Free will is not an illusion | Denis Noble

[@LeeGee]

Just as we were getting to the meat, I learnt that free videos are an illusion.

[@panmichael5271]

😏

[@kammonkam4905]

I bypassed the paywall by downloading the video from that link. Google yt-dlp.😊

[@hannahbaxter8825]

Oh I see what you mean now

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

Thats why I chose to opt out before that point

[@deathbysalt2382]

nor was your clicking on the video 😂

[@FM-lo9vv]

The talk was amazing while it lasted. It's bad practice and even disrespectful to viewers to make us watch/listen for 15 min and then not get the payoff. The effect was not of a cliffhanger, but rather of a 'catch', and the emotions associated with this experience are likely not conducive to converting customers. Please do tell us about subscriptions for exclusive content, but if you share something, please give us a dish we can eat, then we can make our minds if we want the full banquet. Nevertheless thank you for the quality of the ideas and calibre of the speaker.

[@FM-lo9vv]

@beingsentient I would guess a lot of people must either not watch the entire video (the stats usually show a sharp drop in viewing after about 20% or so) or they might not have paid enough attention to the content. The contents of this talk were truly fascinating. I suppose you have already seen what Penrose has to say?

[@FM-lo9vv]

@beingsentient Penrose is all over KZbin, and I've never had a sudden paywall interruption with him before. Just look it up 😉

[@RajHearts]

​​@@FM-lo9vv I have read about ORCH-OR. All theories are missing the basic point. The collapse of wave function is unexplained and is perhaps unexplainable. See my reply to @counterpoint

[@kammonkam4905]

You can bypass the paywall by downloading the whole video from that link. Google yt-dlp.

[@kammonkam4905]

​@beingsentientYou can bypass the paywall by downloading the video from their link even though you can't watch it in the browser. Google yt-dlp.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

I'm hoping that in the full talk he gets from "stochastic processes" to "free will" with some important intermediate step. A "free will" entirely dependent upon chance is not free, but random.

[@petertatford8783]

Every free choice, to have meaning, has ultimately to be grounded in something that is not a choice, in some aspect of the way the world is, or at least how we think it is.

[@michaels4255]

If it is random, it is not determined. Free means undetermined, or not determined by impersonal forces.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

@@michaels4255 Understand your point, but from my view, “free will” means “agency”, that is an agent that is able to choose amongst options and act. If it is random, it’s just that - there is no agency.

[@crypticnomad]

I could make an argument that it is really just a matter of definitions. What exactly is meant by the phrase "free will"? I've seen really long discussions where thousands and thousands of words were used but never once did they define it which seems absurd to me. Whatever definition is used it needs to be general enough that it applies to more than just humans. The word "consciousness" is an example of a loaded word that many seem to assign human specific attributes that are not strictly necessary for a good definition. A definition for "free will" could be something like "ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". One of the more common arguments against free will is something like the fact that we seem to live in a world ruled by cause and effect relationships and that there is no effect without a cause so any decision made could, in theory, be tracked back to some sort of cause that had no element of choice. I personally see that as a cop-out and is similar to arguing that nothing can be done "unimpeded" since everything has limitations. In the paper "Mental models and human reasoning" they discuss how human reasoning seems to actually work and, although this is my rather extremely oversimplified interpretation, it appears that we basically run a bunch simulations and then make inferences based on those simulations. Those simulations are based on the symbols we've developed to describe our previous experiences. The "stochastic processes" would be a key component in our ability to run those simulations. So when we're looking at a choice that was made via some sort of human reasoning we could say that the choice wasn't deterministic and is the product of the typical cause-effect chain. What I mean is that despite the "in theory" label in practice it is simply not possible to take the choice made by a human and reverse that process back to the "stochastic processes" and that like every analog system even if we did the exact same calculation with same variables we would get at least a slightly different result. Like I said it really comes down to how we define things. I've personally settled on "we have relative free will" and I mean that in a similar way as how time is relative to the speed of the observer. An example to illustrate the point is how cells seem to operate in clusters/hierarchies and that the higher order entities, think something like organs in the body like the heart, bend the state space for the cells below/in it. There isn't any central actor telling the cell to do x or y but rather it appears that the higher order entity bends the state space in such a way that the options are limited for the cells below it/in it and in aggregate they will do what is best for the whole. In a way it is analogous to how a flock of birds or a school of fish move but instead of moving in 3d space to maximize safety from predators they are moving in a sort of function space to reduce some sort of global, given the scale, delta. Dr David Wulpert has a nice definition of what an observer is and it is something like "an observer is a system that acquires information from the environment to stay out of quantum equilibrium" as opposed to a system that is always in a state of quantum equilibrium like a cloud, falling chunk of rock, etc. If I want to remain an observer I had better move out of the way of the falling rock. Both could be described in a way that is fairly analogous to computation but one is reversible and the other isn't. Once an observer has observed it can't un-observe and that process isn't reversible. Interestingly that could also be described using something like a light cone

[@NiteTrain345]

Well, I guess 'random will' is better than no free will.

[@kirillnovik8661]

A simple and effective argument. I really enjoyed it. But it's pretty cruel when they make you go to the website to buy a subscription to watch the full video.

[@bogusmogus9551]

Quite ironic, regarding the subject matter

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

Not really. No argument was presented. Philosophy is enough to address the topic indeed. Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.

[@stevenverrall4527]

The full video can be found for free elsewhere. You just have to search...

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 That's like saying that living cells could never have evolved from non-living structures.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

@@stevenverrall4527 No, it's nothing like that. Why would it be like that?

[@Counterjoint]

The whole argument boils down to a misconception of what free will is. He seems to think free will is possible via any kind of nondeterminism. He thinks Brownian motion is the candidate but it only takes a few seconds of thought to realise that random processes can't explain how a conscious being is able to make a choice either. It's more than just indeterminacy that's required. Free will requires some kind of transcendental force that is able to willfully choose one outcome out of a number of different outcomes. Randomness implies the complete opposite. If he really wanted to appeal to uncertainty then i'm not sure why he didn't just invoke quantum uncertainty, which is based on fundamental and true randomness (this still wouldn't explain free will)

[@evanbailey4781]

I think you're missing the core of the argument. It's not the Brownian motion or stochastic process itself that grants free will, it's the type of causal closure present in living systems (autopoietic complex systems with open-ended evolution) that harnesses the stochastic nature of these that does. In some state space, a purely deterministic system cannot produce any novel behaviour - by definition it follows a predetermined path. Noise, or randomness, allows for searching the state space for new outcomes. However, this is not enough. There needs to be some constraint imposed on the behaviour (i.e. not a mechanistic cause, but a constraint, such as topology of a state space) in order to direct it towards some particular set of outcomes. At a population level, we might say that natural selection (often but not always) acts as a filter (not a mechanism) to constrain the possible forms that organisms take in relation to their environment - but what about at the level of individual organisms? What directs the ways they can change their forms and behaviours? Cells being autopoietic systems (see: Hunberto Maturana), provide constraints due to the boundary conditions imposed on the internal processes of the organism, which in turn maintain and modulate the whole (this is a kind of reciprocal causation between the parts and the whole, see: James Woodward; William Wimsatt). Ultimately, it is the ability of the organism to change their boundary conditions and constraints that harnesses the stochasticity of molecular processes, and enables goal-directed searching within a state space. This is how evolution proceeds at the level of the individual organism - organisms adapt their behaviour in relation to their environment, which in turn, adapts their physiology. This is goal directed, and indeterminate (see: Stuart Kauffman's recent KLI lecture for a simple argument regarding this). It is not non-deterministic in the sense of denying physicalism, but it is indeterminate in the sense that there cannot be physical laws that define the possible functions of the system as it evolves. Some other biologists who go into more depth on these ideas (and provide a bit more solid grounding) are: Humberto Maturana and Francisco Verella, Stuart Kauffman, Kevin Mitchell, Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio (amongst many others).

