Living Without Free Will, Susan Blackmore

[@fredpauser6228]

After studying the FW controversy for years, I became a NO-FREE-WILLIST (not a Determinist). Susan Blackmore is FABULOUS! She did an excellent job of explaining no-free-will in a way by which lay-people may begin to understand it.

[@usernameryan5982]

I've read your book!

[@justwatermoving]

An assertion of an identity of non-identification?

[@eoeo92i2b2bx]

I had the same “ ephiphany”. One moment it just occurred to me. It took just an instant for the veil to lift. I did all my research AFTERWARDS to discover what it is that I have actually experienced. I happened a year ago, and once it occurred there is no way back to the old way of thinking.

[@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496]

Indeed. Once it’s seen, once spiritual seeking arises, there’s no turning back. Amazing init?

[@drkamalkannan]

Good and scientific basis of illusion of free will. One can peacefully live with this illusion, when they understand the basis of this illusion. This is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Only "doing" is really happening, the "I am the doer feeling" and the "deed done" are illusions. So in reality there is no free will. The "doer" is born only after the "doing".

[@SilenceInTheBliss]

Except that the doing is done by universal consciousness, the absolute, God, Source, pure awareness, etc. via the body-mind mechanism so the brain readiness being detected is being determined by a senior invisible consciousness. That consciousness is who we actually are and has been fractionalized into a localized viewpoint of the whole. So, no, the false, conditioned self that believes it's a separate individual and is the body-mind, is not the doer and doesn't really exist however, the true self is the doer and that true self is you.

[@thatchinaboi1]

There is no doing. There is only being. Remember, Time doesn't actually pass. Change is perceptual, not actual.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

@@thatchinaboi1 If you weren't the doer, you'd be terrified every time your body got near a knife, a gun, behind the wheel of a car, alone with a female in an enclosed area, as you'd have no control over what your body decides to do, and could only witness it murder, rape, rob, etc. Don't go off the deep end of absurdity when following non-duality. Many completely misunderstand what it is.

[@thatchinaboi1]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 It's not my problem you are too stupid to understand.

[@TheJaimills]

I live in the story I tell myself about my life.

[@rnunezc.4575]

Excellent!

[@yoooyoyooo]

I'll rephrase a bit. I exist in the story that is being told to me about life.

[@rnunezc.4575]

@@yoooyoyooo you are being told..?..by who ?...

[@rnunezc.4575]

I ll rephrase it maybe better. The way I live depends a lot on the way I tell myself the story of my life...change that story , change your life.

[@TheRealValus]

"The power of fate is confessed only by the miserable, for the happy attribute all their success to prudence and merit." - Jonathan Swift

[@gergabendi]

So.. belive in free will and you will be happy and succesful. 🙂

[@jamespaternoster7354]

So we’ll said Valkin or quoted rather

[@kichu912]

Even If we dont have free will, i dont think someine has to teach us to live without freewill, we have being doing this for ages!

[@ThePpyrosa]

but that was without knowing? youre right a better question would be : how to live knowing we dont have free will?

[@Sashas-mom]

Wow good point

[@dannyvalastro2638]

we change our minds constantly everything determines our will

[@thecompassionateworld1582]

This theory could use a grand unifying theory. It looks to be true that the brain engages milliseconds before a will/thought, but what is more important - what is really dictating the direction of that will/thought? Even though the brain may light up before a will or thought, does that mean the forthcoming thought is controlled by that signal? I think they have overlooked this question, though I did not watch the whole video to see if this question was asked. And then there is the soul and its own voice, if you believe in such an energy. It too is sending a signal to the brain. The body may be hungry and it is sending a signal to the brain. It may be raining outside and the brain is also receiving that signal. The grand unified theory may look like this: the brain is wired into many stimuli, some we can see and others we cannot, which would account for pre-engagements of activity, especially if the human brain is wired into a soul concept. The soul concept also contains the paradigm of linking to another dimension(s). This would position the human brain as a grand conduit to everything that is. I also contend that outer environment dictates the majority of our behavior and decision making. An example of the whole process using a hunger signal from the body: the brain lights up, a signal is formed that the body is hungry, a will is formed for food, the will opens the refrigerator and the contents will predict what is chosen. If there is no refrigerator nearby, perhaps the phone is used for a pizza delivery. If there is no phone, perhaps a walk to the nearest market is the only choice. For complexity, let's say the craving is for a meatball sandwich, the plot would thicken. If the environment that surrounds us guides most of our freewill. Does that pre-engagement of the brain milliseconds before a will is place into action, really matter to the outcome of what the environment will persuade? After all, Susan persuaded everyone in the room to wave their hands. And their personal pre-engagement of brain activity had nothing to do with that, for their hand-waving action was a reflection of Susan's will. My point: any pre-activity in the brain before a will is formed is immaterial. It's the conscious action of the will that matters, and that action is controlled by many factors.

[@SilenceInTheBliss]

Excellent comment.

[@pichum4st3r]

The Compassionate World I’ve heard comments about this from many scientists and most of them say that that these experiments are inconclusive. All they tell us is that simple motor movement has been determined before we are aware of it. And I have been questions about these results in of themselves. Like what about anticipation?

[@michaelpace1075]

“It’s the conscious action of the will that matters” There is no will.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Mind is the only thing that exists, so all action is the result of will/intention. That will/intention is not always (or in some cases ever) made perceptually available to consciousness. She takes an ALL or NOTHING approach to free will which leads to the wrong conclusions about what's occurring. Consciousness spans all levels of existence, so anything your apparent body does is the result a will or intention whether or not it was made perceptually available to you. For example, without special intervention (Death, NDE, 5-MEO,...) you have no perceptual access to your infinite beingness. Similarly you have no perceptual access to the subconscious where a vast amount of information processing, intention, will takes place. Only when you act with conscious intention are you perceptually aware of it. She seems to suggest there is a material body and brain, and cites results from tests about what this supposed brain does. The mistake is that there is only the appearance of a brain or body or world or universe. So it should not be interpreted that a thing that exists in appearance alone plays a controlling role in will / intention. Watch everything you can on Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman for more info.

[@steeneugenpoulsen8174]

I don't understand why they think "free will" only exist if you make decision right now and perform them right now. There is no reason why free will isn't how you program your future reaction.

