“We Have No Free Will Whatsoever” - Robert Sapolsky

Robert Sapolsky discusses what it means to be aware of having a choice and the implications it has for the free will debate.
Main Episode With Robert Sapolsky (December 2023): • Free Will, Morality, S...
NOTE: The perspectives expressed by guests don't necessarily mirror my own. There's a versicolored arrangement of people on TOE, each harboring distinct viewpoints, as part of my endeavor to understand the perspectives that exist.
THANK YOU: To Mike Duffey for your insight, help, and recommendations on this channel.
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
LINKS MENTIONED:

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main Episode With Robert Sapolsky (December 2023): kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGGsonRnnb5-j5o

[@jasonwilliams9922]

Your guising the fact that your the ultimate denier for the quitter (a person who gives up easily or does not have the courage or determination to finish a task) Your attempts at amplifying doubt is one of the core adverts for slavery, which can’t exist without freedom (1848 etc) however for you your belief has been created to serve you with the ability to form a detachment from your choices that you took out on someone (or others) that you still try and tell yourself, you loved. Which is (as you surely know) how passive aggressive psychopaths detach themselves from choices they clearly made for their physical state as an absolute betrayal of all other reflections involved. Let me ask you this - when a pedophile has created itself is it its biological truth that effects freewill around it or is it the fact that essentially it must hide because it knows how wrong its actions actually are (knowing that an eternal denial of them is a precursor)? Does it seek comfort by seeking hidden freedoms in hidden lies or by attempting to sell its aversions of the truth (freedom)? “No freewill” is a pedophiles favourite hidden excuse which is why they detach from the reality of freedom, as they operate in enslavement as a cost to freedom and most importantly at the cost of any early stage innocence. Why does one need to hide the truth of themselves is it dependent on whether their kind is free or is because they know that they are not? Please reveal yourself for all to see, prove your self value by openly putting all of your work alongside the acts of pedophiles or are you not free to because of your choices? In which part of Roberts journey has he admitted that he was previously mistaken? I remember when Robert used to say that prisons were filled by people that had head injury’s, and that it was craziness that the Government choose not to admit this!! < no Robert that’s how the muppet show of enslavement grows itself as a suffering of freedom (inclusive of your part) When a sheep is a sheep but it tries to make everyone think that it’s a Wolf it must hide how weak it’s true makeup is. Why do you seek freedom by pretending freedom doesn’t exist, can you not see that the truth of freedom is relative? Say what you will because I can say anything as I AM freedom….. Ffs how basic is the argument that spurs freewill is only relative to “that” individual! You can not challenge freedom if you try it’s only because you are denying yourself. Mass is the continued search for the perfection of relative freedoms, that only exist perfectly as the eternal experience of all outside of your restrictive mass, Is your existence Relative to Freedoms reflection yet? Let me extend from your suggested base of the “individual biological state” Psychically you say that you are individually totally controlled by your biological state, which discredits that spiritual perception is formed from a conscious and subconscious reflection of what’s (to you) environmentally correct, through dopamine, environmental reactions blah blah etc….At what point does this reflect as your psychical state being the process that affirms the decision of your actions and if you believe that it does then what exactly do suggest forms every perception of guilt? both before and after any action that you as yourself are perceiving as being wrong? Additionally why does its continued path then need to further deny all of its soon to be extended actions (that were also previously identified as being wrong) that to them then again invokes that same identified process that now forms as their cumulative denials of guilt? unless of course to them, it’s relevant to the actions of someone else, that of course as a cloaking device it’s forced to use as a guise of its own nature. A guise - an external form, appearance, or manner of presentation, typically concealing the true nature of something. Is it not the conglomerate of fingers pointers that you are attempting to insert a MAP’d existence without choice for? Not only do physical rapists (because that’s what they are) dishonour the innocence of the flesh but they also discredit the purpose of the spirit of freedom by attempting to deny it. Ps Robert finish your task and apply your work to pedophiles or are you a quitter? You are also MAP’d by the roads that you chose, But I should probably warn you that that is how (and why) everyone of your prior civilisations (relative) was failed. Formed as freedom as the image of God Jas

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Somebody needs to experience psychedelics... It's just sad to see someone think we are strictly biological when there's so much evidence for an actual soul... they have weighed people on their deathbeds in sealed containers were the gases going in or Weighted and everything is weighted... 20 something grams leaves the body at the point of death this is the soul leaving the body. The soul resides inside the pineal gland inside your brain DMT is released two times in your life naturally when you were born so your soul can come into your body and when you die so your soul can leave...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

