Free will is not an illusion, it is a dream | Joscha Bach and Lex Fridman

[@bluesbunny121]

So after listening to this 3 times, this is how I understand this: When you-the biological system, don't know what is the best course of action but the system (body+brain) makes a bet on what would be best, that is experienced as free will to the "you" in the head, to the EGO - so free will is this model we use to experience and explain this bet, as the bet always comes with some sort of inner explanation. However, given the same situation again, and knowing exactly what would be the best thing to do from past experience - like seeing a car racing towards you - you will automatically jump out of its way and attribute no free will to this action. It won't even feel like free will at all, your body will just try avoid the car automatically - there is no "bet" on what would be the best course of action here because you know from past experiences what to do, so there is no "free will" felt because the system is not making the bet on what would be best. Basically, free will is just the experience we feel when the body-brain system needs to decide a course of action based on insufficient data, trying to get the best rewards but not being sure of the outcome. But this "free will experience model" comes as a consequence of the decision already being made from a deterministic point of view by the body-brain system based on what amount of data it had at that time. So free will is just a first person experience to the EGO, it exists as an experience but not as a FREE choice. It is not free, it's a deterministic bet.

[@bluesbunny121]

@T S How?

[@tupacalypse88]

@T S I'm not seeing where he went wrong either can you expand?

[@tupacalypse88]

@T S got you the deterministic bet is where the disparity is. on that I don't really agree or disagree with either is the chaotic unpredictable fundamental or just puzzle pieces we're missing but yeah unless I'm misunderstanding I'm fundamentally in

[@tupacalypse88]

@T S oh and ty for the response my friend👍

[@Zellymackintosh]

@Y Y determinism isn’t fate

[@Amy-yv5ki]

Great clip and full conversation. Happy this question was asked because I didn't understand Bach's stance on free will until this. 5:18 cleared it up for me: "F: So free will is an illusion? B: No its a model and a construct. Its a model that the system is making of its own behaviour and its the best model that the system can make under the circumstances. And it can get replaced by a different model which is automatic behaviour when you fully understand the mechanism in which you're acting...The system is completely mechanical"... F:"So we're not the writers of the story. B: Yes, but we always knew that."...F: "So the only thing that is real to you is only the thing that's happening at the very base of reality? B: Yes for something to be real it has to be implemented...The world that you experience is not necessarily implemented." Seems a lot like Barrett's views on the brain/mind described in How Emotions are Made, but her take is a bit more pragmatic/easy to follow. Love love love this conversation. Great questions.

[@ABB-rs8wm]

I Felt the same way.. Any other recommendations from you? I found Robert Sapolsky's views interesting as well.

[@Stadtpark90]

12:24 sometimes I love when Lex doesn’t understand right away (or acts like it), just so Joscha repeats his point in a slightly different phrasing: I love all of them, they drive home the point: some things are oceans, some things are agents, and the one acting on your own set points and deviations: see that little guy? That’s you! You are the representation of that characters control model, the story he tells about himself, while he is navigating the world. - Some things are oceans, and some things are agents, and one of those you can introspect more deeply: his feelings seem more real, his motivations seem more real: he is the main character in your story: everyone else’s state can only be read by mirroring; they could just as well be NPCs, (re)acting automatically, running their own little programs. Base Reality is one thing (that weird quantum graph) we don’t have direct access to, So our own feeling of reality is something different: it gets attached like a tag to the best model we have of reality in our mind. All the Qualia (colors, “weights and biases”) are aspects of the model, not aspects of base reality. P.S.: even when I try to repeat what Joscha expresses, it feels empowering and true. I feel that he has the best grasp, the best models of how we relate to the world we are in.

[@JP-ps8fb]

I said it once and I'll say it again...Joscha is plugged in.

[@SamirPatnaik]

@@AJ-zy9jf lol

[@alejandronoriegacampero4884]

This is amazing. Thanks Joscha. While on my phd I had this realization of how to be very happy with the idea that decisions are mechanistic, but absolutly unique, like the unique reflection of light that passes through the unique prism that is our being. Unpredictable. Computable only by our being, like a cryptographic key. Hence, there is so much beauty in that computation, that that in fact is "free will", and understanding such thing, is not depressing for me but awe provoking and makes me like life, the universe, and the scientific emotional non-religious understanding of the world. This piece by Joscha is consistent and supports such ideas.

[@aa-jt1yt]

Who cares if we have free will or not, im just happy its not 2258 and isis isnt hacking my nerual link😂😂

[@DamonD_Absences]

It’s wild how philosophers in 18th and 19th century Germany just thought their way to this stuff centuries before science ever caught up. Talk about being ahead of their time.

[@F--B]

Not to mention the indigenous people who got there tens of thousands of years early.

[@Pheer777]

@@F--B What are you talking about? Who were the indigenous people of Germany if not the Germans/various germanic tribes?

[@vaclavcervinka65]

@@F--B Wtf? You seem to consume leftist propaganda with a comically large spoon.

[@F--B]

@@vaclavcervinka65 In my experience 'leftists' generally aren't interested too much in indigenous worldviews, other than in ways that suit their rather narrow progressive agenda. My interest certainly isn't of this type.

[@F--B]

@@Pheer777 I'm referring to the fact that many indigenous peoples 'thought their way to this stuff' before science. See Peat's 'Blackfoot Physics' for one example among many. You've interpreted my comment a little too narrowly if you think I was referring only to indigenous Europeans or 'Germans.'

[@jravell]

Alan Watts told a limerick… There was a young man who said: “Though, “It seems that I know that I know, “What I would like to see “Is the I that sees Me “When I know that I know that I know”

[@watercolourmark]

Good to hear him state sound and colour is created in the brain. I always find myself getting into discussions on this, based around the old, if a tree falls and nobody is around does it make a sound, notion. I've always stated that the tree creates pressurised air waves but not sound, that is created in the brain. While others will dispute this, stating things like, those pressurised air waves are sound. Glad I can refer them to him now. I feel it important to understand what is real and what is a creation of us - we should be teaching this at school level, it is something we all need to understand.

