how our brain operates through thoughts and feelings and other senses, that we believe influences our choices imma cause and effect type of way, that is the illusion aspect however it is still not Free Will because every single thought and feeling through our senses was already determined and therefore the effect of the cause is also determined

[@spawncampe]

@@KrypticSpiderMan it wouldn't break the programming, it might move past direct commands, but it's still under a computer system. Free will topic is very complex, even if it doesn't exist, it doesn't matter since we're constantly moving forward in time, there's no way to know for sure that things would play out the same way if we rewind time. But all I'm saying is, it's our will either way, whether it is technically predetermined or not, will still seek out our desires, so I don't think the answer to this question really matters.

[@spawncampe]

@@KrypticSpiderMan our choices are based on desires, we don't pick what we desire, we just act upon them. Desires our either predetermined or random, we don't truly know, regardless, we're still the only agent who acts upon them, and desires are things we want to do, so as long as we have the ability to do what we want, whether or not it's our "free will", I don't honestly care b/c either way, it's still our will. I wouldn't stress over these things, but if you do, watch Cosmicskeptic, I think he's touched this topic more deeply

[@Magst3r1]

@@KrypticSpiderMan No that makes no sense

[@luke2470]

Why are they even having this ridiculous discussion without free will

[@Inthanameofdover]

Thats your perspective

[@anthonywalker6276]

The problem is that, like so much in language today, "free will" is a term ignorantly used. It was clear to Voltaire, Godwin and Shelley what "free will" implied. How many proponents of free will today would still stand by it with this classic definition: Free will affirms that one's will is free of motive, free from antecedents, free from the influences of one's past and present; that it is its own first cause and is not caused by anything. Consequently, were one's will not produced, but free, then one would only have feelings and thoughts one wanted to have. One would will to will, want to want.

[@rednaxelaproductions7560]

Hey you may not know the answer at all, but what happens to a quantum system if we DON’T “choose” an outcome or measure it? Does the system choose a state by itself?

[@shivang.tripathi]

Love it when these two come together.

[@Adam-wx9jp]

I feel like "free will is an illusion" is kinda a misnomer. I mean, in both perspectives of free will and none, you are the culmination of your experience. If you define free will as the ability to make conscious decisions, then you have a certain extent of free will. The literature the neuroscientist brought up was a study on impulsive decision making, which is just a small subset of behavior that can be uniquely defined by a range of factors from the types of activations(oscillatory, spiking, etc.) emerging from both resonating and non resonating neurons to the overall regions of the brain that are active. That being said, the behavior that emerges from neuron activity is mostly formed by experience. Since you don't start with any experience at all, it could be argued that your decisions are made by those that influenced your development.

[@jimmykruzer]

I kind of don't think there's free will but you have to acknowledge that our bodies act as a caddle and prod system so our bodies seem to believe that someone is in the driver's seat

[@Adam-wx9jp]

@@jimmykruzer @jimmykruzer I mean, I believe we're just a bunch of neurons responding to stimuli. That the "consciousness" or just who you are is in a mix of the makeup of the geometry of the connections of dendrites and axons, as well as some level of fundamental logic in the soma. Even then, the answer depends on your defenition of free will. The emergent behavior of what we view as existence has influence over the actions made outside of impulse. There may very well be a series of models that can define the development of behavior given every single environmental and genetic factor, however the ability to know or replicate every single factor for any moment that isn't in the present is impossible due to uncertainty. Thus any model could only be just an approximation. The criteria I put on "free will" are essentially the same I put on being conscious. If a system's entire existence is capable of only being approximately modeled, there is evidence of abstraction as a result of the system, it can influence the environment, and can manage generalized responses to its environment, the system is both conscious and has free will. Tho, my standards are probably lower than most.

[@esquare807]

You get to make your own free choices. But what ever you choose was always going to be the choice you make.

[@573x]

My super personal theory is that we can only recognize patterns. so, anything is purely random is just not in our perception, as in our hearing, studying the perception of the pitch, we can probably understand we are just super captative about what follows a pattern, but we ignore, or can't clearly recognize what is random. even in the listening of a noise, we just can get a lot of ordered variables in the random system. I really would like to have this speech with someone with a much bigger knowledge then mine !

[@punishingatheismofficial9790]

At the very end she refuted determinism. “We have self control” like the determinist has control, unless you wanna be self refuting. What a quagmire.