People say this was fake science but no one is trying to replicate it again! Until someone replicates this again f*** what anyone has to say! Until someone replicates this arguing against the soul is a coward's argument...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I definitely agree that Free Will is non-existent here and for the evidence of this you're plain and simply just need to look at the individual definitions of free and individual definition of will then piece those two definitions together and you will get a totally different definition than what you get for free will because they changed the definition of Free Will and bastardized it! Free meaning you have the ability to choose and will meaning whatever it is you want to pursue... should be called free limited will, then i would agree... you can't take off and fly with Superman powers no matter how badly you want to... therefore limited will

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I agree with his logical conclusion on free will... I would put myself somewhere in the middle between Daniel Dennett and him... sounds like this guy doesn't even believe in the soul when scientific analysis has been done proving its existence...

[@bidumeier3427]

I can very well imagine that the professor's hairstyle is not based on his free will. 🙂

[@lolnoyou666]

Why are you even here?

[@buddyhell7100]

All cells are programmed to behave and react in certain ways. Each one of us is an amalgamation of cells

[@Perujay-dl2bs]

No self, No free will, No problem. Just living.

[@bradmodd7856]

Sapolsky is decades behind on this philosophical debate. The question of whether our conscious mind is responsible for our thoughts is ridiculous one, the subconscious mind is far more extensive and more who we really are.

[@chekhovian3226]

Perhaps you should read his most recent book.

[@roybecker492]

To claim authorship over the subconscious mind is as arbitrary as claiming authorship over the orbit of mars.

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@roybecker492what? That makes no sense. You very much can affect your unconscious mind. If you speak a certain way long enough and are exposed to things long enough and particularly if you’re exposed to those things in a delta wave state where your guard mentally is down you can very much effect your subconscious mind. Also you’re not even providing a reason as to why you can’t do that you’re just assuming it’s true. I feel like believing people have no choice just takes pressure off people so they prefer that idea.

[@three69]

I’m waiting for the day when we collectively realize that it’s “both/and,” not “either/or.” This guy’s been getting paid well for sometime for reeling on about this jargon- this sort of on going parade is how you secure tenure.

[@JordanLeer]

I’m gonna get this guy on my show. He has no control over it.

[@_John_P]

He decided also based on his mood.

[@nickmiou8049]

😮 😂😅

[@gulsen8015]

😂😂

[@michael-4k4000]

Oh snap!

[@gulsen8015]

If he has no control over himself, who decides that free will does not exist? contradicts itself

[@MichaelKolczynski]

I thoroughly enjoy a person declaring they have no free will imagining that "proof" will *for certain* be the determining factor in changing the arrangement of vibrations passing through their fat face flaps communicating whether or not they have free will.

[@notanemoprog]

Not nice to fat shame people. Do better.

[@MichaelKolczynski]

@@notanemoprog nobody was fat shamed

[@notanemoprog]

That's PROFESSOR Nobody to you @@MichaelKolczynski

[@babyyoda3118]

Don’t do better! That was fun! People who wants to control you are just boring! They miss their slaves!

[@notanemoprog]

Oh look, another fan of fat-shaming.@@babyyoda3118

[@naytchh7]

Free will is a fundamental principle of the universe.

[@notanemoprog]

No.

[@_John_P]

No, it's a fundamental principle of religious people to make their God get away with the most hideous stuff.

[@ArtisanTony]

It is what creation is all about!

[@harshabongle4564]

You have no choice but to say this. :)

[@dai19721]

​@@harshabongle4564 shut up.

[@zonzogonzo1427]

Did an aborted fetus have a deterministic thought of ever knowing that it had free will or not?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

What Robert is doing here is describing how our genetics, epigenetics, conception, gestation, birth, prenatal care, early childhood care and experiences and environment, life experiences, education, traumas or lack thereof, health (mental, emotional, physical), diet, drinking and on and on... how these factors make us who we are and form our preferences and biases, and affect our free will. He is not addressing his claim that nature is super determined (it is not). All those factors I mentioned affect people to varying degrees. Some people are so strongly affected in some way that they cannot make a "free" decision. Most people are not that strongly affected and can make reasonably "free" decisions. Example: If I was bitten as a kid by German Shepherd dogs, say, three or fours time over 10 years, that would probably restrict my choice of dog when I am an adult deciding on a dog for my daughter. But, I can overcome the effects of the past. I read up on German Shepherds and dog breeds. I talked to experts about the safety of German Shepherds. I became convinced that German Shepherds are great dogs for kids, and that my experiences were not indicative of the breed. So, in spite of my fear of German Shepherds and urge not to buy one, I made the informed decision to buy one. I exercised my free will.