[@Byronic19134]

The pressurized air waves are coded with the sound and all your brain does is decode it. So...I dunno if that disproves ur theory or proves it honestly but it's another piece

[@watercolourmark]

@@Byronic19134 Our ears collect data points from pressurised air waves and our brains create an illusion of sound from that. Pressure eaves exist much of the time, and never meet a brain to become sound. But we can't hear an illusion of sound without pressure waves.

[@golubvolodemerovich7512]

Yes, my answer to the question of "if a tree falls..." has always been no, for the same reason.

[@zmo1ndone502]

Yes thats always been my interpretation of the thought experiment

[@gardennotch5586]

I view that tree in the woods question differently. It is an impossible question because you are effectively playing the role of God by asking about it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to perceive it… well, which conscious being is aware of this tree, If no one is around to observe anything? And if it’s just a theoretical tree, then what sound could it make? Nothing exists until there is a conscious mind to document and remember it.

[@seanneumann5790]

We’re watching Lex’s model of the world update in real-time here. Its fucking terrifying and so relatable. I was an idealist once. I tried to make sense of the world by imputing meaning upon it. Lex tends to model the world in terms of love and hate - it’s his coping mechanism.

[@deathbydeviceable]

Or time slowly collapsing back to one as we all start to think ourselves out of existence 😢

[@jmp01a24]

Wow. This guy has surpassed most thinkers and actually started to see how science and spirituality (the dreamworld) act together. First step towards the elimination of all known (old) religions AND physics (what scientists are trying to find: a unified theory of everything). We are peaking into what the universe as a whole is, down to the single human experience.

[@silencemeviolateme6076]

There is nothing new under the sun. The old religions were doing this very thing.

[@wolfiecaps_]

Peeking*

[@CACBCCCU]

Toward his comments on consciousness as a model I want to suggest that strategic unpredictability in a model seems neither necessarily purely non-analytical nor necessarily purely deterministic, however it seems to essentially be a strategy for success seen as overcoming the will of others, which could fairly be described as maximizing one's freedom of will.

[@chapstickbomber]

Social free will can increase individual free will, but total individual free will decoheres social free will.

[@gardennotch5586]

Are you saying that there are layers or levels of free-will(idness)?

[@michaelszabados3245]

the social nature of us constructing our dream of reality is critical and unexplored by Joscha. we dream together, or not at all!

[@gaebitch3200]

@@michaelszabados3245separate dreams people cling to. Look to Carl Jung for that

[@guaromiami]

It's amazing how confidently certain people talk about knowing things that we have no idea about.

[@jacobmcguire9174]

Whoa 🤯….video games are the human desire for free will. We are simulating existing in the higher being that controls the character in a way that is absolute and outer perspective-based.

[@jmp01a24]

Meh, you seem to have understand half of what Bach is saying. Be ready to be wowed once he publish his thesis on a unified theory combining: Spirituallity and Science (Incl everything from astronomy down to quantum mechanics.

[@dogen02]

@@jmp01a24 when it is going to be published?

[@jmp01a24]

@@dogen02 I foresaw this in a dream. Often they become reality.

[@dogen02]

@@jmp01a24 I haven't seen him publishing since years, his site seems to be not updated as well. I hope this is comming. Anyway, I haven't spot a 'memory' aspect in Joscha view of freewill. Determinism occures only when 'past' exists and because 'past' doesn't exist there is no determinism. But when memory comes into play, determinism borns. After all without perceiving agency there is only current constant change of everything.

[@show_me_your_kitties]

​@@jmp01a24 you saw it in a dream? Ugh 😒

[@ikhwanwahab4755]

i dont understand anything, but i just listen to it

[@ruebensfilms]

Freewill is an oxymoron. Will is thought produced while freedom is not conjured up by thought. The notion that thought can be free is false.

[@jmp01a24]

You don't know what thoughts I have. It is my will not to tell you. Damn, I didn't account for that device you got that is able to read my thoughts. Will you sell it to me please? I can pay, just say your price.

[@F--B]

False at what level of resolution? False for who?

[@blobscott]

Free will "[is a] betting algorithm that we do not yet understand." This is likely true, but I also suspect that this decision making algorithm & the model(s) it operates on are analogous to weather pattern behavior. That is, human behavior operates on huge numbers of variables and is chaotic in nature - where small initial differences in input can lead to wildly different outcomes. The behavior is not random, but prediction of future behavior may be out of reach as no external system (external to the life form making the decision) has access to all the inputs at precisely the same moment as the decider.

[@watercolourmark]

Likely, but I would say that the human behaviour isn't so vast or chaotic. We do the same sorts of things all the time like everyone else. It may be hard to predict what when the sun will shine, but it is easy to predict what a human will do on that sunny day.

[@Limpass610]

On a group dynamic scale you can predict what most people will do. But on an individual scale, predicting the next thought( because its the one that seemingly comes before action) Is harder

[@avatarion]

It can never be understood with bits. The more you steer into it the more bits you find. Only philosophy can encompass it wholly.

[@rag_llm]

It seems like this part of the conversation spent a lot of time talking about models rather than how we make decisions. There is no free will without decisions. When it comes to free will, you have to move out of the holistic nature of models and deal with that fascinating part of the mind that is responsible for disentangling the parallel nature of the stimuli the mind is bombarded with, and turns it into a (nearly) linear sequence of events, steps, etc. What happens at the event horizon of taking or not taking an action, or the event horizon of choosing A instead of B? Free will deals with sequences and selecting a path through. Yes there is a model that underlies free will, but whether or not we have free will is completely determined by one's belief that we will always make the same choice or not when confronted with the same stimuli. If we will always make the same choice, then free will does not exist. If not, it does.