[@8xnnr]

The big bang started all of the reactions

[@Sashas-mom]

Right?

[@phillip3548]

Human freedom is not measured by being able to do anything we want, it is measured by not being forced to do anything we don't want.

[@thatchinaboi1]

It's easy enough to figure out that we have absolutely no control over anything whatsoever. It is more difficult to understand how causality is also an illusion.

[@thelondoners-lifeisart]

Superb conversation thank-you. “It wasn’t me”…. Then who was it… so much is instinct and automatic… we become our whole selves when we slow down observe consider and then drive. #pauseforward

[@somethingness]

@39:45 Some criticism of Mooji's views. Excellent. Far too many people are treating him with unquestioned deference.

[@somethingness]

@47:20 Daniel Dennett's views being taken on too, excellent!

[@RodCornholio]

"If you WANT to give up free will." Perhaps she means to let go of ones FAITH in free will. But that too, entails CHOICE, does it not? This is a very PRO free will lecture because the meta argument is that we have the free will to believe in it or not.

[@12dollarsand78cents]

What ever you believe about free will, you have no choice. If you think you changed your mind about it one way or another, after watching this video, those photons the went in you eye(s) and the sound the went in your ear(s) triggered subatomic particle to change your mind, not you.

[@asstornaut1066]

12dollarsand78cents what a load of balderdash nonsense u just wrote lmao, photons changed ur mind? the fuck ur even talking about dude? no. it was SUSAN itself with her IDEAS and BELIEFS about free will using her own free will to influence other peoples mind. if free will wasnt real then she wouldnt be there trying to convince others, if they had no free will to choose, then who is she trying to convince? now do us a favor and dont comment such flapdoodle babble again.

[@12dollarsand78cents]

If you are laying in bed in a dark room, and someone asks you if it's dark, you should say yes. Now you turn on a very bright light, and they ask you the same thing, and you being a smart ass dumb shit, you say yes again... shit that's not a good example... never mind.

[@duffdingelmeyer7101]

You're confusing the clunky language we use for a philosophical point.

[@RodCornholio]

@@duffdingelmeyer7101 Language can not be an argument (i.e. a "philosophical point"). However, it can be a tool to express an argument. She failed to rationally prove that one can live without free will. Choice is inescapable.

[@zerge69]

9:50 well, if you conclude that there is no free will, there’s nothing you can do about it, because you have no free will.

[@taghiabiri3489]

22 Years ago I quit with Crack. My free will told me so. Wich was’nt that free at all, because there were many MANY reasons from outside shaped it. Still today I don‘t know why the outcome was the hundred times I tried to stop with Crack (and Alcohol..and..and..) before was different.. I can want a lot of things, but the outcome is absolutely NOT in my hands. It happens, or not. Why? I don‘t know. I have the absolute same feeling about getting into the Addiction before. It just happens. Outside, inside, so many things happen that shape the outcome. I tried hard, but just was very lucky that the outcome was like this for me.

[@country21able]

She couldn't answer the man with the first question who basically said you chose to give up free will how can you give up something you don't have, she even appeared to be very irritated by it. She actually made a better argument for free will.

[@justbreakingballs]

Coleman S Wouldn’t that just be giving up the belief you have free will?

[@LoveJungle420]

It's an unintelligent question. Free will is not an object to give up and he's asking the question as if it is. It's a concept. She's talking about the belief in free will being given up and beliefs can change, not because of free will, but because of the combination of internal and external influences that cause that change.

[@8xnnr]

Cause and effect.

[@actuallyone1]

Who or what is there to have free will?

[@is-be6725]

What is the point of trying to change my mind, if free will doesn’t exist?

[@shamashmindful]

She also doesn't have the free will to stop herself.

[@kidscrocs]

@@shamashmindfulno free will doesn't mean we can't change. It means we don't change without some kind of stimulus.

[@shamashmindful]

@@kidscrocs I agree. I've come to the conclusion that there is relative and absolute free will. On the absolute level, it doesn't exist. But on our normal, everyday level, we have a sense of me and you and free will and choice and so on. And from my studies of psychology, it's much healthier and a path to greater happiness too, if we consider we do have relative free will. I think they call it having an 'internal locus of control'. What do you think of this theory?

[@Valandor_Celestial_Warlock]

If someone is mentally ill, especially profoundly insane, do they have free will or is their behavior dictated by the illness?

[@gmortimer20031]

We can't do that, because it would be a lot of work, and we wouldn't be able to deliver something that works in time. I have forgotten the number of times I have heard that.

[@prashantjohnmichael]

She's very sure the question needs a conclusion. I wonder if questions are meant to be answered or are a platform for inner and personal discovery (un covering).

[@catharsis21]

My personal conclusion is that any conclusion nevertheless remains open-ended. ;)

[@marekgalteestaff7087]

I do not want to talk about the perception of free will here, because this is a subjective experience by definition. Instead, I would like to look at the issue from the point of view of an external observer who uses manipulation techniques. Manipulation techniques, in a nutshell, influence the sub-consciousness of the object of manipulation. The object of manipulation is not aware of it, so it rationalizes its actions and decisions. However, if an external observer (for example a trained psychologist) equips the object of manipulation with knowledge about how manipulation techniques work, the manipulation object becomes not only resistant to manipulation (to a large extent), but can even manipulate the existing manipulator. If we treat a man like a sophisticated computer, then the knowledge and ideas provided will be like antivirus software. However, not all ideas are useful. Some ideas can be harmful. We can easily imagine a psychologist-psychopath who implements harmful ideas to his patients, for example telling them that their efforts to quit addiction really do not matter, because they have no influence on it. We can treat it as a manipulation technique that works, and it can be proved by statistical methods. So, from my perspective, "free will", is an idea that can be treated as a kind of useful software, thanks to which we are more effective. And besides this, I have the impression that somebody implemented virus of compassion in Susan Blackmore brain software.