[@sanirudha]

I think the real question is “Who is it that doesn’t have the free will?” Or who is it that you’re expecting to possess or not possess this free will.

[@dcktater7847]

Free will=ego. So let's ask the question differently. Is there an ego?

[@notanemoprog]

No, it's not. And no.

[@dcktater7847]

@@notanemoprog that's yer ego resisting

[@_John_P]

There are many.

[@nicknijman2500]

Is there an ego? We are the ego, the ego is the not fully correct self-image as a life form. So, no matter what you do, you do it from the ego, in the good and in the bad. The problem of the ego, it often navigates rudderlessly between the duality of our consciousness.

[@dcktater7847]

@@nicknijman2500 The ego is a total hoax just like free will. It might feel real but it's a false perception.

[@TheDickeroo]

He is correct. We have no free Will from the moment of conception and right up to the present. We are basically Pavlovian Puppets. As a result, all of our choices are predetermined by the prior input. However, it is possible to break your coding by becoming the new programmer. It means connecting the dots of the old patterns. What an epiphany it is. My life has been transformed and I can prove it. It has worked now for fifty years!

[@armandomacias8403]

you chose based on your will to write this comment

[@aisnow5788]

How did you become the programmer? I would love some tips and wisdom.❤

[@nicknijman2500]

If you can become your own/new programmer, that equals free will.

[@TheDickeroo]

@@aisnow5788 I know that it is hard to believe that we are not in control of ourselves but adhere to a programming code that we get from our experiences in life. And we act on what we have learned from the past. It is our only frame of reference. Fortunately for me, I broke some of the coding and the quality of my life improved dramatically. Here is a video where I reveal some of this hidden coding. Notice that the interviewer had the very same problem I was describing. You will not find this information in the works of Freud or Jung or anywhere else that I know of. I hope that this will guide you to finding answers… kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5KQk6B4btinedE

[@bgz42]

lol wat? Contradict yourself much?

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

Surely before someone can ask if we have free will or not, or discuss a TOE, then the initial question of what happened at the very beginning of our reality needs to be discussed? Was reality already here? Did it spontaneously combust from nothing? Do you need to create alternative realities to support your theory?

[@jessewallace12able]

At some point the self, the agent, the person, does have freedom- that is the definition of such a being. If there wasn’t any freedom we wouldn’t be having the conversation, there’s no reason to convince anyone of this theory because it’s all determined. 😮

[@raydelavega7457]

YES.......WE HAVE FREE WILL.....BUT IT COMES WITH A FREE PRIZES.....CONSEQUENCES!!! PROFESSOR!!!

[@GiordanosRetort]

Whether the human being mostly avalable to the senses or mostly unavailable to the senses, we are in part unavailable to the senses. Thus the question is this: Is the human being lead by that aspect which is beyond sense experience? Answer: Yes. As all processes within the sense experience are automatic, and thus are being guided or lead. Hence we have the experience of choice, power (contrasted with force), and thus control because there is only one thing which we control. This one choice is how we lead or guide all other things.

[@drscott1]

One can micro analyze a complex situation and come to many conclusions, all be it wrong. The sum of our experiences does not mean that we do not have free will it just means that they are influencing the decisions we make. Furthermore, we don’t live in a materialistic world, it’s an energetic world. The material world is a manifestation of the energetic world.

[@brandonb5075]

What about the Athletes? They could play all sports but decide on one; is that not free will? Or I’m at SS and bases are loaded, I should throw home but I decided to try a 6-4-3 double play? What is that, if not free will?

[@eenkjet]

@2:55 But we do control who we become at our latter moments. Not all but some do cultivate autonomy to the point that the Strawsonian argument is mute. It seems Sapolsky feels each decision is an ever restricting decision. Some decision making is makes one more free to make the next decision.

[@-mattwood]

It almost feels like we exist within a micron of a universe where everything is pressed together and exist all at once, the past, the present, the future - where there is no space between anything, all matter is one - no delineation of any kind, and this area is then occupied by a consciousness or multiple consciousnesses using that space and physicality to interact and experience all of these 'tools' - like space and time and senses - to explore.