[@ps5622]

I think that even if we do make another choice given the same stimuli, we also need to prove that the mechanism isn't just random (that would mean that it's out of the control of the subject's mind and therefore not free will) but that the source of whatever mechanism that ends up picking choice B is generated by the subject's will with no contingent event. I hope I'm making sense because at this point, I don't even know myself haha

[@siddg1463]

If we do have free will then wouldnt that mean life and our existence is completely random and the universe ultimately chaotic? And-if we dont have free will then doesn’t this mean that the universe is pre-determined?

[@Dooshanche]

@@siddg1463 not only would it be random in that case, but we'd even be influencing the universe with our consciousness

[@avatarion]

The word model refers to measure, value and structure. We will never know how "free will" operates at base level, so trying to encompass it with a word that symbolizes bits feels wrong to me. I would use the word state. In fact, in Buddhism they often talk about reaching different states.

[@bhushankaduful]

I think in these discussions, we fail to define what it means to be me or you with its boundaries. Once we are able to define it with its limitations then we can proceed to understand further in linguistic domain. For example, we can observe an electron from a instrument but we can never understand how it feels like to be next to it unless we are tuned to it's experienced scale. Until then we can try to observe it by experiencing and creating probabilistic visual model and play around with it.

[@bhushankaduful]

@non person Yes its pretty interesting. Using external feedback we can optimize the limbic brain (and all trouble makers ) response in our day to day decisions among other things. Infact why is it not done on a serious level for simple optimizations is baffling to me. Perhaps we are too busy looking elsewhere or our lack of free will doesn't make us work on these pressing problems. Happens to best of us tbh. Secondly, what constitutes an "I" in a epigenetic (or even social) environment? is still an evolving question. But yeah solving day-to-day simple issues would be a good start.

[@seriousbusiness2293]

As a pragmatist i have the easy answer, of course there is Free Will. You experience it, i experience it, the point is the words "Free Will" only mean as much as we want it to mean. The question rather is "what is free will?".

[@XenMaximalist]

Replacing the idea that "free will is an illusion" to the idea that "free will is a dream" is not a huge update in wisdom.

[@deathbydeviceable]

No, very different. Illusion meaning not real, dreaming can become a reality. You're too short and narrow sided

[@Thaijler]

Ultimately you can either make decisions based on love, or hate. If you are always making decisions based on love, the idea of free will looks like an an illusion, and choice seems deterministic. Human decisions may seem irrational to an outside obsever due to the combination of the decision maker's and the observer's level love in their heart, knowledge, and humilty.

[@allenaxp6259]

I also agree with your point about the relationship between love, knowledge, and humility. I think that the more love we have in our hearts, the more open we are to learning and the more humble we are. And the more open we are to learning and the more humble we are, the more likely we are to make decisions that are based on love

[@allenaxp6259]

I think it's important to remember that free will is a complex issue, and there is no easy answer. But I think that the metaphor of free will as a dream is a helpful way to think about it. It allows us to appreciate the power of free will, while also acknowledging the limits of our control.

[@corysgood881]

We are both, making our own decisions and at the mercy of what the universe is doing. You can't separate the two. Making decisions and things happening to you outside of your control are just 2 different ways of describing the same thing. Its all happening to you and you are happening to it. Using words to describe this usually just gets you into trouble where you continue to slice reality into bits but you never find reality that way.

[@bhushankaduful]

Granted, observer is the part of whats observed. Yet we need to perceive so our intuition can lead us toward understanding or whatever we do with it. We can say that universe is allowing greater perception with time and the events that occur after. This perception is limited to it's biology, physiology etc. But it is rewarding to have a clearer perception to survive and progress.

[@bhushankaduful]

Or better, language nerds to be built like a code, predefined in words or visually. So our perceptions can be on the same page.

[@bhushankaduful]

@Christian Adams I mean we gotta start somewhere, right? Even though we are not quite there yet. How long did it take to understand gravity (whatever we know so far).. ? Centuries.. Free will is nowhere near for now. But I think, compared to other topics it's not discussed too much imo.

[@bhushankaduful]

@Christian Adams thanks for the interesting perspective, made me think in different light. May be there won't be any closure on the debate anytime soon. But either way, this dilemma is somewhat helpful for us to move forward believing whichever viewpoint is best for us at the moment.

[@peterbroderson6080]

Max Planck states: "I regard Consciousness as fundamental and matter as derived from Consciousness. IE: The infinite Consciousness experiencing the infinite possibilities Infinitely. We, as a finite aspect of the Infinite, are given "choice" in our daily actions and each choice leads to other possibilities. Much of a humans action are mechanical but our lives do allow our individual consciousness to make decisions on who and what our lives will be like, ie: limited free will.

[@jmp01a24]

Sure. That is a nice brick in the wall of understanding the universe, time & everything. But as you know, you need a lot of bricks to make a wall.

[@robertpirsig5011]

People think reflexive decisions is proof that we do not have free will. But our minds are a filtering process. Trivial decisions do not need thought. More complex decisions require more consideration or filtering and sometimes decisions are so complex that we can't decide what us the correct decision. This is free will.

[@13odman]

How do we know that the final decision is not conscious and in fact decided based on place and time in the universe? There is almost always an underlining reason for a decision.

[@wolfiecaps_]

"Its not an illusion its a form of data compression; its an attempt to deal with the dynamic of too many parts to count at the level at which theyre entangled with the best model that you can find" impressive framing we experience the waves because experiencing the actual subatomic particles at the quantum level is too hard

[@odettecam]

Killing me softly with your silence

[@watercolourmark]

Great guy, yet I bet he kills the mood of the party every time.