[@RogerValor]

@@evanbailey4781 thank you for this comment, this really helped me understand in which direction the thought process goes. If one sticks to the metaphor of a physical system, that is simulated, one easily forgets, that it is the adjusting of the constraints, that make such emergent systems so powerful. After years of working on ideas how to come up with emergent systems in simulations and games, and being stuck in this computerized thought process, it is good to hear such adjusting thoughts to an area, where I really lack a lot of knowledge.

[@crabb9966]

Idc about the arguments. It is a waste of time. Either way you must realise that your first sentence and second sentence are incoherent7

[@colinmcneill9631]

This is simply an argument, supported by empirical evidence, that seeks to refute determinism and open up a space for free will - and for me the evidence and the argument is compelling.

[@DaVeiy13]

So you could leave a comment.

[@alanmccarthy4004]

There are two big flaws with his argument. One, he argues that our bodies undergo brownian motion, which is stochastic and (he claims) random, and therefore we are not deterministic. But being non-deterministic doesn't conclude that we have free will. Randomness is not a panacea for determinism's dismantling of free will. (Also, as a side point, brownian motion isn't random... it IS deterministic, it's just there's an interesting effect in systems with large numbers of interacting elements whereby initial conditions predict future states no better than random chance for large N particles and/or after large t number of interactions...so they APPEAR random, though they are determinisitic) The second major flaw in the argumentation is that free will is a perceived sense. It "feels" like we have free will, it "feels" like we are a being who controls our body. So even if he could somehow identify in his chemical analysis of our bodies that there were some non-deterministic, non-random component of decision making... perhaps some sort of soul, he would still need to demonstrate that this component really is causally linked to one's perceived sense of free will, before being able to conclude it's non-illusory.

[@laze4534]

​@MusingsFromTheJohn00 If you have no understanding of your decisions all the way down to the very bottom of the decision making process, how can you claim authorship over it? That is not 'free' will, it's a type of human will, one that is the result of physics moving brain matter. That's why it's not free, as it's beholden to a primary phenomena. The real question to ask is why and how physics does what it does. If you want to label physics as God then go ahead, but don't make nonsense uses of the word 'free' when it comes to decisions.

[@JimmyJacksonJackson]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00I want to believe in free will but I don’t understand the point of the video. “Particles vibrate all over the place randomly in water, therefore free will” ??

[@JimmyJacksonJackson]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 I appreciate you writing that out for me. I’m just trying to think of a way I can live a better life with the concept of free will. My best idea is to simply imagine 2 or 3 different paths I could take for the upcoming day and then make the best choice. Then I kinda imagine the other potentialities “collapsing” into themselves and disappearing as the path I chose crashes into the present moment and becomes reality. I think part of the problem is we cannot see ourselves shaping that reality in any sort of fun way. Everything just always feels like the present moment and we kinda just accept that “my life is my life” and we say things like “ I wonder what I’ll be doing in 5 years time”…. In a way that implies that it’s kinda already locked in Part of that is due to the identification of the self I suppose. That’s how people hold themselves together by holding onto their identity and continuing to act in a similar fashion

[@joecheffo5942]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 A study showed that judges were much more likely to grant probation after eating lunch. Unreasonable influence from the outside?Like stress? Expectations? Perceived threat? Upbringing? Education? Parenting? What you were exposed to as a child? Those are huge factors. Enormous. But what if you don't confine it to "outside". So add your IQ, genetics, brain development, gender, hormones, age, physical or mental illness. Not much left. That's why "bad" people are usually lower IQ, education, abusive homes, genetic mental disorders, etc. They make the "bad" choices much, much more often.

[@stephenlawrence4903]

Before arguing for free will one needs to be very clear about what it is. Most who don't think we have free will do think we make choices. The question is how could we have selected the options we did not select? Is it ultimately a matter of fortune, good or bad, which option we did select? If the answer to that is yes, then we don't have free will.

[@michaelwright8896]

That is not rigorous scientific or philosophical evidence.

[@TheRonster1957]

Good point, Stephen, defining what exactly is meant by the term 'free will'. I am personally doubtful about the possibility of 'free will' as often simply defined by the ability to make choices. To me, the issue is really about our subjective perceptions and mental processes over which we have little to no control. We all see the objective world or reality according to our subjective perceptions, and assign meaning based on that subjectivity. We then act accordingly, including any supposed choices.

[@justinhartnell6779]

Please define it for us.

[@jmdawlat]

Very respectfully, whatever was presented was not a coherent argument. Brownian motion, water properties, membrane physics, etc. are not disputed by anyone who either argues for or against free will. Yes. These can be arguments against the gene centric view of biology (an proponent of which is Dawkins), but has absolutely nothing to do with free will. Even if stochastic motion is truly unpredictable and indeterministic, it does not follow that we humans are in control of that in our cells. Whether the fundamental biological processes are deterministic or not, they can not support free will in the way we experience it. Free will emerges as thoughts and intentions in our minds operating over time scales of several tens of milliseconds to seconds, which is much longer than the molecular chaos and fluctuations over the time scales of sub picoseconds to a few picoseconds. The above is a well known argument, and is known by all those conversant on this topic. I am surprised that the speaker does not acknowledge that.

[@rivinOX]

Except time is irrelevant with the foundation of the observer's unique reality. See the nobel prize in physics 2022. There is no objective reality. The universe isn't locally really.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Just like probability and determinism, free will is both free and 'not free'.

[@reasontruthandlogic]

Exactly. The workings of the brain can be interpreted subjectively as mind or objectively as known or as yet unknown physics. It is false and dangerously misleading to say that either view is incorrect.

[@reasontruthandlogic]

@@aqfj5zy There is a lot of danger with determinism when it is used, incorrectly, to justify fatalism, or to excuse human responsibility.

[@colorfulbookmark]

Dr.Noble's intellects are what we need to learn and continue to, free will talk's intentionaliy. People in same perspectives are great people I think.