[@binra3788]

PS: God Gave You (created You) Free Will - so you are stuck with it eternally - whether you align in it for joy or determine to prove you have none or have a corrupt and evil will, or anything else your focus in thought and feeling of being generates. The subset of freedom regarding true and false - which is masked in the idea of good and evil, is simply that Reality, God or your being is NOT coercive upon you. But in coercing the will - you will generate dissonance that you may interpret as guilt and punishment - and seek to mitigate or out-source.One way of offloading guilt is to go around 'correcting' or undermining others - so as to be the one - or aligned in the power to deconstruct others and tell them what is true. But destroying is not creating - no matter how much gratification ones derives from the will to sacrifice others.

[@Siberius-]

Awesome talk. Would have been cool to go into the philosophical logic side of it, since nothing rests on the science either way. Lemmie answer those audience questions too in a shorter way.. - The first guy who asked about using free will to not believe in free will: No.. you will do as you do. She is just caused to want to add some potential causes into other people's lives to give up free will. - The girl who suggested it could just be input delay: Input doesn't take half a second.. and that certainly doesn't account for newer studies that have an upwards of 10 seconds delay. - The girl who asked about how people seemingly use free will to quit smoking: You still have a "will".. but you don't have a "free, will". - The guy who said "but what about the body?": The body and mind are irrelevant, because we can already show that free will can't exist through classical logic alone. Regardless of the body and brain and even if you wanna add a soul, or magic.. it makes zero difference. - Will they use this as an excuse?: Well for anyone who does.. they still need corrective measures to be taken out upon them.. so it might be an excuse, but it won't excuse them from any corrective measures either way. As far as retributive punishment and responsibility.. yea retribution goes out the window and is replaced with rehabilitation, essentially exactly what they have in the Scandinavian prison model, which works very well (far better than retribution). Andddd yes responsibility goes out the window.. but we still retain accountability and duty. So.. not much changes, in this regard. They still can't just get away with things. It's just that we don't deal in retribution or blame. Which does not mean they don't still get corrective measures. Society still has to work, of course. - Is everything "pre-recorded" per se?: Depends what you mean exactly. That can get into the topic of "fatalism".. (which is not the same thing as everything being determined).. and is problematic. Where you believe outcomes are already set in stone, regardless of what you do, so you might as well not bother doing anything.. because it makes no difference at all. Like.. why bother calling the doctor, because he outcome is already decided. When under determinism... it's not already "decided" in that moment. Different causes can still actually influence that outcome. Don't fall into defeatist fatalist mindsets. Go to the doctor lol. As far as, "is everything Determined"?: We don't know. If determinism is all there is (prior causes), then yes. But if any randomness exists at all... (potential quantum randomness perhaps), then no it's not all determined (although that randomness might just fizzle out on a small scale and not affect much of anything.. but still). Currently we don't know if quantum randomness exists or not. BUT, regardless of whether everything is deterministic, or if randomness exists.. we still can't have free will. It makes no difference at all. This position is called "Hard Incompatibilism". It's a good label, because it avoids making assumptions about whether randomness exists or not (states of the universe).. when.. that is irrelevant to the actual question of significance. Just adds unnecessary confusion and mess. If you were to just ask if free will itself can exist.. the answer very much appears to be that free will is logically impossible.

[@homerfj1100]

Just catch a cold and one quickly realises that free-will does not exist. Or talk to someone who has recently come off drugs. Or , to a depressed person. Within a sentence or 2 one sees that "free will" or the idea of it disappears.

[@binra3788]

Whatever you presume free will to mean is indeed a fantasy. How do you interpret any experience? Your conditioning is the framework of past learned patterns and habits that will seem to run automatically - but you set them in motion by repeating the acts that make a habit from the ongoing acceptance of who you accept yourself to be. If you identify as 'confined or defined by a sick body' then that too is an interpretation for you might choose to accept it as a healthy purge - an enforced rest from an out of balance needing to be addressed. The idea of doing what you fancy without consequence is devoid of any grounding and so MEETS consequence to bring it back to balance. So what is the freedom to desire and imagine a better way to see this (any) situation - regardless what your current thinking asserts about it? It is YOU! The false sense of freedom is what imprisons - but try telling that to an addict. They have these conditions in which they feel permission to feel and be and relate expansively. WHO sets these conditions? Well, you can say your conditioning does - but you were necessary to accept some but not other aspects of beliefs and ideas and characteristics you were exposed to or inculcated with. You did what you had to do to survive and develop within an insane or at least loveless world - but when you notice that your conditioning reacts without your conscious acceptance - by the unwanted consequences - you have an awareness in which you are free to be curious as to what you believe and why - and whether it still holds true for you or is baggage that sabotages your relationships - and it's time to let it go for what does align with who you recognize and accept yourself to be now. So what you mean by freedom or will - makes all the difference as to what in fact you are talking about. To the egocentric or conditioned personality - there is no freedom for there is no real presence of conscious awareness. Just sit and be and feel presence and notice what is going on for you. Or indeed beneath what your thinking tells and takes to be you. But presence, wholeness of being, unconflicted joy - these are freedom to be - irrespective of the content. But of course conditions arise that trigger reaction and you are free to notice and enquire as to what is really going on in place of a sort of mainstream media narrative control - for that mind is really a masking and diversion for a sense of psychic emotional continuity that neglects or is unaware of hardly anything its filters disallow.

[@binra3788]

Free will is an illusion accepted or taken in place of the true. Not that true can be edited - but that framing in terms of a mind-in-wish asserts a narrative identity masking coercive deceit.This asserts free will as a right or power to DO unto because its first experience of taking self image over relational awareness is of 'doing unto truth' and borning a sense of power to differentiate and reject - to which it then meets in reflection and suffers subjection with all the force of the wish its power be real. But true will is desire rooted in and resonant with who we are - not who we take ourself to be in error or terror. The true will is without coercion and its nature is creation - but in terms of our self-defined reality-experience, is the movement for reintegration or wholeness - that undoes the seeming to a freely accepted true. By this you can recognize truth. It is NOT coercive upon you but of an unconditional acceptance. The identification in coercive mind is the masking off from what is feared to demand pain and loss and its maintained dissociation or sense of segregative consciousness its protection against total loss. The limiting of identification within the realm of a sense of personal control is an evasion masking as power and discovery. For all the illusion of control, the actions arise spontaneously from the beliefs and definitions that are accepted and reacted true. Freedom truly resides as the focus in consciousness - but what we tend to call conscious is the masking from consciousness associated with conflict. Truly conscious thought creates. There is no correlation within personality terms but choice. A conscious choice is a conscious acceptance of purpose and desire. This aligns the outcome as the unfolding or revealing of the idea in fruition. What the personality level takes to be conscious thoughts operate a narrative continuity of a sense of self over the denied or rejected 'unconscious' and they generally run as subconscious conditioning unnoticed - until the stirring of consciousness rising through suppressed conflicts and emergent insight and integration.