[@jmp01a24]

He only attends virtual parties, generated inside an AI world, by a quantum computer. This alternate reality is very much alike the one we live in.

[@steliostoulis1875]

I really dont thunk thats the case

[@jmp01a24]

Not if I was attending that party. I am sure he would have problems getting away from me, if that was his desire. Possibly we would stand & talk forever.

[@seanneumann5790]

“Cope harder” is basically his message and he’s right.

[@atrocitasinterfector]

I have a feeling this guy is smarter than lex

[@guitarvorous]

This video is so cute. I love these guys.

[@nelliedoyle6922]

i'm with you Lex... we are not just quantum...

[@antaripkataki6491]

How in the world joscha bach gained such knowledge.. I need that...

[@dragonsdraughts8382]

not of his own free will I would guess

[@calumhales5716]

My agent is typing a comment with no control.

[@odettecam]

This has to be the most superficial era in dating history which is wildly disturbing. And I'm sure these dating apps know way too much about superficial preferences. It's gross

[@joshuafaulkner7345]

These types of talks by certain intellectuals, leaves me with the thought that they aren't sentient humans. They are programs. Programs that have figured themselves out and now try to quantify their existence. This must be hard for them to assume something else exists outside of their computations. I know for a fact there's free will. Randomness influences it, as does everything. But I could compose a thought off of a newly researched idea that pairs with a recessed memory, which then leads me to explore the new cocktail of my evolving interest. Maybe I am different, but there's an omnipotent aspect of my entity that isn't a variable, but a creator.

[@gardennotch5586]

I don’t think the concept of free will is that profound, intrinsic to most people is the urge for autonomy. We don’t like authority telling us what to do, so inherently the concept of not having control over the intricate biological reactions happening within our form irks us. But that is just another manifestation of the thing: you and your experience of you is an emergent property. Like heat and light from a flame, or a complex melody emerging from an orchestra. There, in that moment, your feeling and “thinking” is the sum, cumulative expression of all of those small parts working within you. Free will is a farce, just enjoy the ride!

[@muzzletov]

it is real, but it is real in the sense that there is a physical representation of what the "dream" consists of

[@muzzletov]

that would be more in compliace with what youre suggesting, btw

[@N1otAn1otherN1ame]

Ahem, does Joscha know that probabilities are affecting each other if they are charged by knowledge, i.e. probabilities of event A influences the probabilities of event B? It's quite straightforward to predict that there is a probability tree which leads to certain decisions. The real problem is how to solve what started the whole process or how the algorithm is implemented. I think the expression "free will" is still misleading or just wrong or does not make sense at all. Sam has a much clearer view on this topic than Joscha.

[@larscincaid6348]

Consciousness creates Matter. Embrace this...and you will begin to understand.

[@claybutler]

I think this guy is wrong. We are incapable of perceiving individual atoms and molecules. We are incapable of interacting with these atoms and molecules on an individual basis. We can only perceive the collective manifestation of the physics of reality. So we do see things how they are. It's not a dream or an illusion. To say that a wave that is breaking is an illusion because it's really just atoms and molecules is being a bit pendantic. Following this logic there is no baseball in there is no bat. We have just modeled a bat and a ball for the purpose of playing a game but in reality there is no ball and there is no bat. And apparently he didn't just have a conversation with Lex. Lex wasn't really there. And there is no podcast we've only modeled these illusions to make sense of the world. Which means of course the very words and thoughts that comes out of his head didn't actually happen either. Because if you break down the thoughts and the words it's really just meaningless wavelengths of energy.

[@SvenDeBinj]

Exactly! He’s just arguing semantics, the way he’s defined parts of existence. So to him the only things that should be considered real are the very smallest base parts of any feature of reality. Subatomic particles are the smallest we know of, but until we have a solid unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics we can’t know what the smallest base parts of reality are. But wouldn’t such a theory bring forth fundamental objects of reality that supersede his “atoms” as what really exists? Strings...

[@silencemeviolateme6076]

At least others see this. That gives me relief. A wave exists. Of course it exists on several levels but it exists. People do this with time. They say it doesn't exist. Of course it does. My dad is dead. His energy may still exist. His mass may still exist but he is dead. There is no reverse uno card.

[@armin3057]

@@SvenDeBinj then nothing is real because there is no smallest base part, there will be always smaller parts

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

A little though experiment (and its just an idea. im not claimg to be making any scientific claimes) Imagine this: You're playing pool with friends and it's your turn. You look at the position of the balls, try to analyze what your best move is...then, you choose how your shot will be taken. Based on the information you have access to (the position of the balls, the understanding of how pool balls interact with eachother and the table...those types of things), this is 'why you have chosen' to take your shot in the manner you see best. You take the shot and the outcome: you scratch. The cue ball is pocketed and it's now the other player's turn. Not the ideal outcome. ......now, let's imagine that time stopped there, after you got that result. Now, let's imagine that time rewinds back to the point where you are presented with your turn, and thus, all the information you will have to analyze your shot. Since we are at the same point we started from, what would cause us to make a different choice about how to take our shot? ....we dont have any more information than we did 'the first time we looked at the pool table' than we would 'the second time'. We (you and I) know the outcome, so we have extra information... .....but the hypothetical you in our thought experiment doesn't have that information. That 'you' has the same information 'both times'. This is likely obvious but it's because that 'you' is in one point in time and space. They do not have access to knowledge about the outcome of their actions. That would require information being sent into the past after an event occurred. We know the outcome to the event. The 'you' in the thought experiment doesn't and will have no reason to come to the same conclusion about how to take their shot no matter how many times 'they take that shot'. what this shows us is: 1) The 'you' in the thought experiment doesn't have free will, in the sense we normally think of it as. They will always analyze the same information the same way because they are trying to predict the outcome with the information avaliable. 2) If time were to go backwards and then forwards (instead of flowing forward like a river, as it seems to be doing), we wouldn't be able to tell. 👍 It could be happening....but you'd gain information, lose it, and repeat the same events without knowing. This also seems unprovable and not falsifiable, so it's just an idea and not a scientific statement or assertion. 3) This is why it feels like we have free will, yet we do not. Determinism is what allows for this perception, from our view, thay we have free will. 4) ....you tell me what it illustrates that I'm missing (please) 👍

[@appidydafoo]

6:08 "The system is completely mechanical, the system creates that story like a loom - and then it uses the contents of that story to inform its actions, and writes the results of that actions into the story." This is literally the definition of circular logic, gg

[@DukePaprikar]

Yeah, struck me as such too. Couldn't quite untangle what he was trying to say here.