[@shrimpytcoon]

Denis Noble is a Godfather of systems biology

[@isatousarr7044]

From a quantum neuroscience perspective, free will may be viewed through the lens of quantum mechanics, which suggests that at a fundamental level, the behavior of particles is not strictly deterministic. This indeterminacy could provide a framework for understanding conscious decision-making as a phenomenon that transcends classical physics. Quantum processes in the brain, such as those proposed in orchestrated objective reduction theories, might allow for non-local interactions and emergent behavior that enable a degree of agency. In this view, the brain's neural networks could exhibit quantum coherence, resulting in decisions that are not merely the outcome of predetermined pathways, thereby supporting an argument for the existence of free will as an authentic expression of conscious thought rooted in the inherently probabilistic nature of quantum systems.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

Stochastic events can not be the source of free will. It would make us only act randomly.

[@RajHearts]

👍

[@TheSavageGent]

You have the wrong way of thinking about it. He’s not saying that’s what determines freewill, but what produce’s the capability for it. BIG difference even though it’s subtle!

[@The-Wide-Angle]

@@TheSavageGent What is the difference between "determining" and "producing"?

[@TheSavageGent]

@@The-Wide-Angle basically he said what he’s explaining is efficient for freewill to exist, that this can allow freewill to be “produced”; AKA why it can work. But it does not “determine” how freewill works, that is more of the question of the “whole” vs the “parts” and he argues that the way the “parts” work as a “whole” imply a design theory to be more true than random mutation. Basically that mutation happens bc of an “aim” towards something specific(allowing different paths), but how can a cell or body choose what to aim at, and why do some cells aim better/different? This is where freewill comes into play bc if it was random like the previous model said then there would be a lot more spaghetti monsters and a lot less people to put it humorously lol

[@The-Wide-Angle]

@TheSavageGent I don't see how "harnessing" randomness could "produce" anything resembling free choice. Make your choices dependent on throwing dice. Does this produce anything other than random behavior? His argument is fundamentally flawed.

[@MeHighB]

Superb intellectual structure. True and beautiful. Impartial. Thank you!

[@monkerud2108]

there is no criteria distinguishing the content of experience in a false choice or a real choice, and so its two identical concepts in terms of the content of experience. that means that whatever you can possible mean by free will, it is compatible with determinism.

[@petertatford8783]

Free will is phenomenological, not metaphysical

[@monkerud2108]

Yeah i would agree with that, i don't know what a metaphysical criteria for free will would even look like.

[@monkerud2108]

There is also the destinction of determinism being phenomenological or metaphysical, in the sense of whether an ontology that is fully determined vs an theory that is deterministic. For phenomenological determinism to be realised you need tye theory to be a faithful description of the ontology or just happen to predict perfectly the resulting phenomenon as we observe it. You dont need the latter to be attainable or true for the former to be true even i principle. And so with the first definition of determined evolution, every possible experience is compatible with determinism and so there is no example of an experience that can be said to be related or defining of free will, that is not also compatible with the future and past being determined.

[@monkerud2108]

That is to say, there is no room for a definition of what free will means that isn't also compatible with the evolution of the world or the content of experience being fully set in stone since forever.

[@lrwiersum]

I have created myself practically from the ground up, many times !! This latest iteration is the my favorite so far. I’m a 66 year old woman and I’m RESILIENT !!

[@joecheffo5942]

Some people are more resilient than others. Women do live much longer than men anyway. I am not resilient, I was badly injured on plan on assisted suicide as soon as I can, as I can no longer take care of myself, not even basic needs. Not sure what this has to do with free will. To me it's a cruel world, just in the general sense. I was injured out of the blue by my doctors, I was totally healthy before then. I don't believe in free will, my doctors actions, my future ones. My brain seems to being planning for it, every minute of every day. I can't say it's a choice. My brain seems compelled to end the constant suffering. Like a person jumping off a burning building. I don't see any options, or apparently this brain here doesn't.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

I exercised my free will and stopped watching this video at 15:31. Richard

[@ferrantepallas]

'fabulous stochasticity' -- what a brilliant phrase and brilliant lecture!

[@metalhos]

free will is not an illusion. it's just suppressed by society.

[@conradbulos6164]

I see it now about God and freewill. God has gifted us with predetermined freewill. God in his foreknowledge, has foreseen that our freewill will tend towards him voluntarily and freely!

[@Boris29311]

People will go to great lengths to keep believing in free will In fact they're run by their emotions who are having a hard time to live without it When you think about it we don't know where our thoughts and feelings come from Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what is going to happen

[@Boris29311]

​@@bestcomsystems4458 We cannot get any closer to reality than with science Science will therefore never reveal reality My comment is based on my own experiences and was intended as an opinion. Fortunately, I am not a scientist. I can see that emotions take advantage of everything to justify belief in free will. This is not their fault it's just how they work they can't react any other way.

[@powerandpresence5290]

So why are you attempting to persuade other deterministic machines that your opinion is correct? You must believe that you can influence their thoughts and behaviours. So you thus believe that you can influence others, but not yourself. That’s a remarkable universe you have constructed. Emotions have, amongst other functions, the ability to transfer meaning and information. Our bodies continually relay such information, and by learning to listen to that somatic signalling, we can develop increased capacity to interpret those signals. Many introspective traditions teach this, and noticing processes have been studied extensively in science. There is no introspection in a deterministic model of mind. But that is where the real problem is entrenched for determinists. Few, have spent any time in meditative silence or mindful awareness. There are some exceptions, but not many. Beyond that you did not address any of the science discussed in the video. Given that it is a scientific argument, what people believe is not particularly relevant to the thesis put forth - including your beliefs and mine.

[@Boris29311]

@@powerandpresence5290 Free will is a feeling based on not knowing what's going to happen is part of the world view of my subconscious mind as well as from myself The worldview of the subconscious mind has nothing to do with philosophy but it's a model of how life works Everything they've seen must be explained with this model. With this in mind videos and comments that are defending the belief in free will become very entertaining. I don't care what other people think. Thank you for your reaction,it was quite amusing.

[@Boris29311]

It's a reasonable assumption we are machines made to experience stories If you've complains you need to address the script writer 😊

[@NiteTrain345]

And determinism is boring. The Universe doesn't look boring to me.

[@erik_1953]

Freedom is only, and not more, then a measurement between zero and unlimited movement...

[@Apebek]

From a philosophical point of view. Descartes said "I think therefor I am" and Socrates said "I know only one thing and that is that I know nothing". Basically they are saying the same thing; That the one thing you are 100% sure of is that you have a conscious experience. Everything else (the physical world) could be a a dream. The only thing we do is process information but how can we be sure of where that information comes from? If there is no consciousness then the physical universe has nothing to project onto. It is only the mind that differentiates within a clump of matter and in that way creates different numbers. Without it the universe would be just one thing (absolute nothingness). There would be no space and time to measure and no person that can assume it exists. To me it is more plausible that consciousness is more real then objective reality and that it is transcendental. It is superior because all physical matter can be grasped into an idea but not every idea can be manifested into physical reality. I believe the question of consciousness and free will can never be answered through modern science, because science reduces everything to data. We can measure brain activity, but not conscious experience.

[@IMAHMS]

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty." 29; Gospel of Thomas.