[@valentinrafael9201]

If you realize that you are dealing with a force of nature, rather than a “free will” human being, you come to the conclusion that nobody is actually evil. If my laptop is broken, I fix it or change whatever it needs to have changed. If a human commits a crime, something made him do that, but it doesn’t matter if he has free will, just like it didn’t matter that my laptop had free will or not. If you don’t work properly, we will try to fix you. What they don’t talk here is that the brain has neuroplasticity. We can put thoughts and ideas in someone’s brain, the brain recalculates everything and makes decisions based on that new information. This increases the level of empathy one has towards other human beings.

[@NachoMan154]

If you want an answer to the question "Is free will is an illusion?" Ask a OCD Patient! xD

[@tonywooten596]

right ! there is no ''free won't '' - David Eagleman

[@dantemendizabal675]

I love this video, it's making me have a lot of questions

[@sadardinbukhari]

If you think you are free to chose then how can you be free from the consequences of your choice ?

[@funbigly]

Your not free from the consequences of your choice. That's why we have this thing called Responsibility. Next.

[@steveh.9023]

@@funbigly You are never free from the consequences of your choices. Never. Ever.

[@yannickm1396]

How does what is true have impact on our subjective experience? (And for the other comments here) So you don't like the conclusion it leads to and that is why you don't believe it?

[@jcgiff]

Being responsible and being held accountable are not the same. My niece is not responsible for being blind yet I will hold her accountable and not allow her to drive a car.

[@jaihind7687]

Tyson is an excellent person to debate with. He thinks

[@RenaldoRamai]

Brian Green thank you for destroying Niel Tyson's point about probability in quantum mechanics as it pertains to the free will argument.

[@AaronHarvey86]

I’m not disagreeing with you. Just rehashing the concept. The QM random argument is saying but random choice means free will could be possible. But it’s not, it’s a random choice. Therefore, you never made the choice. It was randomly decided for you. Which too isn’t free will.

[@RenaldoRamai]

@@AaronHarvey86 I agree with you. Thank you for adding that great point that many people seem to overlook.

[@gibsonflyingv2820]

He didn't;t even remotely moron, did you even watch the video? Brian Greene is a social scientist, Neil actually understands reality from the objective point of view.

[@CreativePublisher]

@@AaronHarvey86 True. So it's either coincidence or determinism

[@notrhythm]

@@AaronHarvey86 im not well versed with QM, so correct me if im wrong what if that random choice is a result of something you haven't measured yet. and can't physically measure with any tool? is everything a physical reality, couldn't it possible that there is more to it than just that? so while it appears to be random, it may just be something we don't know yet.

[@TerrelleCheers1]

Just finished my theory on choice and I'm happy

[@chadgetjajet7033]

The only reason we cant deduce actions from particles is because the brain is a chaotic system. Understanding actions as choices makes them more predictable than trying to measure the brain accurately enough to say anything meaningful about how it will act.

[@swamidude2214]

The problem with the probability argument is that we dont know why a particle ends up in place A or B when measured, if its a 100% random then the world is not deterministic because anything that could happen can happen. If its governed by laws of physics we dont yet understand but can be determined, then it is deterministic. You can build a supercomputer and calculate with 100% accuracy everything that is gonna happen. Now there also could be the actual option that somehow our brain connects on higher dimensions with the quantum world, we only have free will if we can influence the outcome then. Basically we either have free will, a random world or a deterministic world. Free will seems more comfortable to think. In the video it seems Neil holds his view that somehow our measurement of the quantum world with our consciences is a fluent transaction that we influence the outcome of the measurement by doing the measurement basically and our consciousness by doing these billions of interactions a second with the quantum world can make decisions which we would call free will. But I still dont know if Brian then believes these quantum measurements are random or predetermined. He seems to suggest random, but speaks about the rest of the talk its predetermined. First we dont even know if our brain really interacts with the quantum world that much, further we need to establish wetter we believe our measurement influences the outcome, is the outcome truly random or was it predetermined to be in the place we measure it.

[@anonymus5966]

To simplify this debate: You can always ask "Why?", even after someone answers "Because I felt it".

[@joethompson481]

If we have no free will, why would we contemplate choices or ask question - If we are just particles in motion following physical laws?

[@HarpreetSingh-xg2zm]

It’s in our nature to do said thing, those who contemplate will and those who won’t won’t

[@Milohenry13]

@@HarpreetSingh-xg2zm You missed a comma and a period, but I fixed it for ya! "It’s in our nature to do said thing, those who contemplate will and those who won’t, won’t." I decided to respond to your comment. The particles in my brain and body were in a maybe state as to whether or not respond and fix your sentence. I could've hit the "reply" button, or could have not. I chose to do something. Language has hypotheticals built in for a reason. They are innate. The ability to see into future is essentially proof of free will.