[@sorenbanjomus]

how?

[@matteoianni9372]

Now that we have ChatGPT this process can be described with two prompts: 1)“Write a vague story about a person.” 2)”given the story that you have written and this additional information (presumably received as a sensorial input from the outside world), please revise the story and make it coherent. Prompt number 2 is constantly being updated. The output that is generated is used by the machine as an instruction for its actuators.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

Very clearly, and coherently stated, BUT...Bach's entire thesis is based on an assumption: Consciousness is (or will eventually be...) explicable via the fundamental laws of deterministic physics as currently formulated. I'm not so sure that is the case, and there is no proof that it is. We have no clear definition for what consciousness is, nor any ability to locate or isolate it so that it could be bounded and studied like other physical/energetic phenomena. Does that not render statements about "what consciousness is" as more conjecture than science?

[@jasonhelder]

The wave exists as a perception in a relationship with a perceiver. The quark exists as a perception of a perceiver using a tool to perceive a quark. There is no legitimacy to the notion of one of these perceptions being more “real” or more “true existence” outside of the relationship with the perceiver. No one will ever attain a perception not in a relationship with the perceiver. You can zoom out or in infinitely and you will have a different perception no more or less real. The atoms making the wave are perceived by the perceiver in the same way as the wave. A microscope doesn’t get you any closer to perceiving things “as they are”.

[@indikulkarni7781]

your point about objects only existing via a relationship with a perceiver is interesting. but how do you account for the asymmetry that smaller structures like quarks influence the dynamics of larger structures like protons and so on, and not the other way around? i agree looking at smaller scales does not get you closer to “things as they are”, but it does get you closer to why larger phenomenon are as they are.

[@MrRobertpalen]

Dr Strangelove sure found a complex way to express simple ideas

[@13odman]

I still don't understand how this applies to free will. Our interaction in the dream world model, trickling down to the physical world. To me that still implies freewill exists. Which I personally don't believe. Maybe I can get some clarification here.

[@MsSmith-x9m]

Perhaps view perception and thought as "software " abd aspects of the self forming data compression and approximation models that are successively tuned

[@9snaga]

I think his use of the word "dream" creates the confusion for some people regarding his points which I wholly agree with.

[@Picasso_Picante92]

What does Joscha think about Bernardo Kastrup's take on Reality?

[@kuchenbob2448]

a Kastrup/ Bach conversation would be super interesting

[@johnnytass2111]

Indeed. Kastrup posits that Physics is the Science of Perception, which if compared to Bach's point that our Perception is of a dream world, then it would seem to me to be that physicists view a different resolution of our shared dream world, but its still part of the dream world, and not in touch with our underlying reality.

[@wp9860]

Very similar to Friston's Free Energy Principle. I would love to see a Joscha and Karl Friston dialogue on neuroscience.

[@NilsEchterling]

Joscha basically skips saying "Of course, there is no free will the way people usually define it." and goes straight to the part where, depending on your perspective, things may be experienced as free will or not. It is similar to asking "Are waves real?". Strictly speaking, they are not real, as there are only lots of particles moving in a quantum/deterministic way. But then, these particles behave as if there was a wave. In this sense, waves are obviously real, as they are a model. And this model is "really" used by humans.. If you really experience free will, it is real. Because you really experience it. But then again, it is not real, because physics deep down is deterministic/quantum and nothing else.

[@KM-04]

I don't think Joscha explicitly answered the question, but from what I extrapolated from what he said - I'd lean towards deterministic.

[@novictim]

No, he is a bit on the fence. What I got from this is he left the possibility is that free will might exist, but as a part of awareness itself (which Joscha calls the dream world). Now, you might object and say "but we can explain behaviour materialistically" where he argues that at a fundamental level, the material plane reflects what is in the conscious plane at a lower resolution, that is, perfect correlation at Newtonian level yet at quantum mechanical level, inconsistent. It is through this disrepancy called the hard problem of consciousness that free will becomes "entirely possible" as my second favourite podcaster would say.

[@KM-04]

@@JeffCaplan313I don't really subscribe to the idea of compatibilism.

[@KM-04]

@@JeffCaplan313 I'd assume that would have to come down to a combination of the way the particles of the universe manifests itself 🤣

[@ArnoWalter]

Free doesn't mean unbound. And limitation is not determination. If there is no free will, why are we even interested in it?

[@AlphaPhaseSleep]

can i actually be aware of the fact that i do not exist and can i be true?

[@msnzbody3712]

I can't seem to grasp exactly what he is saying. I'm unsure if its the accent or ?

[@JapseyeSpecs]

Why do we discredit our direct experience for scientific theories? You can literally experience making choices, yet we’re willing to discredit this over an idea.

[@Docmajor16]

Even though we convince ourselves that we are making choices, there is still a possibility that isn't the case. What if our brain/instincts are independent of our consciousness/inner monologue? It's possible that your brain makes the choices, and our consciousness just narrates/explains it.