[@bobaldo2339]

Not having free will is not nearly as bad as not having a television set.

[@dannyvalastro2638]

we can not pick and choose who we are born everything determines our will the religion you are brought up in the parents you have if your beautiful you are less shy if you are ugly you are afraid of rejection do we really have a free will lifes not fair

[@doc2590]

No free will. No guilt or shame. No pride, arrogance or better than.

[@satanshameer690]

No pride and arrogance would be a start to solving issues facing the planet

[@binra3788]

The usurping of the will by a split mind operates an illusion of freedom to choose between - as if independent from. This sense of self is the so called conscious mind - which is largely defined and predicated upon what it is unconscious of. Clearly actions arise from a formulation of reality that includes a triggering of past conditioning that runs as a subconscious routine with unconscious elements. In fact the action of keeping unconscious what is not acceptable operates as the primary defence OF a masked presentation of self that is hardly in control - and is yet invested with the need and obligation for control and compliance within its accepted reality - because it is disconnected from true willing by design. True feelings, true desires are not generally felt safe to embody in a world of judgement, blame and rejection. But the word 'accept' is where choice truly exists - for in choosing to accept a masking off or dissociation of self for whatever reasons in early life, one now has the freedom to own that choice as a choice and change it for another. So if finding social acceptance and validation from others has driven your behaviours - you can notice this as pattern of dissonance if indeed it is not really living the life that moves you (free will) but conforming to beliefs and ideas that do not (or no longer) serve you. So you are free to refuse to accept what you recognize is not You and costs you the fuller experience of your living - as the more aligned focus in who you do recognize yourself to be. But you are not free to become what you are not, though you may be free to attempt it - and defend the attempt - while it yet seems meaningful to you to do so. But freedom to submit to a compulsive or tyrannical substitute will is hardly a conscious appreciation of freedom! Until thought itself is observed in act - there is only the term 'conscious thoughts' assigned meanings within a currency of thinking that operates the blocking of free awareness. So what exactly is meant by free and by will? The mind in its act of defining, predicting and controlling outcomes is a conditioned reaction despite assigning itself to the pinnacle of evolution. It operates blind to the reality of who you truly are or who anyone or anything truly is - and cannot but be so while employed for the purpose of control. Free will in its true sense is an allowing and balancing within a whole of which the mind in judgement cannot know. The story of Jesus is of the yielding of a false sense of will for the alignment in the true. He called it the Father's Will - for it is of the whole for the whole - through the particular needs - that may not be what social mores dictate or expect. For true needs are denied by society predicated upon evading the fearful and diverting from the knowledge of the evasion in surface gratifications and observances. Always your experience is the result of definitions you have accepted true of you in any particular situation. If you get this - your acceptance of your own recognition is your freedom to be curious as to exactly what core beliefs and definitions are playing into or setting up experience or patterns of relationship you say you don't want. Your natural desire is 'prayer' in that it aligns and attracts to you the pathways that bring fulfilment. It doesn't need words or belief in a religious set of ideas - but being truly acknowledged consciously is no longer hiding or downplaying something that moves you. The moment of suddenly noticing yourself in act - at the level of belief or definition can come in any kind of way and in different timings - but it is the awakening or stirring at a level the surface mind generally denies you - until you more persistently and consistently choose to release the illusion of control that fear triggers the need of - and embrace what you will freely. Even such an honesty aligns choices from otherwise drifting in self-negative habits - no matter how well camouflaged in apparently positive forms. Life does not call for interference from the surface consciousness to unfold lawfully - in terms of being true to its foundation. It is the loss of the awareness of true foundation that set a mind scurrying for fig-leaf thinking in which to seem to be self-existing and self-determining. Uncovering this is an illusion is not another basis upon which to make a more subtle fig-leaved model of reality. The subjective experience of void, is a restoring of a true Unconscious - that is the wellspring of Life and not a well full of corpses with a heavy lid over it. Graphic metaphors, but terror operates the loss and denial or usurping of Will. And the only 'life' it permits is the sacrifice of your Sovereign will for a set of rules that become you. Or rather operate a placeholder where your true presence would be - were you to accept who you are - and live as if it is indeed true.

[@leoahlgren1]

1 - you cant come up with questions that is hard to answer, and the absence of answer is no proof of determinism, or anything else for that matter. However, it's interesting to think about. 2 - In the old materialistic world view; if we don't have any free will, we might as well kill our selves since nothing matters anyway. There is a possibility that there is both free will and not free will. Breathing, for example, is both an automatic and voluntary process. 3 - If there is consciousness, which there is, which also is called "the soul", we will indeed never find it or be able to measure in any conventional way. Consciousness (i am, the silent awareness), is the observer, and from that point of mind-view, there is no free will, just observation. But it may be possible that the observer can "step in" and act on energy (matter, E = mc²), this is hard to prove, just speculation.

[@Michal_Sobczyk]

Just try to close your eyes and sit with this for a moment. Do you actually notice consciousness? Or are there only sights, sounds, thoughts? Can you see that consciousness is just a mental concept? Can you see that any sense of observation/perceiving is just an illusion? There is no you noticing walking, there is just walking. There is no awareness of thinking, there is just thinking. Seeing, feeling, touching...

[@jameskirk5778]

The Libet experiments are 1983 and a lot has happened since then. One of the biggest changes is in the algorithms to process EEG (my background is both applied mathematics and computational neuroscience and I have actually done work in this field and not just read or heard about it as Susan has). PAC (phase amplitude coupling) has given a lot of insight on this and the work from the group in Freiburg has opened up a new understanding. The 'intent signal' rides on top of a negative trend in a slow wave and that is why the RP precedes the awareness. But the intent signal can be seen in the isolated positive slow EEG as well. These articles are not in the popular non-technical press and that is why Susan is not really aware of these. I am still not clear what her credentials really are. I know she is the spokeperson for CSICOPS as she is the ex-parapsychologist they were looking for to sell the Skeptical Inquire magazine. I guess she has made a good living at that. Kind of like a 'Ann Coulter' in a way. Write books and give talks that piss people with contrary beliefs off and pretend to have done the research yourself.