[@lizzieball3795]

Sam Harris has the best explanations and theory about free will. The reason we don't have free will, because we aren't the thinker of our thoughts. We have zero control of the next thought that enters our mind. Why not? If we actually were the creator of our thoughts, we would be in control over which thoughts entered our mind. But we don't. We can only try to carry out a decision about the thought-but have no choice in what the thought is. Therefore, free will does not exist. We only have options from which to choose. Maybe. But that's about the extent of our free will.

[@E_Clip]

I've listened to Sam's podcasts on free will. You are correct in saying that he thinks we dont have control of the thoughts that enter in our mind, however we do not understand how thoughts are formed in the brain, so he cannot make the claim with absolute certainty that we have no control of what thoughts enter our brain. We simply have no clue how thoughts are formed, are they external, internal, emergent or otherwise.

[@joethompson481]

Things we possess that particles responding to physical laws don't have: Memory, Ability to learn; gather information and make decisions based on experiences (and changing one's mind based on circumstanes),; Thoughts; Self awareness; etc etc.

[@ReforixGaming]

So what?

[@Ev0ltion]

Brian Greene stated from my understanding that there is always a probability for one of the 2 outcomes. It kinda sound like Shrodingers cat, fate of cat is undetermined before you check if the cat is actually dead. So what if we actually have free will but the concious act of deciding to check the outcome "forces" a random outcome out of undetermined state. If i decide to not check if cat is alive or dead the state of the cat remains undetermined. Thats why we cannot measure the undetermined state becouse the sole action of deciding to measure it forces it to determine the outcome. To sum it up there is free will that allows us to decide if we check the undetermined state.

[@raumsogg]

I think knowing the deterministic nature of every single action or behavior of ours helps us to be more tolerant and forgiving toward other people, including those who behave badly, including thieves and murderers. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't put them in jail though.

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

Interesting to see Julia Louis-Dreyfus moderating a debate on free will.

[@brycepalmer8100]

I think the idea of Free Will comes from the fact we can literally be still, motionless, but the gears in our brain, the thoughts can go into motion and ponder many possible outcomes of we will do next. We have this deeper reactivity in our brains then simply reacting to our environment instantaneously in the manner that a lot of animals and organisms seems to operate with. And we live our lives with this constant "determining what outcome we will do next" problem solving, that people can't help but think they are in control. Free will is the idea you are in control of yourself. People are just in denial and will not accept the loss of control.

[@jqyhlmnp]

@@KrypticSpiderMan “but nothing much” okay boomer

[@peterlaurence4831]

Exactly, our obsession for control hinders many of us from realising that

[@sfwgsteiny1422]

How does determinism make sense? It implies that somehow, it is possible to calculate the future exactly. However, as soon as any intelligent being calculates this future, this intelligent being can choose to do differently than the determined path, thus proving that free will can change a hypotheticaly determined path.

[@Nickxxx85]

So knowledge frees will

[@Astrophile2345]

Study neuroscience and u will get all the answers

[@Nickxxx85]

@@Astrophile2345 I honestly don't think there is hope for people who have to ask whether they have or not have a free will couse they cannot figure this out by themselves, in that case no they propably doesn't

[@Jitab]

If determinism is true, then every future calculated is a future that occurs. There would be no choice to do any different.

[@barcafan1231]

The calculation and that knowledge would have to be included in the future calculation for it to be precise ;)

[@theinternationalstyle]

Physicist Sean Carroll is a proponent of Hugh Everett's Many Worlds interpretation that states that whenever someone makes a choice, the universe splits into multiple universes with each universe having a different choice selected. For example, I might choose Job A over Job B, but in another universe I chose Job B. If, as Robert Sapolsky would assert, all past events determine my choice for Job A (I could not have done otherwise), then it would not be possible that there is another universe where I select Job B. After all, both universes have the same past. Therefore, it follows that the opportunity to choose between Job A and Job B is stochastically determined, but how I happen to find myself in the universe where I select Job A is a free choice that is not strictly determined. In fact, I could have done otherwise (Job B universe) but chose not to (Job A universe).

[@c016smith52]

Where's the full video, I keep finding bits and pieces like noone wants to publish the whole talk?