[@gingerhipster]

It's a good thing physicalist science is totally complete and you can't spit without hitting a Gödelian limit or anything.

[@i_kill_for_zardoz]

Irrelevant IMO because A) We cannot know the future and B) We experience reality as if we have free will. All that matters is we perceive freedom of choice at any given moment, so it essentially exist as far as we can experience reality.

[@_John_P]

It's definitely irrelevant to existence, as we've been doing fine so far, but it's deeply relevant to religious people.

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@_John_Pyou keep saying that it’s only an issue with the religious which makes me think you’ve got issues with the religious and prefer this guys materialistic view as materialistic people often seem to really hate the religious. Becuase no it would definitely be an issue with a larger group than just them.

[@_John_P]

@@ComeAlongKay Religious people hijacked the concept of free will in order to excuse their god of any wrongdoing. Due to their emotional investment on the concept, they push back any scientific notion that there's no such thing as free will.

[@marcmarc172]

Daniel Dennett link? you said it was in the description

[@TheoriesofEverything]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHmYZmawr8-Eoqs

[@ionatana59]

I decided between yes and no clicking on this video.

[@nickmiou8049]

And I also decided to like this comment

[@_John_P]

He's not challenging whether people can decide to do things, an insect can, it's the "free" part that's the problem.

[@ionatana59]

@@_John_Pwell yeah we don’t have the will of a god. We can’t manipulate the universal reality at will. We are more than chemicals man

[@notanemoprog]

I'm freely choosing to upvote everyone for the Algo.

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

We've got free will 100%, consciousness came before matter

[@Dialogos1989]

Consciousness solves nothing. It’s a red herring to the discussion.

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

@@Dialogos1989 fine there's no free will then, enjoy your dinner

[@nickmiou8049]

And matter came after anti matter thus making it an illusion

[@samrowbotham8914]

It is Consciousness that is making your choices for you and that gives rise to the illusion that you have free will. It gets worse than that because physicists have proven experimentally that non-local realism is also an illusion.

[@PlayMoreLoud]

You can be conscious and lack free will, they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

[@simka321]

God is like a massive Harry Houdini who, before the Big Bang, freely imprisoned godself in the laws of physics, which then determined the laws of chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, and spirituality in succession. Now, this Houdini-God's task to perform the ultimate act of escape, first by (literally) re-membering God's 8 billion shattered god-fragments, dissociated into a vast jigsaw puzzle consisting of tiny fragments of separate selves, and then recalling within that re-united Body of Humanity the infinitesimally tiny spark of freewill by which the pre-cosmic God uncausally caused the Self to be bound by the self before the shattering of the Whole-God into the fragmented prison of spacetime.

[@kurtvandusen5382]

We are definitely mechanistic and can never make a decision independent of our history, but we have "independent will", not "free will", which emerges from complexity and approaches free will. Due to computational irreducibility, no one outside of a sufficiently complex system can predict the output of that system ahead of time.

[@mikecavallaro466]

How convenient for all the people who are already not inclined to take any responsibility for their actions. As if they need more excuses and further justifications for their moral failures and intellectual laziness.

[@notanemoprog]

You can't force free will into existence just because you think it is a prerequisite for morality. That's an ACTUALLY lazy toddler-grade non-argument.@@mikecavallaro466

[@Unseenmachine]

@@mikecavallaro466Why should low level reality please high level emergent human morality?

[@ComeAlongKay]

⁠​⁠@@UnseenmachineI don’t know why should anyhting do anything in a world of robots? You aren’t even the one commenting right now, you don’t even have points as a person or a perspective it’s nearly pointless to talk to anyone since it’s just two robots talking that can’t change how they act or anything else. Also why even argue these points at all? If there’s no free will who cares? You can’t make anyone think anything and you can’t do anything at all it’s just random forces acting on each other. Why try to convince them if they don’t decide themselves and if it isn’t even you trying to do the convincing? Also it really wounding please anything seeing as morality would be a mute concept here as the whole point of there being better or worse behavior is so you can choose between them and if it isn’t you choosing than there’s no need for the concept really. If you can’t choose how you act than morality from a practical level becomes mute. Whether you do this or that you aren’t really evil for doing it as you had no choice therefore why even apply morality if it has no effect it’s just purely theoretical.