[@DrIIGerMusic]

Einstein of today. So much respect. 85 years old and still out there teaching and sharing.

[@Nyghl0]

"Free Will of the gaps" it is, then. Stochasticity may pose a problem to pure determinism, at least on the assumption that we don't in future find out that there's a way to determine even those processes, but that doesn't at all mean that Free Will is therefore the case or that there's any compatibilist room for it whatsoever. The fatal problem for Free Will is simply logical. To the extent that there's randomness, things are "free" but not "will", and to the extent that things can be determined, they might be "will" but not "free". In other words: to the extent that there's randomness then "you" have no deterministic effect or control over any will, what causes it and/or what effects it has - so if there's will then it's hardly yours. And to the extent that things are deterministic, other factors led to your will in a chain that went back to before you even existed. Again, any will is hardly yours. "Free Will" is simply a blindness/ignorance as to what randomness or causation formed "your" will. It's a simple mistake that put you under the impression that your will is free.

[@johnnkurunziza5012]

What do you mean by whatsoever can we stop with the dogamitsm its going to stop humanity from learning and progressing.

[@Nyghl0]

@@johnnkurunziza5012 are you a bot? No idea what you are trying to say, it doesn't seem to have any relevance to what I said. It's spelt dogmatism btw - how in any way is methodically laying out a logical case (like I did) dogmatic? It's literally the opposite...

[@Nyghl0]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 it took me a while to make any kind of sense from this awfully written comment, and it still sounds like nonsense. The "degree of influence" from an "external source" on the "ability of an intelligence to make a decision" is necessarily absolute: either it's down to the genetics that you had no hand in acquiring, or factors being imposed on you from your environment. There is no "balance" of "super-deterministic"/"super-uncertain" elements - just regular deterministic elements, and if there is any random element it's equally not under the control of any "Free Will". Even if things were completely deterministic, we could still exist just fine - we'd just be watching our decisions play out in the only way they could, and we'd be doing the same if things were able to exist in spite of complete randomness. No balance is required either way, and a balance between two ways that things can be not under our control certainly doesn't result in its opposite: Free Will.

[@Nyghl0]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 the only issue is having to remove Free Will from the Laws of Nature, just to lend it some semblence of validity. Because otherwise you have to concede it is subject to the Laws of Nature and thus not "free" - just "will". You can try to define it as decision-making "without some unreasonable amount of outside influence", but in doing so you are required to ignore the fact that outside influence is absolute - it's the same as saying Free Will is "free" so long as we define it outside of all the essential things that make it unfree. "Will" that is maximally uninfluenced by the will of others is an important subject, but calling this subject "Free" will is a misnomer. The element of "freedom" implied by it is too compromised by reality, whether by its deterministic nature or its nondeterministic nature. It's a misleading word. "Will" encompasses everything you need: "minimally conflicting wills" perhaps.

[@Nyghl0]

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 The only issue is that you have to remove "Free Will" from the laws of nature in order for it to be "free". Defining something as being a certain way, so long as you ignore all the things that mean it isn't that certain way, is not how you define things. It's just "will". The subject of will not being compromised by other wills is a crucially important one, but this is not the subject of "free" will ("free" so long as you ignore the laws of nature). At best it's the subject of non-conflicting wills. But this subject is so fundamentally unfree that it simply cannot be termed Free Will. Such a misnomer needs to be dropped.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

It makes more sense that the 'illusion' of free will evolved. Life is a competition, often a deadly one between predator and prey. Deceit via mimicry, disguise and camouflage are evolved techniques seen everywhere in life's jungle. Humans have taken it to a whole new level. In short, if life became a game of evolving wits then whoever took the game most seriously would be more likely to survive. Turn on the news to see this live.

[@danstoica2824]

There is predeterminism through the desired or expected result, when you act positively, responsibly and intelligently through improvement through trained awareness. When you are chaotic and less conscious, there is determinism, but not free will, which at the level of predeterminism is absolute. I understand why certain people have the impression that there is determinism or predeterminism, because they are poor at the level of emotional awareness, they are poor in emotional intelligence, in positive and intelligent emotions and feelings. So the fact that we declare something does not show us the path to follow or the one that is understood to identify a reality, this is the logic of determinism, while the logic of free will presupposes an increasingly advanced connection with one's own but also the relational capacity to become aware and in this way we can have the power of optimal and high understanding of our own or the common reality through the compatibility of the respective level. So there is clearly free will and the "explanations" that the simple statement of the cause-effect phenomenon does not say and will never say anything logical. It is about compatibility with positive and negative actions through determinism, but it reinforces the idea of ​​free will as an expected result, as power. Simply put, only as something less conscious and less trained, there is determinism and predeterminism, i.e. the robot. There is an existential training exercise of reality awareness that many leave to chance. That's the only way you reach a high level like divinity, a similar kind of compatibility. The idea is that intelligence represents the ability to retain information and recognize patterns, but also emotion and feelings, that's the only way you're complete, otherwise you're insufficiently evolved or with a potential still untapped. For this reason, the strong inner imagination is greatly enhanced by the environment through feelings and emotions. Otherwise, we have intelligent people, but just as it is specific to artificial intelligence to reproduce, but not to understand and without strong internal imagination and capitalized by the external environment. For this reason, our perception and understanding of intelligence and consciousness is wrong. We live more in a world of appearances and less honorable. Of course we have enough compromises and there is also adaptation, but not enough to create a strong and authentic reality. Adaptation only helps us to evolve, but not every adaptation is built for a qualitative path of evolution. Good has all the explanations regarding what is good or bad, evil only explains evil and uses good and that's it. But power belongs to good and obviously free will which represents awareness and the power to change things for the better and to choose the good and the happiness that fulfills us, that lasts and is great.

[@justrelax2914]

Hey man. Anyway i can contact you? I really considered your comment very wise and I would love to ask you a couple of questions

[@danstoica2824]

@@justrelax2914 I usually don't use social networks much. But if you want to talk to me, you can give me the name of the account on the network you want to talk through, and I'll create an account for myself and we can talk. Thanks for the appreciation, but I think I still have a lot to learn. I'm wise in some ways, but I'm still learning in others. I usually just comment on something on KZbin, and often I like to think about different things, but if I can help you find answers that will benefit you, I'm happy to talk with you.

[@pocophone2010]

Determined free will

[@scotchhollow]

I don’t think we can ever objectively verify that the physical world even exists outside of our conscious experience. Even with measurements and tools. To say we don’t have free will based on a deterministic physical world can’t be 100% proven at the end of the day.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

Thanks for the clear thinking. I agree - there is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove or disprove the existence of free will, and this is identical to another fundamental issue: there is no way to prove or disprove that an entity (other than, and including one's self) is conscious or not.

[@johannesdecorte434]

@@scotchhollow nonsense. Free will is by definition supernatural. If you think your actions are not prone to the laws of physics the burden of proof is on you.