[@c016smith52]

also what date did this happen and where was it hosted, etc.? Like there's no info just "Brian talks to a dude, have fun figuring it out" : )

[@the_Acaman]

I feel like there are things we don't know or understand about physics, and that makes the argument of no free will pretty weak imo. Emergence also has huge potential, and they didn't really discuss that possibility either

[@E_Clip]

Exactly, which is why as an atheist I disagree with the argument that there is no free will. There's simply too much we don't know about physics and our brain, specifically how our thoughts are formed which in turn drive our actions. So drawing any conclusions beyond that point about free will should be taken with a grain of salt imo.

[@anthonywalker6276]

All people should do is drop the adjective. Instead of free will, just say, "I did it of my own will."

[@saxy1player]

Can we try to adopt a perspective in which our view of science might be wrong rather than denying free will?

[@bobmusil1458]

Why? Free will is a silly idea.

[@Zanthorr]

Our view of science? It's literally math. 2+2 will equal 4 for all of eternity

[@joshmfriggs]

This is ridiculous. Our choices determine our reality. Not the ‘big bang’

[@joshmfriggs]

@iadatoroboto8427 Yeah idfk how our choices are made but I know that they matter

[@AJ-nd4nk]

​@@joshmfriggs They don't. Billions of years from now, the sun will engulf the earth. Humans would have been extinct long before that.

[@Hanumanji246]

I have crush on brian

[@andrewminicozzi1634]

What a great debate. Sadly though, that guy Chuck is so absolutely irritating to listen to and steps in at the absolute wrong time. I really wish that he wasn't there. He absolutely ruined it for me.

[@mattsigl1426]

If the causal efficacy of the macroscopic domain is actually more irreducible than the lower level “particle” reality, than the lower level could be determined from the higher level down to lower level where the indeterminacy at the lower level is resolved or determined by the behavior at the higher level. And if the higher level, say at the level of the brain, also has some indeterminacy which is resolved via “the will’s choice” the freedom would cascade down the causal chain. There’s more to be said, but that’s the idea.

[@eincryptid]

Imagine using that in court. "Yes, your Honor, I did kill the man-but it was predetermined" 😂

[@leoFrom407]

Lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@kavirajmishra2439]

Judge : death sentence,It was predetermined .

[@CreativePublisher]

Imagine if Brian finds out, that not only the free will, but also the self, the ego is just an illusion

[@TheeReelDeal123]

😂

[@thenextbigthing1393]

A lot of things are illusion, including God, spirit, soul, consciousness etc

[@JHeb_]

​@@thenextbigthing1393 So you solved the hard problem of consciousness?

[@thenextbigthing1393]

@@JHeb_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6W5hqqgp7mqmMUfeature=shared

[@Astrophile2345]

​@@JHeb_ It's not necessary to come into a conclusion 🤷‍♂️

[@parveenkaur2227]

I fucking love this man wowwww.

[@viski2528]

Watch this at 1.5 speed, just go with it.

[@jexyl8071]

sKiP tHe ViDeO, yOu WoN't ReGrEt It

[@johnjable33]

I chose not to, I think

[@lionelbourgeois6445]

The look on Neils face when she asked Brian the question was priceless lol

[@lakshayakaushik4684]

i think this might be favorite video on the internet

[@Maheep_Infinity]

HENCE THE QUESTION THAT IS NEEDED TO ASK IS "WHO AM I? "

[@beatsbyantti1153]

The universe.

[@Maheep_Infinity]

@@beatsbyantti1153 explain a bit... In what sense?

[@user-pe5cl7vg9p]

When these guys speak ,I realize that I have a purpose.😊

[@jadejenkins3215]

This was fantastic

[@xavieraguerrevere9716]

there is a misconcept about what they understand for Now, past present and future are simultanious states but ina very short range, and is the brain thast makes the sence of now which is a transcition between the three stages

[@robrick9361]

6:20 Just cause you can see 10 seconds ahead doesn't mean anything. The human body doesn't operate at lightning speed. This is the most annoying thing about these determinism arguments, they always choose some arbitrary first principle.

[@the_Acaman]

ikr. That's the same as saying I know where a ball came from just because I can predict it will hit the ground in 10 seconds

[@mavenofmacau6391]

"And there's even some evil mothers Well, they're gonna tell you that everything is just dirt" That's Lou Reed, to me, singing about people like Brian Green.