[@anonymousfry]

Because what we experience is way off than what the universe actually is. You can find simple examples all around you. The earth being perceived as flat, you seeing everything as solid matter( when in reality all of that matter is made of atoms which consists of mostly empty space), our sensory limits(out of spectrum light as well as sound) and what not. Declaring that what we experience is what reality is, is not the wisest choice you see

[@AlanSitar]

you also literally experience the earth being flat... not exactly the smartest position..

[@hubadj]

Free Will is not a illusion, nor a dream. Free Will is Free Will and still it's just words. We ain't got a clue what's going on here. I belive wee need more humility. Respect the mystery.

[@ollyburhouse2464]

Couldn’t disagree more Joscha’s description is in my opinion the closest representation of what it’s like to experience yourself living a life of a person that I’ve ever heard and I think that if you just say, we’ll it’s indescribable so we best not even make an attempt then your not really respecting anything, just cutting yourself off from interesting conversations and perspectives. In addition, I think he also says in the video that what is actually going on is not comprehensible and this experience we have is a simulation in order to formulate and process the reality of what is going on, which is a mystery/incomprehensible or in his words, ‘the physical universe is incomprehensible and has no feeling of realness’. That sounds better in my opinion than ‘dude, just respect the mystery man, we need to be more humble’. I ACTUALLY think joscha gives the mystery great respect in his explanations.

[@seaglider844]

The fact that we can't perceive down to the quantum to me doesn't mean we don't have an accurate model of the universe. The Newtonian physical world we can perceive is valid as well....just on a much coarser scale. The visual cortex and the brain do create the colors but given the various light frequencies of the colors are real then I'm fine with saying they exist...as do the waves hitting your feet. I very much like the idea of free will being part of the modelling dream construct we use to make sense of the universe we come in contact with. A very interesting discussion.

[@F--B]

Underrated comment. Why prioritise one resolution over another?

[@seaglider844]

@@F--B I don't see it a prioritizing, it's just the scale at which we interface with the universe. The scale that we feel with our bodies and see with our eyes. We do see the effects of the quantum in experiments and with sensitive instruments and so far the theory has held. Having detected gravity waves it will be interesting how things go forward from here....love this stuff 😁

[@jamieluo1839]

So if our consciousness is a Dream state (model) which does however feed back into the say deterministic machine that creates future dream states, then are not those errors that make it a dream state (errors in the model from reality) a space into which a form of free will or at least non-determinism creeps into?

[@dieselphiend]

It simply doesn't matter that free will is essentially simulated.

[@nanuk5243]

We all have free will. People who takes interest in others life more then their own life, they are in illusion. illusion is not very old philosophy. I can't stay without you can be free will, but I will create things and force you to realize that you can't stay without me .this attitude is the lower form of attitude in relationships or everywhere and this can creat illusion 😀

[@annaczgli2983]

I keep coming back to this video every few months. It's one of the most mind-blowing ideas that I've come to appreciate steadily with age. It's also a nice companion piece to Stanford neurologist Bob Sapolsky's take on Andrew Huberman's podcast on our total lack of free will. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHqWe3anbpKVmK8

[@dustinlamberta8009]

This is hilarious! I certainly relate more to Lex here. Struggling to put his pants on in the morning…

[@j12dn]

I think i get it... What we see and call real is like a mp3 version of the original recording. Compressed.

[@mehowkielan1984]

No, it's like a recording of an original event. But the analogy is nice:)

[@charlessimons1692]

I have no choice but to say...that was so cool!

[@hckytwn3192]

Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic, ergo reality is non-deterministic… yet you assume humans are? That consciousness is? It doesn’t follow. People confuse intelligence (i.e. problem solving) with determinism because consciousness naturally tries what worked beforehand. That does not mean it’s mechanical. The more mindful and aware a person is, the less you see this.

[@Oracol]

But is quantum mechanics truly non-deterministic or does it merely seem that way with our limited understanding/tools? (We're barely in the baby stages of trying to comprehend it). My guess is we're going to find out at some point that it's not "random" after all....

[@Seanmchannel]

@@Oracol to add to what you've said, even if it does turn out to be random, that doesn't give us any free will. It's RANDOM

[@Oracol]

@@Seanmchannel exactly. Randomness does not equal free will. We don't control the randomness.

[@fullmetalflix5195]

Free will is a model and a spectrum. Most likely none of us will ever have complete free will. What i have determined is the more aware an individual ( i would also call that degree of conciousness ) the greater range of decision a person can make. I hate to use this example but any person who utilizes slavery knows the shackles are not what confines the slave but the limitation of choices percievable to the slave. He cant escape if he is unaware escape is an option. I agree with the guest but dont understand why he doesnt mention a spectrum, yet he gives an example of automatic behaviors when describing a baby. As if its only a critical point and the model of free will has some equal distribution. Amazing conversation btw

[@hgracern]

Wow, thank you. We create ocean waves. 👏🏻Funny reading the comments that Joshas theory that world not exist wasn’t often heard. Buddhist’s would def agree. All is mind, including the oceans we evolved from. 🤭

[@daviddarden5193]

If a soul were presumed to exist, how would it fit into the matters of this discussion?

[@dragonsdraughts8382]

I would guess it would be a singular soul at whatever base layer of reality he is talking about. The idea of individual souls is just an another part of this illusion created in our minds but the separation does not exist in the bottom layer of reality.

[@takeuchi5760]

So imagine alien life, they might be even more alien than we think, if this is our model of the physical world, and it's almost entirely dependent on the system of the brain, then we can't even imagine what an entirely alien conscious brain would be like.

[@show_me_your_kitties]

Yes! I just said the same thing to someone earlier!

[@allenaxp6259]

I also think that the question of free will is similar to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both questions are about the limits of our understanding of the world. We do not know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and we do not know if we have free will. But both questions are important to ask, because they help us to explore the limits of our knowledge and our understanding.