[@delavan9141]

The endocrine system largely drives our emotional states, energy levels, perceptions, drives, etc. So just in that one domain, one can see that we do not have free will. Same goes for the immense control that the deeper, older structures of the brain have on us. Moods, feelings, fears, etc. all have a far greater effect on our behavior than the upper levels of consciousness do. All our decisions have come about under the uncontrollable influence of our biology. So how can we say we have free will?

[@kirillnovik8661]

The core of the argument, the way I understood it, is like this: the material world is deterministic, therfore without a source of indeterminism, our behaviors are utterly deterministic, and therefore we can't call our will a free will. However, one such source of indeterminism is Brownian motion in water solutions.

[@lukasmolcic5143]

free will implies more than randomness, to say we have free will is not enough to say our actions are non deterministic, we need to say that there is a subject within us which is able to affect the course of actions beyond both predetermined and random causation

[@garychapman7776]

I believe you are in error. If Brownian motion were strictly non-deterministic, it would still not constitute free will. Imagine science discovered a particle whos behaviour was truly random and which was wholly independent of its environment ... would this randomness solve the problem of free will? Not at all. Imagine a robot whos actions were determined by some internal ideal dice. Does it then have free will? Or is it merely the puppet of those stochastic processes. Whether a robot were a puppet of pre-programmed behaviour - or a puppet of stochastic processes - it is still, nevertheless, a puppet. Any internal rationalisations or existential dialogues arising from its complexity would be, necessarily, secondary to its physical nature and wholly an emergent property of the same. To break this and assert strict free will, one requires something else. One would require that the stochastics and/or the physical laws are influenced by the will itself in a causal manner. However if this were so we would then see, in all sentient life, a measurable evidence of telekinesis. I'm sure I need not tell you that, as a scientific proposition, telekinesis has performed outstandingly poorly. It is quite easily testable, and yet has failed to produce any measurable deviation at any scale. Remember that to demonstrate the proposition we would require some evidence of the will being causal over stochastics. Realise, also, that this is clearly not the same thing as finding some stochastic processes underlying the function of consciousness. This very specific causal requirement is central to the very concept of free will. The existence of random stochastic processes alone do not provide this... only some form of mental telekinesis at some scale would provide the requisite causal flow. Further complicating your journey towards demonstrating free will is the fact that neuroscience has very clearly determined that the subjective awareness of making decisions happens AFTER unconscious processes have already decided upon the act... thus the subjective experience of expressing free will, as has been observed, occurs as a narrative created 'after the fact' by higher and slower processes. As of today, all scientific evidence points to the perception of free will being illusory (that is, secondary to the 'actual' decision making models) In higher animals it can be readily understood as a necessary illusion in terms of analysing and refining the underlying model in order to better compete in dynamic environments - dreams being another essential part of this refinement process.

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@garychapman7776 It is unscientific to claim that "all scientific evidence" supports any conclusion at all. Every scientific theory has inexplicable phenomena.

[@rivinOX]

@@garychapman7776 except you are behind a bit in science. You are coming from scientists point of view peaking with Einstein. Determinism has been proven to not exist short of the many worlds theory as it's final death bed. The universe isn't locally real. There is nothing predetermined outside the scope of an observation. For the above sentence the nobel prize in 2022 was partially given. This goes against human inference. It's only probability till an observation has been made. There is nothing finite locally. Once you remove the determinism loop, it's significantly harder to prove actions are based on the past, when the nature of our unique reality is being set on the fly via observations. The ambiguous future based on probabilities and actions taken by observers give far more credence to freewill than not.

[@a.s.2426]

@kirillnovik8661 I think that summary is quite accurate. This gentleman would have been smart to have started with a meaningful definition of “free will” (a very difficult thing to do, by the way) because what he seems to have proved is not a whole lot.

[@paulrabjohns8381]

My own experience and observation is that we are encumbered with powerful urges such as hunger, thirst, sexual desire etc which make us prone to making decisions based on satisfying these urges. We are born ignorant we have to learn how to walk talk reason etc and if fortunate to learn how to control our basic desires we may not turn out to be a thief, murderer, rapist etc. Free will only within a small margin.

[@mpaczkow]

I am often disappointed that people assume that we all have the same definition of terms like “free will”. It would seem to make sense to first start an argument with a definition. What Noble seems to be describing is survival mechanism in living things and not free will but they may be equivalent if he defined it this way. Even the simplest organisms show decision processes based on survival and this seems to be the core programming of living things - from single cell organisms to mammals. The model of the cell that we are taught in school is not accurate and still not resolved since there are probably more proteins integrated in the cell wall than is taught. Each protein has a function, just like a subroutine in a computer programme. Machine learning is a thing - we know how to do this - why can’t a biologicals composed of “chemical reactors” do the same thing by building a large number of variants that can act in the same way? It is determinism based on core programming and machine learning that we interpret as free will.

[@cinikcynic3087]

No organism shows a decision process. Consciousness hallucinates what it perceives as reality.

[@ximono]

"It would seem to make sense to first start an argument with a definition." It would! Unfortunately, it's so rarely done these days. People completely misunderstand what is discussed and end up talking past each other.

[@ximono]

"Each protein has a function, just like a subroutine in a computer programme." I'd be carefuly with comparing biological functions to programming language functions. As a programmer, I think they're fundamentally different. Yes, you could interpret(…) a "biological function" as a deterministic computer algorithm. But at the quantum level of reality, this interpretation (determinism, causality, locality, etc) breaks down. Recent research on microtubules related to consciousness is very interesting (Penrose and Hameroff), as is Michael Levin's research on bioelectricity and the possibility of cell consciousness. Though Levin does have a very computer-oriented view of biology that I don't agree with. How one sees the world is not necessarily how it is, one's thinking shapes one's perception. Deterministic binary systems ("thinking machines") are man-made, with roots in the mechanical looms of the Industrial Revolution. But at the most fundamental level of nature, it's quantum. I think that's where we might find answers to consciousness and free will. At least as far as I can tell, from what I know at the current moment in time.

[@ximono]

​@beingsentientIt definitely does :)

[@a.s.2426]

@mpaczkow You see absolutely correct about the issue of definition. Made this video for me quite useless.

[@Cr0uch1ng71g3r]

I don't really get why people are talking about free will. What process needs free will as an explanation? It's a worldview, not a worldly process but a spiritual belief or value.

[@Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Play]

Many on that side of the argument dearly want to hold on to "I am an agent that can be proud of what I did because of free will" , but think this way. Imagine it. Free will is an illusion however I am lucky to have been given a process of thought that led me to achieve what I achieved. I am therefore immensely grateful for the dominos that make up me and my experience. (Now I am not a theist, but it seems that if we accept determinism we would go from pride to gratitude and transcendent equality in basic value of others) it seems to be not only the more scientifically correct view probably but also provide us the gratitude we once experienced when we were still believers. Gratitude for fate one could call it

[@dionysianapollomarx]

I love this argument. Persuasive enough without even the full details ironed out. It’s an extension of, say, philosophical ideas from Chrysippus to even Althusser and Deleuze from science. But it doesn’t quite address Libet’s challenge to conscious free will. This however doesn’t even scratch the surface given how the same idea is likely to be or have been explored by other biologists like Richard Lewontin, Susan Oyama, and R. D. Gray.