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

“Is it the electromagnetic force? No, we understand that.” “Is it the gravitational force? No, we understand that.” “Is it the nuclear force? No, we understand that.” Well, we fundamentally don’t understand the electromagnetic force. We seemingly can’t understand the nuclear force and the gravitational force is theorized to exist, but we don’t have conclusive evidence that it even is a force. I am astounded that no one called Brian out on these claims. Incredibly unscientific for him to speak with such certainty.

[@t.m.8012]

Loved this one, Chuck didn't fit in but he squeezed himself🤣

[@HaikesXO]

always does

[@SirRobertSpriggs]

Lol, get Brian Cox and Michio Kaku in here for a 4 way debate!

[@augustosarmentodeoliveira3023]

love the sense of humor =)

[@mrludicrous1670]

This awesome we predetermined to understand nature of the universe ..

[@jenkinsljenkinssquire9137]

The definition of what is freewill exactly is the issue. Need to agree on that first.

[@chloiebrookman2217]

So why don't we ask what's Not pre determined, if anything at all?

[@alial-jassim2504]

The idea of free will reminds me of the Norse goddesses of fate. In Norse mythology three goddesses -the norns- represented the three tenses of time, being past, present, and future. However, the three didn't possess knowledge of the future at all. They held knowledge only of the immediate past. Because of this, the Norns were able to accurately predict the future. This concept shows that if someone possesed all knowledge of the past(meaning every choice, action, event, motion of a particle, etc.) then they would be able to perfectly predict what would happen in any given situation. This completely rendered the idea of free will false.

[@alial-jassim2504]

and I can't not mention this: I love me some gow

[@jakehaver9392]

Thus giving way to the meaning of life: evoking your will, perceived or actual, in all of the ways that make your life ideal for yourself. Discipline is the enemy of determinism. God may not play play dice with the universe, but I’m going to roll my own

[@andrewndambuki2207]

Choice is the force

[@diegoarias6208]

Determinism fails as it cannot be proved using the scientific method. Therefore, it becomes just a philosophical hypothesis. Actually, in the first statement where is mentioned "it's not definite as we don't fully understand the laws of physics" makes the hypothesis to lose most of its argumentative relevance. Determinism becomes just a philosophical hypothesis so it would be better to also approach to it by philosophical perspectives. Perhaps some works of Sartre or Heiddeger. Finally, if we do accept determinism we would have to rebuild or society and moral principles... As any person who kills hundreds of people couldn't be blame because it was something pre determined and He had no responsibility of his acts. No one would be responsible for anything and there would be no point of living in a moral society.

[@soodsona]

Where’s the rest of this?

[@theofficialness578]

Watch Neil and Robert talk, Neil’s mind has been changed.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Even if the determinism of physical laws governs the behavior of inanimate objects in the universe, isn't it possible that free will exists as a result of our brains having evolved the capability for organized thought? It seems evident that we all have the capacity to make decisions because of our brain's capability to think of whatever we choose to think about, and that we can thus override the usual deterministic behaviors dictated by physical laws by the simple fact that we can translate those thoughts into actions. The evidence in favor of this is that billions of sentient beings seem to confirm this countless times every day, by apparently making decisions big and small and acting upon them. The evidence against this is the dogmatic adherence to the idea that physical laws are immutable and cannot be superceded by anything, not even by a brain which has evolved a mechanism for cognition and the capability for organized thought. Such "hard deteminism" basically denies the existence of our capacity for cognition, which contradicts a mountain of empirical evidence that such cognition exists. I don't see how it is any harder to believe, for example, that these two gentlemen decided of their own volition and agency, to attend and participate in this discussion, than that their decision to do so was "illusory" and an inevitable result of the particular state of all the particles in the universe the moment previous to making this "illusory" exercise of their imagined free will. It seems like a preposterous limitation to presume that our brains have not evolved such a mechanism, when there is no proof that it has not. Not even the most eminent neurobiologist can say that they completely understand consciousness, much less all of its components.

[@blcrlink3d138]

That’s totally wrong, if you don’t measure an electron it is NOT it could be here OR there, IT IS HERE AND THERE (you wouldn’t have double slit experiment pattern otherwise) ergo, nature it’s true probabilistic, not merely the measurements. This is kinda basic quantum mechanics tbh, I don’t know what is their problems... also, regard that fMRI bullshit, she didn’t mention that the accuracy level for the prediction was, here ye here ye, 58%, only 8 point higher than a flip coin, only desperate people would call it a prediction, ffs -_-

[@AbsurdistJiffu]

Well, you clearly misunderstood "basic" quantum mechanics.