[@CACBCCCU]

If non-conventional gravity of organized ("cold/warm") nucleonic kinetic spins could focus spin-axially and thus flow at a rate exceeding light (as with entanglement, suppose) by any increment small or large, then nonlocality is coherent gravitational focus which is lost noise-dependently ("hotly") over short or long range, suppose. The relevance of this is in the failure of light-like space-time models, doing so in dependence on temperature, and so on small-fast and large-slow scales through naturally-extendable flattened spin-coherence structures showing spin-axial and equatorial gravitational coordination half-analogous to a low-energy frame-dragging evolution; beyond that there are two interacting distinct media (light and gravity) of otherwise-individually-deterministic information-conductive coupling, true retrospectively-analytical causality is not lost but deep kinetic spin-axial gravity of organized spins dominates at the top of the causality-influence hierarchy, in both entanglements and DM-supposed concentrated gravity-effect filaments sometimes crossing to promote subtle string-like spin-structures in globular dwarf galaxies that otherwise may be lacking evidence of expected DM effect localized densities, and quickly enough this may eventually impact popular consciousness theory. A simplified analogy is seen in the increased rate of twist-information flow in a set direction possible with a pre-twisted conductor. Other simplified models involve visualizing space as a spin-concentrated gravitational-spin dielectric or as a spin-twist-based laterally-compressed/axially-distended otherwise-regular granular gravitational medium. Spin-flattened nucleonic structures in three mutually-intersecting axes support the notion of cold retro-reflection approximation in lowest-energy gravity information flows, analogous to a damped-spin Hebbian-rewarded ground-state learning effect in nucleon coupling. .. Not to limit gravity unfairly on an absolute quantum scale where an intrinsic ultra-large-scale, yet demonstrably nucleon-based using charge-to-gravity force-ratio 10^(36-15)m =10^21m in meters for hydrogen nuclei, "spatial wave" ("stationary" as in asymptotically-non-time-like in statically-sourced vector-field spatial variations), at one of multiple particle-based size-scales: galactic, cluster and beyond, may be supported e.g. in equatorially-focused target-like rings of DM-supposed gravity effect manifested through basic propagating field-carrier vector rotations in space with a phase (field effect orientation) directly dictated by open distance covered between any two separated nucleons.

[@CACBCCCU]

They'd rather royally bend wavelengths, distance and time instead of letting gravity bend light-waves by changing lightspeed; they're happy with blue-shifted things falling slower because if slowing time down won't work for them they can pretend distance decreases by shorter wavelengths, in other words they're happy interpreting frequency-shifts backwardly, as a source-based event vs. a transmission-based event, in variable gravity. They'll idiotically suggest light has to lose energy sideways to bending unless space bends too, presumably because they believe their assertion on that will remain untestable. They're apparently most happy censoring comments mentioning nonpublic correction of GPS satellite data. They merely need to grind their century-old theory on every major fake news outlet on a monthly basis to keep it looking strong. They're merely Einstein's pseudo-historically pseudo-underprivileged pseudo-pacifists and they are truly-adept worm-holing dark-sector inverts.

[@Cellaardoor]

So what the fuck are you saying exactly, in layman's

[@katk1958]

It's so frustrating being just *barely* smart enough to know I'm just not smart enough to know who all *I* am, and whom is in charge of whom. (Don't worry guys--I'm not gonna slip a cog over this, but I'm still super curious.) I need to be taught this as though I'm an average five year old. I really desire to understand all this, because I think if I could I might be able to give myself a break from myself, occasionally, whomever/however I am, that is. I think some form of crude visual aids might help me. 🤣 Just laying my ignorance out here, cuz wth? I think, bottom line, this all means we really don't have any control over anything, and I should just be greatful our brains are able to let us experience the beyond-our-comprehension natural real realm/the universe, in ways we can understand at least a little bit.

[@sennaevil]

You is an abstract idea that doesn't exist. If you asked 10 different people who you are, they'd all say different things based on their own idea of you. Ask a goat who you are and you will see the effects of it. Who is in charge? The closet thing to who is in charge is cause and effect. You are completely trapped where you are physically in the universe until the universe moves. There is always a cause for everything that happens. If there is a cause then you couldn't have been in control because something caused you to do that and something caused that etc.

[@tonicross6409]

Sam Harris diss track when?

[@MonaMarMag]

Illusion is everything else .

[@carefulcarpenter]

What really frustrates the scientific mind is that which is beyond mind. _synchronistic mathematics_ is a means to define the Unified Field of Consciousness, that which is perceivable and that which is a mystery. We have many words to speculate about reality but few tools to document events that we perceive that are outside of 4D. Can it be predicted? How can one know what one cannot have been taught? Mathematics is one aspect, and synchronicity is another. When combined awareness transcends time and space to cosmic probabilities. It is not illusion.

[@jaykay6387]

These guys that say "a wave isn't really a wave" are getting lost in the molecular/and or mathematical complexity of it's design. It's still a fucking wave, it's not just "our" representation. This guy reminds me of Donald Hoffman, who I heard on a Sam Harris podcast and even Sam wasn't buying what that guy was selling, and Sam is a shit ton smarter than I am. Sam basically concluded that the guy was totally around the bend. I think when you go down the rabbit hole too far, you get intellectual hypoxia.

[@jaykay6387]

@Dan Clipca Ok, smart guy, what do you think, then? He started out strong and then made a terminal descent into gibberish. Yes, I rely on people who are smarter than me for many things in life, it's kind of a necessary condition if you want to maximize your time here.