[@lastchance8142]

When everyone agrees that physical reality is undetermined at the basic (quantum) level, how do we then say anything above that is determined? Free will is a function of consciousness which seems to be more than just nerve impulses.

[@thisisobviouslynotmyrealname]

At this point in natural sciences, without a solid grasp of mathematics its not possible to go beyond speculative thinking

[@ElkoJohn]

Much obliged.

[@rzaboj]

Deterministic systems spend minimum enegy as they ´move’, there is no waste of energy. Just think how much energy we need if we would like to express the free will. Answer could be in measuring this.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i think there is just one past history, until we get hold of a time machine. that kind of implies there will be one future - zillions of options, but only one way they will play out. which to me implies that you can join "the history of the universe" at any given point and you'll have a fixed past and a fixed future. sure you can have a goal to aim for, shall i go to class or shall i skip it, but the outcome, when it happens, will be the only possible outcome. besides, you do things for reasons, which means you won't do other things, you pick A and now you could not pick B. i don't see how we are free to do anything, we are only ignorant of the future. and if you did know the future, the moment of your passing, and all the events that lead up to it, what would you do? you kinda have no choice but to carry on - or - what? what else could you do?

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

free will is not what is decided but he space where the object you are looking for is fitting.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Wow, Denis Noble does a fantastic job at triggering AI fanatics and free-will deniers! 😊

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

Sometimes people are triggered because they hear BS being said.

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 You are confusing reading with hearing. Enlighten me with any proof at all that falsifies anything Denis Noble has written during the past decade.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

@@stevenverrall4527 Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's the infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist. Looking smart and being smart are not the same.

[@goldwhitedragon]

​@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555like your reply.

[@iluvatarchem]

You are confusing ideas with fanaticism. The subject of free will is not solved, for you to name people that have different opinions "deniers" . Capisce?

[@louissmith1171]

Ask …… What is absolute freedom? The ability to think anything regardless the situation…… The “FREE WILL” of thought even if confined, hogtied or whatever that prevents you from acting out your thoughts into existence ….. This idea gives everyone the sensation of “I am real” or an identity to express self. I think therefore I am … but?…… the question I ask, where do your thoughts come from and is it possible to be identified as a thought within the mind? ……. What is the difference between you and a rock …. The Awareness to have a thought. The rock is just a rock ….lastly ask ….. am I apart of that…. or …. separate from that awareness? Love always

[@imbass8151]

the answer is no. you are not absolutely free but only partially. the difference between u and a rock is quite literal and obvious. It does not have, evidently, the capacity for knowledge or intelligence, therefore sentience cannot arise. Technically speaking, I can make that assumption pragmatically but it is not known for sure. Just as I can say pragmatically that bigfoot doesnt exist, rocks are not sentient.

[@BestFilmproducer]

It's odd that we are still merely discussing the brain physics of free will in 2024 when there are much more comprehensive aspects related to this human phenomenon to study, such as how and when free will shows itself in opposition to free unwill (i.e. when you choose not to do something, as opposed to do something)

[@Ludwig.-.Wittgenstein]

So what do you want us to do if some people are not discussing such philosophical questions? Should just everybody turn into being a linkedin superficial publish-slave scientist?

[@edmondedwards6729]

Thankfully I have enough free will left to assert that any artificial intelligence with sufficient capacity to attain awareness on par with our own will have a universal need for sleep, amounting to a second turing test for such systems. We see the early stages of this with refesh, defrag and clear history modes.

[@annakarl9989]

Thankyou 🎉

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

So, after a couple of billion years of perfecting some organisms and eliminating others, Natural Selection thought it would be cool to grant free will to a caveman. Or maybe free will evolved . . . but how could that be possible? Describing such a process might settle the debate.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Denis Noble implies that every living cell is capable of a certain level of free will. It makes sense that a more complex organism can make more complex decisions.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

@@stevenverrall4527 This has nothing to do with "freedom". More with complex processes which seems random to us because we lack Information about what's going on. Just like it is the case with Quantum physics.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

@@michaelwright8896 not really... most things are very simple and the really important answers have already been given 6-7 000 years ago. Science is a tool, it's not something for seeking truth since it's based on our perception about the world which is impossible to verify if it's an exact match.

[@tom-kz9pb]

Before you declare whether "free will" is an illusion or not, you should first rigorously define what you really even mean by "free will". In what sense are you "free" of the internal biological mechanisms of your own brain? Even if that mechanism is not perfectly deterministic or predictable, how does introducing an element of random chance into the decision-making process constitute "freedom"? Is a roulette wheel more "free" than an alarm clock? Your brain mechanism is partly like a wound-up clock, partly like a roulette wheel or weather vane. But it is a mechanism, all the same. There is no other "you" who "controls" it. You will basically make whatever decisions that you might, because some neural pathways will be more heavily reinforced than others, at the time of the decision. The term "free will" is how people describe their lack of understanding of neural functioning.

[@joecheffo5942]

It might also be useful for religion and a an ego reward for luckier people. There is a strong connection between crime and social status, education, IQ, poverty, etc. So it feels good for some people to say they are "good" and others "bad", a pleasurable myth of moral superiority when it's really many other factors. I wonder why Einstein didn't go around committing crimes or getting into fistfights, it's such a big mystery /s

[@chickenlover657]

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but there are at least 10 definitions of "free will", depending on which field (aka context), so you might want to set a good example and state which one you're referring to?

[@Primitarian]

Human will is free, but complete discussions of it are not.

[@martinbennett2228]

Does he have an argument? Probably not otherwise it would be in this video. What he does assert is there is randomness, but even this he cannot establish, only apparent randomness. Not that randomness has anything to do with free will. If your definition of determinism is that future events are predictable, then randomness would make that sort of determinism impossible, but that sort of determinism is impossible for other reasons: knowing enough to make the accurate prediction becomes an additional unaccounted factor that can affect the outcome - a recursive loop that cannot be escaped. In scientific determinism events can be ascribed to prior material causes. Unless Dr Noble can make a case for prior immaterial causes, he has no argument. Even if it could be argued that quantum states can produce inherent randomness, outcomes would still be ascribable to prior events and in any case there would be nothing that amounts to any sense of agency.

[@jjeremyhunterr]

That immaterial things exist and exert force is impossible to prove. The obvious immaterial thing creating free will would be consciousness, but that's usually understood in the mainstream as being emergent from the brain. Arguing it may be a priori makes one look like a kook! It is an assumption however that everything that is causal is also material because we can only ever include material things in our analysis as they are the only things available to our senses and sensors. But causal things may exist outside of that. Our general models may point to determinism but there are always things in the set of unknown unknowns that could point to other explanations.

[@martinbennett2228]

@@jjeremyhunterr Do you have an account of how anything immaterial can have a physical effect? Or are you simply asserting that we cannot prove that magic does not happen?