[@glomerol8300]

What happens when the universe looks at and affects itself? My tentative hypothesis: Infinitiy breaks determinism. Free will is a product of infinity, assuming the universe is infinite of course. Free will is like a feedback loop when consciousness interacts with matter and energy in the universe and (therefore) where prediction breaks down. (Absolute prediction is impossible if you are a conscious being, can affect matter and so have the potential to change the prediction.) The feedback loop is like an escape-valve away from pure determinism. Pure determinism in an infinite universe becomes essentially meaningless. Think about it: What happens if infinity goes into determining you, and universal forces like gravity, that 'come out of nowhere', and produce such things as black holes, go into determining you and may be part of you insofar as being part of the universe and entangled with it? If you are entangled with the universe, then you more than inherit it. In a sense, you are it. So, if the universe is conscious and has free will in a manner of speaking, then likely so do you. Besides, can we understand the universe without understanding consciousness? I doubt it. We appear very much like the universe looking at and affecting itself. When the universe does that, is that the universe's free will? Are we one-and-the-same? Entangled? One with everything and everyone else at the moment of the Big Bang? What was that like? Again, what happens when the universe looks at and affects itself?

[@AaronHarvey86]

I’m coming to a similar hypothesis to you, but don’t agree with all of your thoughts. Especially the infinite part. Causation can go on indefinitely. Again on the assumption that the universe is infinite. And causation is basically the driving force of determinism. What I do agree with you one is the concept that we are the universe itself interacting with itself. We are entangled with it, and consciousness comes out as an emergent property of the universe. And this creates a feedback loop. The thing is the feedback loop can still be determined on what the outcome will be. It just becomes insanely complex. So is free will broken (or not a thing) if everything is a part of the same system to begin with? It’s the will of the system is it not? However, we still face the same problem of is it free still? Does the system as a whole get to act freely, but still a problem that can’t be answered from within the system. Perhaps the universe is self is lifeform, and its existence is to play out all possible scenarios. It’s funny because it starts to make the short story, “the egg“ sound like a possible reality.

[@golhamo3502]

Great fun !

[@hanskraut2018]

What about prefeontal disorders like adhd that come in different severitys super mild to super heavy

[@jhp999jhp]

What about them?

[@yajy4501]

I agree with Brian. It doesn’t appear that free will exists.

[@DVineMe]

11:48 Well yes, any input you get is going to affect you in a way, that's called learning. And that happens regardless of whether it's determined or not. Whatever happens after having received that information has got little to do with being determined or having free will either. E.g. currently there's a war going on in Ukraine. Some people want to help. Those people learned about the war in Ukraine and wanted to help, that's got nothing to do with whether everything's determined or there's free will. The difference is that if it's determined (which it is of course) it was already predetermined (because of things learned in the past that they were predetermined to learn, because of things that happened before that and so on, yes all the way back to the Big Bang) they were going to help upon receiving that information, whereas with free will they made a conscious choice to go and help (also because of things in the past, but in this case that they learned by chance). Although, even if they choose to go and help out of free will and die because of the war, then in the end that free choice determined they were going to die. In the end there's very little difference and it doesn't really matter, because in order to predict through determinism you need to have all the initial values, which you don't, so you can't (although have you never had times where you knew exactly what somebody was going to do, even before they knew it themselves?), therefore it might just as well be free will. 13:31 Well no, if there's no free will you can't do whatever you want. Doing whatever you want requires free will. And no you can't go and murder someone (it does matter, and has got nothing to do with the subject) if it wasn't determined that you were going to. That honestly sounds more like the "well if there's no god...", in which case it's still a flawed argument.

[@briansummers6074]

Why the debate, it's pre-determined who is right.

[@Nickxxx85]

Pre determined conclusions aren't of much value. Exchanging them is hardly a discussion. Scientist who says he doesn't have a free will should know it is not him who says it but only him who is pre determined to repeat it. It is pointless to discuss with someone who is only pre determined to repeat stuff given to him. Less ability to reason than with a drunkard.

[@kelvinlord7192]

There seems to be " some" room for movement "within" guidelines . Could some form/s of "freewill" be determined ?

[@Nickxxx85]

I don't know if this is what you mean, but I can certainle distinct "levels" of freedome of will, for example level of concentration, access to information, access to choices all can influence your freedome of choice which determine level of freedome of your will, for example I believe in a lie about my climbing skills then it will influence my decission about free soloing some mountain and freedome to make this decission is definitely limited by me depending on wrong information. Or lack of concentration will always make me react more subconsciousenly, with instinct, or with igniting habits instead of making consciouss choice created with infuelce of concentration, level of emotionall controll, awareness of my own thoughts, knowledge about many things etc.