[@rada7402]

James Kirk I’m not defending free will, but Libets experiments were incredibly flawed

[@Sashas-mom]

So, I’m halfway through the video and still don’t seem to grasp how she’s proving there’s no free will. I’m not arguing either way. You sound convincing so there ya go 😆 what do I know!?

[@nikan4now]

I don't get it. Clearly you're measuring the time the mouth opens but how is this indicative of when EXACTLY the thought enters the brain. A lag between when the mouth opens and when the thought forms is expected. The exact time that the thought enters the brain could coincide with the time brain activity begins.

[@ARE_YOU_SICK_OF_YT_CENSORSHIP]

they seem to equate the verbally pronounced position on the clock face with the moment the decision occurs and collate that with the moment brain activity starts, but indeed the position registered on the clock face absolutely doesn't have to accurately represent the moment of decision

[@Michal_Sobczyk]

That's why they don't measure moment of decision by opening mouth but by observation of a "clock" and then reporting it after the experiment. If there is a lag between an image of clock and you noticing it then it would go like this: if impulse from the brain forming a decision starts at 12 o clock because you made a decision, then at the time that impulse starts you would see a lagged information - image of clock would be at 10 o clock in your brain, but in reality - 12 o clock. You would report that at the time you made a decision time was at 10 oclock. So first appearance of free will (10 o clock), then actual impulse (12 o clock). That would support the traditional view of free will. But it does not. Your conscious decision is noticed by your brain when the clock is at 2 o clock, which, including the lag, would mean that the actual clock is even farther- 4 o clock. But the impulse in your brain was at 12 o clock.

[@MidiwaveProductions]

"Free will does not exist" = "A determined belief held by a non-conscious, non-rational moist robot whose thoughts, beliefs and behavior are controlled and determined by the non-conscious, non-rational laws of physics."

[@iloverumi]

awesome talk. thank you!

[@michselholiday9046]

This may have nothing to do with free will but I just learned yesterday and I'll wait lay before that particles energy is borrowed from the future so I thought for a minute and came up with well wouldn't that make its measurement also from the future that would explain a lot of quantum physics

[@michselholiday9046]

Wait what am I saying that has everything to do with everything

[@michselholiday9046]

That's going to be a bitch I might need some help with that one

[@micosenor3148]

Yes there is free will , in the domain of consciousness . Consciousness is not 'material' therefore cause and effect need not strictly apply. Yes states of consciousness may well have a material corresponding brain state . I have not resolved this question yet.

[@johnjacobs3365]

People's got the ability to be 100% sure and be 100% wrong. If you can't proof your faith to yourself you are there. If you can say I am in a relationship with God He will hear and He will answer. The person next to you will hear nothing and it all started at, seek Him and you will find Him. Don't be lost as a person that did not check the schedule of the bus, check the schedule, simple as that.

[@dannyvalastro2638]

well love is real i want there too be a god so i can see my loved ones again its only because of love that makes me feel this way

[@chewyjello1]

I like to think when we love someone we become a part of each other, even after death. So our loved ones quite literally live on within us. Admittedly I have not lost any loved ones other than grandparents so I can't say if this will always be enough for me.

[@markbird5461]

Just because you want there to be a god doesnt mean there is...

[@markbird5461]

You want to see them not due to love but due to the sadness of loss

[@nishantberry4436]

QUESTIONS ON THE WILL: 1) What is the will in terms of electrochemical reactions ? 2) Can the will be detected, isolated, quantified, transplanted and stored? 3) Can the will be created from scratch using electrochemical methods?

[@hol-upLIL-bit]

Free will is an ancient limited concept we still use...

[@ToddSloanIAAN]

A lovely researcher lady of hope. Much love.

[@mamunurrashid5652]

She's cool,as always!

[@PerseusSagittarius]

Very good talk. Some people just don't get it.

[@hol-upLIL-bit]

Oh n u do...

[@usernameryan5982]

And are you blaming them? I love the fucking ego trip deterministic have when they take the position.

[@joshemm4991]

train yourself in advace to react a certain way, then the reaction happens without will, but the training was willed

[@dannyvalastro2638]

we will never have any will too direct us because we all are in a state of confusion and we all have a different belief system too many opinions what is the real truth i would like too know

[@johnellis7614]

If there is a God who created a heaven where all the angels were given a desire to do only good and harmless things, what purpose would it serve for God to give any angel a desire to do evil?

[@Havre_Chithra]

She doesn't want to accept "free will" because then she'd have to accept responsibility for her horrendous sense of style.

[@matjazpribosic1248]

So Is it my free will to see that glass half empty or half full?

[@withoutascent]

No, it is not. It is not free will because your view of whether the glass is half full or empty was created by your life experiences, an accumulation of nature and nurture which includes attitudes modeled by your parents when you were a child, , your current situation-you are broke and jobless or just won the lottery- your personality, the current political and societal conditions, the view of life that you have evolved over the years leading up to you choice, the day’s weather, the sheer luck an hour before whether your girl friend accepted your marriage proposal or the random event that you just had a screaming match with a road raged driver who almost hit your car and on and on. A million experiences and events, old and recent, from the healthy or anxious attachment style you developed as a baby to the thoughts you were thinking seconds before deciding if you thought the glass was full or empty effect and cause the choice you make. And if you say the glass is half full when you really would say it’s half empty just to screw around with the experiment, your choice to announce the opposite of what you really feel is also predetermined! A human is a combination of genes and experience seasoned with a good pinch of luck. Your beliefs about free will are as surely determined as the 9 ball going into the side pocket during a game of pool after being struck just right by the cue ball.

[@matjazpribosic1248]

Is it free will to oppose against violence (not excepting another "conditional "free" will on you), even if experiences tell you that you will lose your life for that?

[@casacasa5397]

Nice hair.....who decided to color it like so?