[@bearheart2009]

My thoughts are that, firstly, for a will to be free it has to be experienced without ignorance that would create conflict. Secondly, I would ask, free to experience what? If free will is desirable because it is free, why is “freedom” desirable? If it’s desirable because it means greater flourishing then freedom is connected to something like “nature”, or the ability to meet our actual needs (as opposed to our misapprehension of what our needs are). In that case freedom isn’t just about subjectively feeling free in response to getting what we want in a discreet instance, it is tied to something more fundamental.

[@RichardCatalanoNY]

Everyone has free will - it’s sells more books to say that you have no free will. It’s a losers approach to life to conclude you have no free will - no one should live their life based on this guy’s philosophy.

[@notanemoprog]

No free will.

[@RichardCatalanoNY]

@@notanemoprog Trust me - any video that says you have no free will or we live in a simulation is just YT clickbait. We all have free will to make a difference in our lives and the lives of others.

[@notanemoprog]

No. @@RichardCatalanoNY

[@_John_P]

@@RichardCatalanoNY Can you choose not to die? Can you choose your options, or just among the options that presented themselves? Can you go back in time and choose another option? Can you choose for someone else all the time? Do parents choose in place of their children? Can you choose to regrow an arm, or stand up and walk when you're disabled?

[@ppmalmsteen]

I think of free will as a chain of actions that you have some control over. You can slowly change your behaviour patterns at least. I don't know if that's free will or what. That's my two cents on the matter.

[@_John_P]

It's not, because true free will holds you fully accountable. The moment you take nuances, you're outside the scope religious people devised to somehow hold you ultimately fully responsible for hell.

[@jamesragsdale8202]

Yeah but all of that can be put into the deterministic model.

[@skippylippy547]

@@_John_P OMG! Did you just actually say "Hell"? 🤔🤨

[@_John_P]

@@skippylippy547 Yes, never heard of the things they come up with to control people?

[@anthony7960]

lol this guy should just say it’s his opinion and he doesn’t really know

[@Joe_C.]

Yeah... My biology told me to quit listening 3:30 seconds in at 2x speed

[@_John_P]

He's a professor, he knows there's no free will because: 1) physics 2) biology 3) it's a religious concept.

[@malamstafakhoshnaw6992]

This vid will get more views than likes which afterwards will spark and provoke a question on democracy. Ha!

[@Aedonius]

You don't know that. He looks like an old school acid head. I've had a psychedelic experience where it literally was like watching a movie. My desires and actions just appeared and occurred without control. I have a feeling he experienced the same.

[@malamstafakhoshnaw6992]

@@Aedonius “my””I””my” .

[@jasonmcghee1266]

Now that people are aware they have no free will, they can have a New Years' resolution to finally have a free will. Expect lots of odd behavior out there!

[@PsychonauticExplorer]

Prophetic words! 2024 and 2025 will be very odd and will be all about accepting free will or not. Those unable to handle the truth will become the definition of odd while others fearlessly step into their (co-)creator-level power and reprogram the matrix. The choice between living like a NPC or being the game's programmer is the essence of free will... one blindly follows the game's rules and the other (re)programs the rules 🍿

[@bgz42]

This guy did not prove freewilll does not exist. He rediscovered input lag. Input lag sucks, but it is not evidence of freewill. I normally don't post so much on someone's ideas... but when someone uses a faulty experiment and uses it as proof to say you don't have freewill, he has to be called out.

[@a.s.2426]

Another problem here: One does not need to know how to know that; one does not need to know, in other words, what the mechanism of free will is to know it exists. I’m not saying we know that free will exists in the way it intuitively seems to, only that these are independent and logically distinct issues.

[@smoly37]

I already knew this 40 years ago.(I'm 61) When you start to think about things like "the wings of the butterfly" and that kind of theories, it pretty much the same. I always wondered: what came before thát, and before that etc. Even in such a simple way you have to draw the conclusion, that when you take that all the way down, every action is influenced by the one before and the same goes for thoughts. My dad was a scientist in the field of psychology (not clinical), so I already knew a bit about the importance of what happens in the first two years after you are born. Before you can talk. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this or draw such strange conclusions. It's got NOTHING to do with morals. That's another story.

[@donsll]

People understand how the basics work as far as action and reaction but they throw that process out the window when things get complicated

[@MennoniteAbe]

Mind blown. Glad I don't comprehend most of this. Back to being a flesh robot.

[@Aizman87]

😂👌🏻

[@skippylippy547]

LOL!

[@CSOne_]

I would have liked to seen, Sapolsky debated on this this. Maybe in the Future.