[@jjeremyhunterr]

Dark energy/matter is an example of something we cannot observe having an effect. We simply assume that it is material @@martinbennett2228

[@fleongoogle2429]

Enastående. Tack.

[@yonatan2806]

Simple experiments to test whether or not a system is a machine (deterministic or non): "Questioning the mechanistic-universe paradigm using chaotic systems"

[@OngoGablogian185]

Hell of a blazer on Dr Noble.

[@NEC591]

I feel like free will being an illusion makes everything more humane

[@monkerud2108]

either you fetch a criteria from within experience, or you fetch a criteria from outside experience, and if its outside experience its unrelated to who you are, what you feel and your thought process, so how can you ever hope to create a gap between what it is like to make a false choice and make a "real choice", i have no idea what it even means to suggest, and someone needs to tell me what it is, as far as i can see its impossible, so if free will actually means anything it has to be about the content of experience and thereby be compatible with all your choices being false choices.

[@gebarowskibrikanovic9210]

"without those membrane processes there not be choice between different behavioral options"

[@zgobermn6895]

To Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Coyne, et al. I give you Noble.

[@raulpop3d905]

spent 15 minutes watching a video just to find out that I need to click a link and pay to watch the remaining 15 minutes. I'll just set KZbin to "do not recommend channel"

[@rave1704]

There are always boundaries, you are never completely free

[@SiriusSRX]

not true

[@Nelson-sr2bi]

Choosing between a finite number of options (limited by boundaries) does not make the choice determined. You can freely choose between 4 flavors of ice cream for example.

[@blackshard641]

@@Nelson-sr2bi bingo

[@bruceb7464]

This was amply demonstrated in this video. The boundary was we only got to watch half the talk. And the second half was on a subscription site - so not free.

[@Nelson-sr2bi]

@@bruceb7464 We are free to pay a price to watch the second half...

[@pwagzzz]

An empirical example of free will is to consider it a scam when it is not disclosed up front that the video is only a teaser, a preview, or an advertisement for a payed service. This kind of deception is the reason people mistrust social media and online services

[@zeroonetime]

God evolves, Creation evolves, evolution evolves to Entropy, Entropy recreates itself -- Creation 010

[@0ddjohn]

I admire his conviction, but his argument doesn't overthrow determinism, which doesn't allow for stochasticity. Events are stochastic only from the perspective of the observer- in this case, we can't predict the motion of molecules in suspension, so we call it stochastic, but the motion is still determined

[@thstroyur]

No, it's _believed_ to be determined; this is in contrast with actually observing something to be true empirically. But one can believe in determinism, regardless of ever hearing about (nevermind performing) a single experiment in one's life - and invoking determinism in order to explain determinism is nothing but good old-fashioned question-begging.

[@rivinOX]

We've destroyed classical determinism already. You basically have to believe in the many-worlds theory to make any sense of determinism. See the Nobel Prize in 2022 for physics. Local Reality does not exist till observed.

[@goldwhitedragon]

CTMU

[@ianyoung6706]

I think the meaningfulness of the question misses me because I can’t see how we can live except under the assumption that we DO have free will.

[@m.x.]

_"it may seen utterly presumptuous for a physiologist to enter the hotly disputed philosophical are of Free Will"_ At least Denis Noble is aware of his field of expertise and limitations as well as when he's doing spontaneous philosophy. Most of scientists are not that smart and honest. They usually make the mistake of seeing the world from his own narrowed-minded discipline.

[@chikaokolo4929]

Random processes don’t create Beethovens or Michelangelos. The reason why some scientists are still debating on the decisions vs determinism is because they refuse to admit that a mind is derived from an intelligent God. Even if we could describe consciousness purely from genetics and neurons -the order found in these could only logically be explained by a random process.

[@vikidprinciples]

Cutting a video at its crescendo is very mean.

[@zeroonetime]

The will is free to be chosen.

[@mr.dolphin274]

Freewill isn't randomness, it's a deliberate choice.

[@someonenotnoone]

Very big problems in computer science can often be drastically improved by randomly searching a solution space. If our consciousness could tap into randomness in that way, such randomness, as a tool of a conscious mind, could create exactly what we call free will.

[@JHeb_]

@@someonenotnoone Where is 'freedom' in that?

[@someonenotnoone]

@@JHeb_ What freedom do you think you have that isn't described by that?

[@JHeb_]

@@someonenotnoone It would cause randomness. I don't see how we this would cause something we call free will. When we make a decision, then we make it according to a goal. We don't take random choices.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@JHeb_ No, randomness being used does not cause randomness. If there was no randomness used, it would be entirely deterministic, and you would definitely not say there was free will there. Utilizing information from random searches does not mean you're making random choices. It means you're making choices in a way that is irreducible. It can't be computed. It can't be predicted. What else do you expect your free will to entail?

[@williammcguire5685]

God the Father has given us free will. Humans want to come up with anything to avoid our creator, the reason for our remarkable bodies and its infinite functions to alow us to live.

[@daathmann5814]

@@williammcguire5685 Dean Hamer proposes that your optimism. I.e. your faith in god is a genetical predisposition by the 'vesicular monoamine transporter 2'

[@dipankarmallick5543]

old guys are wise but why I gave raise the volume to the full potential of the device...why Google...do something for it...

[@阳明子]

PLEASE just put the full videos on this channel. The IAI video player is not a good user experience.

[@johnhough7738]

Apologies, I haven't yet viewed the offering in entirety. But- - English covers all bases, with the good ol' que sera, sera. (SFX: cue Doris Day here, please ...)

[@johnhough7738]

I sat though this episode and enjoyed it. But I shall now use my illusion of 'free will' to wander off and fulfil the destiny that has awaited me since before the dawn of time (I just loooove cliches). Time for lunch. Question- -was there ever anything I could do, other than ask exactly this? Think about it ... this is a profound question actually; I'm just the re-transmitter (it does go back a long way). And- Any responses will tell me a lot about the responder, so be aware.

[@Zanuka]

I don't understand. How does this argument mean there is free will? Randomness therefore free will? Did he even define free will?

[@rivinOX]

Determinism doesn't exist as proven in modern science. The classical argument against free will is based on determinism. So if you would like to start there and define how free will doesn't exist with the absence of determinism, good luck.

[@Zanuka]

@@rivinOX No hard determinism does not equal free will.

[@rivinOX]

@@Zanuka You still need to have a basis for NOT having free will. You've yet to explain what that is. You can't just say it doesn't exist. Rolling dice with the universe with your decisions based on the perceived probabilities and outcomes that are unique to you the observer gives far more credence to freewill than not.

[@kirillnovik8661]

Within the constraints of their talks, I don't believe they have enough time to define the terminology, but he made references to people that he is arguing against, so I guess those are the prerequisites for this talk

[@Zanuka]

@@rivinOX wrong, the default position is ''I don't know either way''. People then make a claim with evidence and depending on the evidence it is believed or not. The default position is NOT free will until determinists prove otherwise.