[@williamolenchenko5772]

The same person who is asking "your" question.

[@slapsus]

She does have a point in saying that there is such a thing as people being manipulated to believe something, through clever manipulation and stimulation. Yes, there is that manipulation, unfortunately. Which she herself seems to be manipulated into doing, wittingly or unwittingly. However, a few things she gets utterly confused. I will explain some of them and share some of my discernments on the matter. 1) She starts by saying that christianity is about free will. The original christianity, maybe, but all religion is made to reduce one's conscious expression of free will. It's literally "you have the "freedom" to do what I say and agree with what I want, because I'm god, so fuck you." That tries to fundamentally limit one's expression of conscious free will, not elevate it. Elevating our conscious expression of free will would mean knowing ourselves, comprehending ourselves and loving ourselves, always looking to improve and evolve, etc, questioning and comprehending everything, more and more things, etc. 2) She thinks machine-like cause and effect and prior information determines decisions. Fundamentally no. There might be that element on the biological and physical level of reality, particularly in compulsion-based systems. However, there is much more to reality than that. Her approach and all "determinists" or those who believe (of their own free will, by the way) in there being no free will, is something akin to the following: Someone looks at a circuit board and sees that current runs through it. They press a button, the current stops. They press the button again, the current resumes. "We done figured it out! The button is the source of the current!" When we come and say things like: "Well, actually, electricity and its flow already manifests independently of the circuit board.", with arguments to back it up, they typically say "oh, but there's no evidence to your "electricity". I don't see it, therefore there is no evidence." Of course they're not going to see it, if their view is decidedly limited to just the circuit board. When we zoom out and have a grander, more expansive view that questions everything, we see more than just the circuit board (or physicality). A man born blind, for as long as he doesn't open his eyes, so to speak, or/and remember other lives where he wasn't blind, will literally have no evidence of light or colour, because he doesn't perceive it. 3) I'm definitely not against research, so long as it's unbiased, but intuition and imagination is also a major element. Evidence alone is fundamentally derived from observation and perception. What evidence will you have, if you don't manage to observe or perceive something in whatever way? Literally none. Does that mean that the thing doesn't exist? No. It just means you're not aware of it. Evidence and research shows more about the known. Intuition and imagination expands into the unknown. Intuition expands awareness. Intelligence comprehends it. Spirit and matter are both existent and relevant. They are not separate from each other. 4) Another fallacy, she claims there's no evidence for spirit? She's clearly not done any research on metaphysical science and likely hasn't had any actual actual "spiritual awakening" or "paranormal" events (which are actually rather casual occurences, just that -again- they're not often perceived by a majority of people) 5) She thinks decisions are made based on previous experiences alone? Compulsive and mind-control pathology, yes. Or, on a more intelligent note, the kind of decisions that look towards past experiences and choose to learn from them. On the other hand, intelligence also implies breaking the reflex and choosing to do something better. Conscious decisions are made independently of anything that is matter or incarnation. Soul choices can express themselves as biochemical processes on the level of the body, but they are beyond it. 6) Conceptually, contextually and statistically, people with a strong sense of self, who are knowing of who they are and what they want, who love and respect both themselves and others, are far less susceptible to letting themselves manipulated and controlled by others. People with little to no sense of self are a manipulator's party prop. 7) No-free-will-ists or determinists are typically, in the roots of their psychology at least, cowards who more or less don't want to assume responsibility for their actions and their life. Besides, they are the type of people who would probably just accept chips being implanted in them and turned into AI slaves. Unless they actually do have a sense of self, in which case they do resonate with the notion of free will, but without actually knowing it. We literally and metaphorically always create our own reality, individually and collectively, physically and spiritually and in every other regard. Free will, imagination, intent and freedom are never given, nor taken. We are freedom, imagination and free will... infinite and unlimited potential... What we decide to manifest and express if a always a choice. Besides, think about it. What determines determinism, if not a creative free will that manifests it? Literally and metaphorically, and in every ways, everything happens because of free will and choice. In order for something to be determined in any/every way, mechanically, physically, metaphysically, esoterically, beyond and in every way, it is done through free will and consciousness, imagination, etc... among other things...

[@realcygnus]

almost any flavor VRmodel can explain the readiness potential & related phenomena as a lag prevention/correction mechanism.......thE prime example of a correlation VS. causality misconception is the belief that brains "generate" consciousness. the neurosciences & related fields will most likely NEVER explain how awareness arises from a pile of meat......most say that is just because of its extreme complexity.....& it is in fact thE most complex thing we know of......but how then would they explain the small number of people that not only live & function, but the few that have even excelled intellectually with only 5-10% of what we call a brain? (literally a skull filled with fluid & just a thin layer at the interior skull surface and/or a small mass near the stem)......somehow the Idea that particles & the forces that govern them which came out of nowhere & are expanding into nothing is less magical/mysterious/mystical than the Idea that consciousness itself is the fundamental/natural system that is the causal super-set of our observable reality....... non-falsifiable doesn't = untrue..... you'll hear about imaginary universes AKA multiverse even from "mainstream". but thats only primarily because such notions at least cling to materialism/objective causality......beliefs/disbelief's are dysfunctional......we should just "go with"(as in assign a temporary probability of likeliness) to what connects the most dots with the most simplicity/efficiency until more data becomes available. & RE: free will......it does NOT mean you can do whatever you want.....it just applies to situations/circumstances where/when you have a "decision space" > 1 choice element.

[@rnunezc.4575]

So, what's the point of all this...? Either if you do or don't have free will..when is the summary of all this...?

[@earthenwhere2535]

In the end she is extracting free will from consciousness and from determinism. Such reductionist methodology is innately fallible. She defines and creates a box to argue within, and within that box, i agree she is right. But nondual thinking states that there is only consciousness, so consciousness can't be taken out of any equation.