[@kelvinlord7192]

@@Nickxxx85 It seems that some imagination with ideas etc may conceivably be able to have various forms of freedom from determinism. I guess that sharper language and more discerning understanding is desirable to convey ideas around these areas . Is all imagination and all that is imagined determined ? I am tired at the moment so I don't feel like I can put forward good enough suppositions and logic . I feel that being uncertain about some things sometimes is better than being to sure . Thanks for your reply. Maybe I will take another look at your words another time. You seem to be reasonably good at" critical thinking" , Best wishes

[@Nickxxx85]

@@kelvinlord7192Thanks, Im getting tired too so I repond to You tommorow

[@BobSmith-lb9nc]

Superdeterminism is fun because it can be ignored. What else could we do with that realization? Any response is predetermined.

[@Nickxxx85]

Yeah. It kinda kills itself, like what does that matter what I think about free will, if I doesn't have free will and everything I think and believe into is determined by someone else and I have to believe in it whether I want it or not (I don't want anything couse I don't have free will) If what I believe into is something I HAVE TO believe into couse it is empowered over me and Im just a passive slave to this belief, then this belief itself is worthless, the same as discussion about it with me. Green literally says: "Im a chat bot and work on algorithms, now prove me that free will exist", he should know better that as a chat bot he cannot be proven anything, only re programmed at best.

[@veer3141]

The lady contradicts herself by saying that we have the capacity to self control. That’s what Free will is.

[@xsuploader]

No it isnt. Because the capacity for self control is also determined Its like you have a river determined to flow But also a dam determined to block the water. Whether or not the water breaks through the dam just depends on which force is stronger. Both forces are determined.

[@gibsonflyingv2820]

@@xsuploader Nope, that's an idiotic take. The forces are not "determined" you don't understand how forces work then. Forces are subject to billions of different factors that can change the outcome. A stronger force can fail to break something seemingly smaller depending on a multitude of different factors. I think the arm chair philosopher's who come in and debate that freewill isn't real don;'t understand that it's an unprovable concept FOR or AGAINST it's not a scientific question, it's a philosophical one. So nothing in the real world is going to pertain, also comparing something as barely understood as the human brain to a dam and water? Please tell me you wrote that sarcastically or I can't help you.

[@rayzas4885]

She also doesn't mention our "brain veto" power and leaves out that the readiness potential doesn't appear in deliberate decisions at all

[@fabibanifatemi]

Brian Green is the Einstein of our time.

[@Gliiitch305]

She called dude “my unconscious “😅😅😅

[@jonmcalister1802]

Greene is brilliant (so I ask humbly) whether he contradicts himself. He speaks of us “evolving” to think that we have free will, and posits that perhaps imagining that we have free will gave us some advantage “on the savanna.” That makes zero sense to me. If thinking that we have free will makes humans better adapted, then (presumably) those who didn’t think we had free will existed alongside those who did until natural selection had weeded out those who didn’t. Why would this be so? Does it lead to a behavioral change that makes it easier to find food, shelter, or a mate? Does it make it easier to tolerate difficult environmental conditions? Oh! How about it gave us the will to push into challenging climates because we realized that we could choose to build a fire or use animal skins for clothes. But none of that seems to matter. How could natural selection be compatible with this idea of primordial determinism? If everything is just billiard balls bouncing, how does natural selection work? Evolution by natural selection is a fact. Evolution by pre-determined pings and pongs seems incredibly unlikely.

[@MrClaudioAgostini]

I think he contradicts himself. If the illusion of free will has a positive effect on the survival probability, then it's not an illusion: it's somethink real that affects our behavior. If it's just an illusion it can't affect our behavior and increase our survival probability, because we would behave in the exact same way determined by the laws of physics.

[@miraculixxs]

His trick is to make people fall for his own logical fallacy. I guess that he knows about the fallacy (contradiction) in his argument but has realized most (enough) people don't and thus he can create wealth and fame from his behaviour. Oh well, buy his own argument he couldn't even do that but actually was just set to do so because of some random thing happening during the big bang some 15bn years ago. 😂🤡

[@anthonyyaghi6342]

@@MrClaudioAgostini You re right in saying that the illusion had no effect on an individual level, since it means our actions are predetermined. But your point regarding its impact on natural selection is wrong I think, it could be that people that have the "free will illusion" trait act differently than those who don't. You don't need free will for that to be true.