[@mehmetufukdalmis]

I decided to deny the existence of free will and consciousness to the face of the deniers until they start to feel the absurdity of denying these.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

Free will is a paradox. This dude doesn't prove anything. People just want to feel free, that's all.

[@mehmetufukdalmis]

@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 you are right. Further, it is an illusion. It simply doesn’t exist. You are not free in your decisions. In fact, you are not deciding on anything. Just your brain electro-chemicals work. That’s all that happens…

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

Define free will precisely. I think the problem is before denial of a property. It's nonsensical what most people (and the phrase itself) demand as free will. People are bound in their upbringing and information they get. They didn't always believe in free will. Many do now and it's more wishful thinking without even a consistent precise meaning to the phrase that captures the words used to describe it. A little bit funny isn't it.

[@youtubehatesfreespeech2555]

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Free will is a contradiction. Every decision needs to be preceded by another so it could be "free". It's an infinite regression fallacy. Free will can't possibly exist.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 I agree with the conclusion but not necessarily the reasoning. The infinite regression fallacy says that an argument is insufficient. Not that it's paradoxical. Infinite regressions are possible without contradictions. And if we are strict even the infinite regression fallacy is not really a fallacy. If you look at an infinite ordinal number, then any regression on its elements is infinite but it is a sufficient argument for the validity of statements for all elements in that ordinal thanks to the well-ordering of the elements in the ordinal. The infinite regression fallacy would suggest it's not sufficient. Philosophers are not good with infinities.

[@martsangalang5781]

not finding one does not mean there is none

[@cpolychreona]

Many ignorant statements (e.g. that the liquid-state temperature of a substance has anything to do with that of the constituent elements) but what takes the cake is the idea that brownian motion is not deterministic. Of course it is, just too complicated for us to compute. What are free will and moral responsibility worth, anyway, if they are determined by a multitude of coin tosses?

[@saliksayyar9793]

What is highly unique? Or just unique?

[@peterstanbury3833]

There is an inherent internal contradiction in 'free will' such that it is an oxymoron. In order to actually exercise and bring into actuality the 'free' bit you need determinism. You have to causally exercise your 'will'. Thus free and will totally contradict each other.

[@vaccaphd]

All this chemistry and biology can't avoid the fact that physics is deterministic for large objects and random for basic particles. Either way, there is no free will. A dice has no will.

[@chickenlover657]

There are at least 10 definitions of "free will", depending on the field, so which one are you referring to?

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

Wow, I had no idea Sir George Martin was also a physicist!

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

I find the whole “free will” debate very confusing and contradictory, on all sides of the debate.

[@Avianthro]

Indeterminable (by us) does not mean indeterminate (not subject to "laws" of Physics). As Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe." We humans just aren't able to follow everything "God" does. (Here, I'll say that God = Physics). We may say that we know why we did something and that we chose to do it, but in truth we don't...we don't ever know or control ALL of the subconscious influences, external and internal, that lead us to do what we do, to make "choices". I'll stick with Sapolsky rather than Noble.

[@ChrisWalker-fq7kf]

I'm kind of relieved that it finished there. So much incidental nonsense in just that 15 minutes doesn't give me any hope for the rest of the talk. I assume he's going to go on to claim that these "membranes" do not behave in entirely deterministic ways, presumably due to quantum mechanics (if he is merely claiming that they are complex chaotic systems then they are still deterministic, even if it is impossible in practice to predict their behaviour). The question then is why does he think that being a slave to quantum mechanical mechanisms gets us any nearer to having free will than if we were slaves to deterministic mechanisms? Why aren't they both as bad? If I can justify morally bad actions by saying that I had no choice and was determined to act in that way, why can't I make the same argument about quantum randomness - the Schroedinger wave function collapsed in a particular way and that caused me to act the way I did. Nothing I could do about it. Randomness just doesn't help here.

[@andthefunkybunch1466]

Man's looks like David Bowie playing Doctor Who. I just wish I didn't get halfway through and then told to go somewhere else.

[@koof1776]

Genius~

[@jeremymr]

1:56 - epic British moment

[@glenncurry3041]

"Responsible" is a human construct and has nothing to do with natural process. He then describes how we are made of mechanical switches. Only to argue that mechanical switches are not mechanically controlled?

[@stevenverrall4527]

Those who believe that individuals are not personally responsible for anything are the root cause of modern societal problems. So people should do whatever they feel at the moment and not care about long term consequences? That is a recipe for crime, social rot, and chaos..

[@comforter1eternal]

But only proteins needed to be coded not the lipid membranes. Lipid membranes come in between

[@prettytrue-zj3tj]

unconvincing

Proove it

[@bretzel30000]

free will is absolutely an illusion. Very easy proof: picture yourself being in love with someone who does not love you in return. The rational thing would be to "un-fall in love" and just decide to not love that person anymore, because this would stop you from being frustrated and unhappy. But alas we cannot do that because we cannot help ourselves but to love that person only after some time we will lose interest in that person and will be open for a different relation ship. Reason for that: we have no free will we cannot simply "switch" and not love a certain person. Another proof: picture yourself being addicted to some drug or some behavior that is self destructive to you and you know that this is bad and that you need to not be addicted anymore, but you cannot help yourself and you keep smoking or whatever eventhough you "want" to stop. Reason: you do not have free will and thus are unable to quit a certain thing. That bein said, you still can overcome those challenges but only by crafting your enviroment and creating strategies in order to enable your decission system to favor a different behavior you manipulate yourself into doing the better choice by for example not buying the unhealthy snacks during your shopping haul etc.

[@mystryfine3481]

i like the way Denis calls bs

[@QuicksilverSG]

Denis Noble: "We don't expect purely chemical processes to be capable of making responsible decisions, that's why we're cautious about approving driverless cars on our streets." California: "Hold my beer while we rubber-stamp this Waymo proposal."

[@uninspired3583]

I've seen how people drive, giving robots a shot isn't unreasonable.

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@uninspired3583 It is COMPLETELY unreasonable. It would make far more sense to remove pilots from passenger jets, but we aren't doing that! The most dangerous human drivers are the most inexperienced. Enabling humans to drive far less often will be a disaster. However, driver assisted technologies can improve safety. Removing the human from behind the wheel is INSANELY FOOLISH!!! By the way, my PhD projects were all in computer vision. Most of my PhD work has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

[@MGRVE]

Sorry to hear such misled line of logic. As soon as you dismiss the existence of a demon or whatever that is outside the realm of cause and effect, free will goes up in smokes. What he is explaining is just why the illusion is so convincing: it os too complex to unravel. Though : it would be possible.

[@vhawk1951kl]

*Any* will free or otherwise is not possible for dreamers

[@TheVeganVicar]

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Privacityuser]

please debate with sapolaky

[@dvklaveren]

At 5:42, you can hear the sound of someone playing World of Warcraft, lmao.

[@cb777-t1l]

In tenth grade (1964) I came up with the mnemonic CHONSP---for the elements of life, i.e., carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.

[@galaxycraftings]

DONT accept any subscriptions from IAI. They tell you that you have to email in order to cancel, and they dont respond to emails so yorue forced to pay.