[@joostvanhezik]

Overthinking what Blackmore says about freewill within nondualism, I keep bumping into the same logical error, or so it seems. The only way to deny humans free will is by making a cut, a divide between experience and the (actual) brain. Which is the fundament of dualism. The only way to grand humans free will is to see both the experience of free will ànd the causally organized biological world that denies ‘self’ as 2 dimensions of the same reality, nonduel but parralel (with many invisible others). The idea they exclude eachother is the problem, and she doesnt seem to come out of it. All reality could be an illusion, or is, and causality is inescapable, but since I am aware of that, and the feeling stays and so does my responsibility. So ASSUMING free will, is the only reasenable way of dealing with it. The self is an illusion, but a benign and fundamental one. Its not fake, its just a limited ‘justaddwater’ version the brain came up to in linited time and sugar. ‘I’ is a necassarry projection for functional interpretation. But locked in in de absolute experience of it, the human condition, we can both KNOW our freedom, our self, our soul does not exist in science, and KNOW that this experience here and now is the only thing we will ever truely know. That duality is only a problem if we assume it can’t be both. If we accept that, things kinda all fall in place, and end a rather looong lasting nonsensible debate about free will 😉 Please tell me where I’m failing in logic. It MUST! And to Susan Blackmoore; thank you for soo much insight about nonduality, spirituality and most of all on memetics and algorithms, your explanation is rather contagious;) Thank you 🙏 J

[@renubhalla9005]

Richard Dawkins in his book clearly says that we do have free will.Our genes have built gene machines including brains, and consciousness .We are not slaves of our creators(genes),genes do exert statistical influence on human behaviour but at the same time this influence can be modified,overridden or reversed by other influences.

[@mfive7274]

That biggest influence is thought, placebo effect is permanently in effect

[@mariosilva8514]

The idea that monotheistic religions and Christianity are based on FW are wrong. One part of Christianity especially reformed and calvinists believed in predestination and God's sovereignty as the main pilar of our faith. And what about compatibilism?? What if determinism and FW interact without violating determinism??

[@paulmetdebbie447]

How important is this socalled freedom anyway if what you can do with it is so extremely little compared to the whole of cosmic causality? It is totally blown out of proportion. We are free to be blown around as a little leaf in the wind, which is fine since we are the wind too.

[@nannawalling]

So is love, hate and emotion just a biological chemical happening? What is the point of living? We exist simply because we were born? Why do we have any desire to be educated or progress as beings? All very interesting but at times it is so overwhelming when I think of the loss of so many loved ones in this pandemic or in wars. Yet I want truth not lies and the search has and is so incredible and diverse.

[@moonbirchgrove]

Free will -- free from WHAT? Certainly not free from age, insight (or lack thereof), situation, information held at one point of descision. Her conclusions are based on the religious belief in "science", when a light goes on that it means this or that..it is overlooked completely, that there are only methaphors upon methaphors, interpretations , explanations given. Proof is nowhere in sight. As the case goes undecided, in the meanwhile I have to operate under a line of understanding that I give to myself, which is a creative and playful act. I would even play with the idea, that there is no "cause and effect" - that it is all a spontaneous arising. No proof given. Wanna play?

[@asstornaut1066]

FrauenLust she doesnt have a single argument against free will, lmao, she is there for the new age agenda.

[@Feverish_Pitch]

This could have been presented in a much simpler and less self-contradictory way

[@Ricardo-ez1ir]

Dr. Blackmore, I'll love to meat you in person one day good providence allow it to pass through, then you can discern my pureness and trueness.

[@Sashas-mom]

Ok 🤯 mind blown. It’s ok tho. I’ve been here before. 😅

[@hanniffydinn6019]

They don't get it. Your soul is in a higher dimension, your brain is quantum biology. It's just a receiver.

[@HueyTheDoctor]

Hanniffy Dinn Well now that you've explained everything, nobody needs to talk about it anymore. Pack it up everyone, let's go home, the mystery was solved by a KZbin comment. Apparently it's all "quantum biology" and our brain is a "receiver" and our "soul" is in a "higher dimension." We just didn't get it until now. Problem solved, pack it up. Last one out, hit the lights.

[@DanielShai]

Let's suppose for the entertainment that there is a soul or higher Self in another dimesnion... So it is a transmitter and the brain is a receiver. BUT... does that soul have free will? Where is IT receiving its impulses from? Any way you inquire into separation, you'll find that it is an impossibility. Therefore, nothing can move independently of anything else. If the whole movement is one, then the parts have no free will...

[@hanniffydinn6019]

Wolf Plato You'll feel and know different if you have the balls to leave this earth dimension via NDE, OBE or DMT.

[@homelander-enjoyer]

I've done DMT both NN and 5 meo DMT several times. I have "left" this demension. None of it proves the soul. There is no soul, only awareness.

[@hanniffydinn6019]

The Fifth Antitheist It does, you just don't have the brain cells to get it. Try doiing an OBE , but you don't have enough brains for that either. NDEs are just OBEs. You simply are a soul not a human body. also, try some real DMT, now that fake shit.

[@zatoichiable]

She is anti religious that makes her unreliable. Theres freewill, you are free to believe me or not.

[@ZiplineShazam]

"Be Bop A Lula." -Gene Vincent

[@OBIrish]

Awesome!

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Free will isn't an ALL OR NOTHING proposition. Treating it as such is absurd

[@inri2381]

Free wil as an absolute sense doesn't exist. That doesn't mean we have not control over our actions. Is not the same. Obviously we dont see our body moving all the time (neither our thoughts and perceptions) reflectively without consious effort. So consious effort is not an illusion. Free will on the other hand is an illusion beacuse where do our wills come from? Where the ability of thinking moving etc comes from? Its just hapenning. "Will" is not an illusion, "free" -in a absolute sense- is an illusion. Determinism is not a scientific fact. It is possible that if you turned the time100 times in past with the same circumstances you would do something different..does that make you free? Even the other choise you would make would be a tendency from nowhere. So what we define as free? Even with no classical or absolute free will you can exercise meditation and occasionally use the term "i feel free from thoughts and bad feelings now". So "free" is a relevant term. But our wants and capacities comes from mechanisms we diddnt decide.

[@rnunezc.4575]

Stop drinking coffee...drink pure water instead

[@dannyvalastro2638]

many people die of addictions they do not have a free will the addiction is too strong

[@ezza88ster]

Her arguments hold water I think. But only if you define free will very narrowly in terms of immediate conscious awareness. Eg. she leaves out the sub-conscious. In addition, and even worse, she is only willing to grant reality to physical measurement; and she has no evidence that this is the case. It's merely an unqualified assumption. I'm trained in science and am so sick of scientists being too stupid and / or arrogant to understand the limitations of their mode of enquiry.