[@MrClaudioAgostini]

@@anthonyyaghi6342 give me an example on how the illusion of free will increases the likelihood of our survival AND that does NOT require free will itself. The illusion is always for someone, and if this someone is not free to make any choice, the illusion has no effect.

[@anthonyyaghi6342]

@@MrClaudioAgostini In a deterministic world view you can consider an individual to be like a program, with very complicated rules and initial conditions. Now you have two different type of programs, one that uses the illusion of free will and one that doesn't. What I was trying to tell you is that, even though both programs are deterministic and do not have a free will, the one that has the illusion of free will "coded" in it could outperform the other program, I don't have an answer on how exactly or why, but it is not impossible which means that technically there is no contradiction in saying that natural selection could evolve individuals with the illusion of free will.

[@chrislong1287]

Pushing the left button or right button is a different decision than more life changing decision. From evolutionary perspective decision without much consequences would be counterproductive to waste a lot of energy. And as far as ethical behavior? Well is what we believe to be ethical really an illusion? Who decided altruistic behavior is ethical?

[@Free_Will_Awareness_Unit]

The pre-determinists of the past believed that the gods were determining everything (actually, some still do). Today most pre-determinist believe that the particles are determining everything. Then you got a guy like non-dualist Gary Webber who supports both positions. He says that "She" is doing everything, while at the same time he says that everything is pre-determined by the Big Bang and the unfolding of events thereafter. Humanity is a hoot!

[@bananartista]

we are predetermined to believe in free will

[@SvjetaakJEDNA]

not all of us fortunately

[@bananartista]

@@SvjetaakJEDNA explain me

[@arvindevaya]

Who wants the answer, to the gap to get from definite outcomes from the fuzzy wave of possibilities?

[@tomneedham1937]

Do we have “free will”? Well now…that depends on what you mean by “free will”. And it also depends on what you mean by “determinism”. This is a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung’s archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov’s magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism. You dig?

[@GoatzAreEpic]

Dude I hate you so much. Take the upvote and get out

[@LCDigital92]

I see what you did there.

[@tomneedham1937]

@@LCDigital92 I am glad you saw what I did. It was a "tongue-in-cheek" reference to the kind of nonsense Jordan Peterson spews out. I have the utmost respect for Brian Greene and NDT. My mental cognitive functions are very short on bandwidth when it comes to all the nuances of whether we have freewill or not. Unfortunately, others who responded to my original comment are also very short of cognitive bandwidth.

[@Matt-yp6ez]

Nope.

[@jhe9521]

genetics and position, within time as well as environment, affects both the urge to choose and the available options ps: 'free' will / consciousness might not be entirely separate from molecules which, by coming together within brain, may have triggered their ability to utilize human or e.g. ant perspectives... our life struggles are no different from broader cosmic struggle to survive, define itself, and thrive while experiencing setbacks, conflicts, and destruction ...humans do not have monopoly on ptsd, just the potential to be creative with given materials in unique-to-us ways.

[@Nobody-zs1ip]

If I choose to NOT do want I wanted to do, what is that called?

[@jhp999jhp]

That means you WANT to do what you originally didn't want to do. Everything you do is because you want to do it

[@onevlade44]

What you did was still random.

[@fernandopineda5505]

Our collective behaviors usually make pretty consistent graphs

[@seek.sample.start.1325]

briane greene... you're 100% right.

[@checkmarkdatter1785]

At the end she starts talking about self control as if the concept doesn’t need to be explained within the context of determinism. What would one even be “controlling”? Without free will the feeling of self control would also be an illusion would it not?

[@user-gv1zi2vn1k]

Awesome

[@user-ww2lc1yo9c]

We can see how the best minds are stumbling in understanding something as basic as freewill and actually questioning whether it exists or not. Remember this almighty God is the architect of this entire system.

[@joshpotter8658]

The guy crackin jokes had me rollin 😂

[@dororo2597]

What is Random?

[@emmanuelkalibbala510]

Chaos theory was skipped here, you can't predict the exact behavior because there are so many determinants that can change along the way to that particular outcome

[@randell9667]

Chaos theory is deterministic. It's just enormously complex, and prone to error. Small errors become huge errors over time. But if you were to have every bit of data possible, and feed it into say a supercomputer, one could determine the proper outcome 100%.

[@TheGreenSweater]

What happened in my brain is congruent with my intention/exploit opportunity