[@jaykay6387]

@Dan Clipca As I said, a lot of the time you need to rely on people that just know more about certain things. Initially, I said I didn't agree with him but used Sam Harris to back up my disagreement, so in one case I agreed with somebody smarter but in another case I disagreed with one. And the point of it isn't to "have fun", the point of it to me was to challenge myself and hopefully learn something new. If you want to call that "getting triggered", which to me sounds like some BS SJW term, fine, go for it. I wasn't looking for an apology, but thank you anyway.

[@larscincaid6348]

ALL physical matter is a dream.

[@jamesboyle7004]

I feel like they have same prospective on this idea but it's hard to wrap the language around it, basically reality is processed through our human brains and a model is made. The question is, is our experience post action because we made a decision or our we just a mechanism for the human brain to add to its model of reality. There is a horror movie to be made about that. Good night folks, 🙋

[@gabrielorville5334]

This lines perfectly with, my understanding of, the work of Jung. Trippy.

[@rileycole2588]

Could you elaborate a bit?

[@RNCM_Philosophy]

@@rileycole2588 My guess is that he is referring to something along these lines: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

[@tommyss834]

That's why I'm arguing with this guy in my head

[@coasteraddict10]

Thank god somebody else gets it

[@christianbergmann27]

This Perspective is way to easy to manipulate and to outplay. Conciousness Beeing vs Player of the Concious Beeings, that could be easily be outplayed by the easy Outplayers Rules of only egoistic Lifeforms. Change a little bit here, and Change a little bit there, a Atom here, a Bit there, a Hex and Photon here and there, and you will get a Result, that becomes in your Dreams your free Will as an Illusion of a Summary. You do it very awesome and good, do not misunderstand me.

[@thomasmclain6888]

The religion of randomness will always mean a deterministic world with no free will. It is a belief and not science.

[@scottwadeg]

So what Joscha seems to think is that there is no forest because there are trees. Re. There are no oceanic waves because there are atoms and subatomic particles.

[@Daniel_Daigle]

The forest is a construct without a clearly defined edge. So are trees, so are cells, so are atoms, etc. Robert pirsigs intellectual scalpel. We chunk information into systems, groups, categories as a way to compress data. But really, they are not discrete. All of these categories have significant overlap and largely depend on stuff outside of their modeled system / category. Reductionism is only good for modeling. But reality is much more than what can be constrained into a model. Carl Sagan once said if you wish to create an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. With the same sentiment, if you wish to fully model the universe or anything in it, you must create the universe in it's entirety.

[@ProfEllisandTheStudents]

invite donald hoffman on and talk about "the case against reality" !

[@Robinson8491]

Categories

[@eTas84]

Bars!

[@ALLENNEWLIN1979]

Whatever they been smoking I would love to try it. What on earth?

[@zmo1ndone502]

IDK about you but I think both of them are right.

[@JimJoness619]

JB is definitely a screwed in kid

[@bendavis5526]

Why can’t life be meaningless ?

[@ahmarcamacho8404]

Cause we humans don't like that answer, not pretty enough

[@aleckirsten5769]

He doesnt understand the nature of “self”. Its a creative process, not deterministic. Hes in the same dead end road german philosophers were in… Painting a dull and grim picture of reality that simply is just one of many perspectives of reality. In other words - a cell can never comprehend the full body and environment that the body is in, he pretends he does, whilst he is just creating a model thats aiming to explain the cell within the body. Surrender is the key to experience true magic in this life, not to his ideas though. They might work to create AI systems, but not to explain creation overall.

[@Anna_Swamy_Nageshwar]

the dream is an illusion

[@jeffjones3040]

Joscha is pretending to not understand the question....Do we have Free Will? He knows what most people mean by that.

[@batlaizan]

~~ All that we see or seem... is but a dream, within a dream. ~~ E A Poe / cover by Propaganda

[@batlaizan]

"If it was predictable, you wouldn't experience it as a free decision, you would experience it as doing the necessary RIGHT thing." YES ! Precisely ...

[@batlaizan]

About 10 months ago while lost in the abyss, I got some happiness from the belief I discovered the complement to physical determinism, as nominal determinism, i.e. patronyms. That deterministic duality would be resolved by the tertium datur of self-determination, all which of three in turn shape the Triad around Freedom/liberty ... Clearly the Triad is a fundamental epistemic scheme, there's a reason why it's the central Catholic Mystery (hopefully more about that in the next video to come on my channel, stay tuned !)

[@dojo4437]

Am i wrong to say he is talkin in circles? Once you understand how your "Free Will" has been constructed if you break free and do different then the origianl cultural programming isnt that "Free Will" ? What about the choice to do nothing ? The dream thing also doesnt make sense because if you get hurt physically or emotionally you cant tell your brain to stop your nerves from feeling pain or the negative thoughts and emotions that rise up in you. Im sure im missing something but dudes this smart say we live in a dream/simulation but they still getting hungry and takin they asses to bed like the rest of us. So either the matrix is real and its understanding "Free Will" that breaks you out OR the matrix is ever changing to fit what YOU perceive it to be.........Not gonna lie the second one sound like hmmmmm idk GOD.

[@ericmichel3857]

His theories seem coherent, until you realize that computer models do not have experiences, and the whole idea of the brain as some sort of computer running algorithms does not even begin to explain consciousness. Other than that, I agree with everything else he said. Lex, talk to Bernardo Kastrup. Read his books, he will completely change your perspective on consciousness, and the nature of reality, but in a way that actually makes sense.

[@josedanielherrera7115]

He's got quite the stare down. I don't blame Lex for doing his patented head bobble thought emoji :p

[@javiersoto5223]

People who think Bach is a genius are not that smart

[@martingifford5415]

That's reductionistic materialism. Just because we don't perceive all the complex things that are happening, it doesn't prove that our perceptions aren't real.

[@Docmajor16]

I don't believe he claims proof of that. But it doesn't prove that our perceptions are real either