[@hamdanyunus9636]

we are like SIM

[@oceanpacific3841]

I think so too

[@notmichaelmccormick]

She could've said all this in 10 minutes

[@notmichaelmccormick]

It's agonizing to listen to honestly

[@ketchup5344]

I didnt choose this. I ended up in an awful flat without even tv. Otherwise Id be watching babestation.😁

[@cmvamerica9011]

Even if you could know the cause of your stupid behavior, it wouldn’t stop you from asking , “ Why did I do that? “.

[@elizabethecarlisle1045]

I think she's observing entanglement.

[@HueyTheDoctor]

This 70 minute talk is absolutely devoid of content. She vacillates, contradicts herself and offers no insight. I didn't want to sit here for 70 minutes listening to her, because I'm familiar with her vacuous position or lack thereof, but I made a conscious decision to do it just in case she proved me wrong and gave me food for thought. I now know that in the future, I don't have to watch any of Susan Blackmore's talks. The absolute highlight of the talk: "The study was published in 1995. So thirty-one years ago. A long time!" Oh Susan. That's embarrassing for everyone.

[@HueyTheDoctor]

That's generous.

[@fredpauser6228]

Hey Scott, Your comment is pretty silly. (See my comment above.) I assume you believe in free will. By the way, she said 1985 (31:55), not 1995. Did you deliberately misquote her?

[@viddha.art1955]

What's this woman doing at SAND. She is a total materialist.

[@viddha.art1955]

I agree with her analysis of Islam. Islam is the most dangerous ideology. Other wise sorry Susan.

[@bft_neelix3862]

She really bothers you that much huh? That you would search her on KZbin, leave a comment saying I didn't watch the video but shes wrong on everything. You couldn't help yourself. Do you have free will? I wonder.

[@doctorshankar]

Not Convincing. What about this Non Duality concept? Strange lecture. The Buddhist quote made me think.

[@anitahyche1]

Fascinating.

[@grantdouglas8523]

This lady confuses conscious activity with the self. But it is the totality of being interacting with the totality of life that is the self. All of it cannot be separated. Also she is taking forever to make a point so I am out. Sam Harris is nonsense as well. The idea of will being free is a silly concept to begin with. The will can never be separated from the rest of life. This video was sadly a waste of time. I am out after about 40 min.

[@Michal_Sobczyk]

Totality of life is just a mental concept. Feeling of self is another concept too.

[@Elementaldomain]

I did not listen to this. I listened 30 seconds and that was enough. For those who do not understand Free Will, it goes something like this. Yes, you have Free Will to either be Obedient to Cosmic Law or not. You can drag your feet for aeons of time and go thru the miseries of human doubt, fear, anger, misery, etc......God will let you do that. But in the end, God has Infinite Patience and He Wins. He will wait while you sit outside His World of Abundance, Love and Perfection. Mankind on this earth has already done that for almost a trillion years. But here is the deal. We live in a solar system with other planets whose inhabitants have Expanded while we have not. We are holding them back from their Divine Destinies. It has happened before that planets and the lifestreams upon them have been dissolved, if you will, and returned to The Sea of Light and Life. God has Patience, but God has made decisions before that it is not in the best interests of a solar system to allow one planet and its lifestreams to hold back the Expansion of The Many. So......the question is......will you gamble that you have enough time left to keep re-embodying, Master Creation, and Win your Ascension before time runs out. That is it in a nutshell. You are an Individualized Presence. God Individualized Himself to live in a physical world. You are God. How long will you wait to Full-Fill your Divine Destiny? In the end, no, you do not really have Free Will....it is like a father letting a child go out and play. The father says its time to come in now....and the child says "in a little bit, can't I stay out a little longer?" In the end, dad wins, the child comes in.

[@adi.izlamaj3706]

She is so arrogant and she think she can explain everything. U call all people liars, and all of their experiences are just illusions nothing more. Did you make the universe, did you make the humanity are you the creator of all this i dont think so, so dont say you can explain everything because you cant, we are humans and you are not God ,you are not the creator . For example if someone make a car he can explain everything because he knows what is inside how it works thats it. But what you saying its just a theory, that is your personal opinion you can not speak for all people.

[@davidmarklein]

Just guessing nobody here actually interested in this rubbush ever been in a gun fight.

[@michselholiday9046]

David Marklein that's funny why do you ask

[@lnbartstudio2713]

Meatpuppet.

[@TheSteinmetzen]

Lady Gaga?

[@fredrikandersen78]

Sheeeesh not even a little polite fake laugh?? ...tough crowd 😬

[@Mongoman-oq9bq]

Bluffer if I ever saw one. Snake oil saleswoman FFS!!!

[@michaelstanley4698]

I don't need science to convince me, when the Holy Bible already has. But some need such evidence. Some of us, live by faith, not by sight only.

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

Lol

[@alisona2743]

She knows nothing about the Islam religion.

[@janewright6760]

This women is dangerous to science and should be ignored. She contradicts herself , she lies, and she is not taken seriously. People like me and my colleagues who work in science simply ignore her. Her best quote, " there is no self, there is nobody in your head, no thinker of thoughts, now this is somewhat of a mystery, why does it not feel this way to us, why do we think there is someone in there" er, what? You just said there is no thinker of thoughts and in the same sentence said why do we think there is? Stop contradicting yourself women

[@GoldenGateNum9]

*If she is this stupid with a doctorate I wonder what she was like before.* *She is transparent and is very confused if you look into her heart.* _..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks."_

[@redwaldcuthberting7195]

Where's the evidence you work in science? I really doubt your claims. Many neurologists think 'free will' is a myth, like Sam Harris.

[@redwaldcuthberting7195]

I think you lack the understanding of the constructed self.

[@roybecker492]

Jane Wright you the scientists. What is your field of study and phd if i may ask???

[@roybecker492]

Jane Wright you must thing sam harris, anil seth and so on are also "dangerous to science". Maybe dangerous to your fragile need for security about your self... but these people are well creditted scientists with a very mainstream scientific approach.