[@ComeAlongKay]

He will have no choice in the matter accept or decline.

[@timb350]

"What does it mean to become aware of a thought?"...and his answer???...he literally doesn't have a clue. And yet...somehow...SOMEHOW...he's convinced his argument is sufficiently robust to not just conditionally but definitively rule out a metaphysical phenomena (free will) that he can't even begin to quantify!!!!! Can anyone spell 'ridiculous'....!!!!!

[@mrbertaro4822]

Its interesting he places more confidence on our theoretical understandings of the world (materialism which is not very meaningful, we don’t know what ‘material’ is), vs our immediate experience of the world that we can make decisions. Bertrand russell claims the opposite! There is very good reason to think that our theoretical understandings are just wrong or incomplete.

[@_John_P]

By definition, material is anything that exists in the universe (even your thoughts if you think more deeply about it), i.e. we've got no examples of things that exist in the universe and are not ultimately made of something.

[@mrbertaro4822]

Determinism means something causes something else and that something else must have occured. If i put my hand in fire I will pull my hand away, but i could decide to keep my in the flame (although thats unlikely to happen) its still possible i could do this. We respond to things in an appropriate manner and alot of that has to do with our biology but it doesnt mean these things neccessarily had to occur. I like what chomsky once said ‘if you dont believe we have free will why bother presenting an argument’

[@_John_P]

@@mrbertaro4822 There's no need for determinism. The central issue is that free will means the person has absolute control, which is impossible. We barely control anything in our environment, or internally in the brain, regardless of determinism or randomness. In your example, you can't prevent the brain from creating pain, although may be able to ignore it for a while out of some pathology in your biology which you don't control either. Also, you can't make the fire not harm you once it starts harming you, without taking corrective actions. Those are things you have no control, thus it's clear that "free" in free will is bounded. Once you accept it's bounded, then it's not free anymore, it's just your bounded will, so free will is not a useful concept, except for religious people, although doesn't particularly help them either.

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@_John_Pfree will wouldn’t mean the person has absolute control, it could means while forces do influence them they also still are self decided to some degree.

[@_John_P]

@@ComeAlongKay You just removed "free" from free will.

[@jlrinc1420]

We do have control over our environment though. Human beings by thinking recursively actually become a part of their own environment unlike other animals. Thus if another person can convince us to do something we have that same ability to convince ourselves by talking to ourselves. We do it all the time.

[@crowley445]

A problem with the materialist theory is that it can’t account for theories.

[@notanemoprog]

Sure it can.

[@_John_P]

If something exists in this universe, by definition it's material.

[@crowley445]

@@_John_P Is the scientific method material?

[@crowley445]

@@notanemoprog Is it possible to provide a material description of a theory? Is a theory something you can examine as a material phenomena?

[@notanemoprog]

Yes. Everything is.@@crowley445

[@hrbrown29]

One reason why it easy for me to accept the possibility that Grusch is correct is stuff like this. His arguments should become obvious to anyone that learns the equations of motion and thinks about it for a while. Yet there are so many brilliant scientists who disagree, don't think about, or don't care about the argument. (someone explain the magical process that breaks and restitches causality) But society is built on the principle of free will. (when some is found guilty of murder, we think it's because they chose to kill. Not that that action was the result of the history of their environment. There are people in this thread redefining free will to mean actions that we can't predict. Fine. But think about how much compute it takes to do a simulation of a hydrogen atom. Way more than we got. Yet we run galactic scale simulations. Science is all about finding and utilizing shortcuts. And we are just getting into the age of AI and wearable/bio tech. I'd bet big there are shortcuts to modeling/predicting human behavior. Instead of trying to play the definition game to save "free will". We need to focus more on getting leader, institutions, and people to take more seriously our best understanding of science. The girls and boys over at the DoD certainly do.

[@GR-dl3eq]

Besides the fact that he is completely and entirely wrong (we have the free will to choose our experience and direct our lives in every moment), what a truly depressing belief it must be for him to hold.

[@madmillermusic]

Our reality is a consequence from interactions with our senses which determines all that we experience. The power of influence is everything. We move from one to the next blindly and seamlessly. Structure of Everything hypothesis BM

[@markpettus6929]

It's very logical through a 3-D material-science reductionist lens. I greatly admire Robert Sapolsky as a biologist. Lacking in the biologic model is quantum physics-biophysics. In theory, our biology is the "avatar" through which the quantum vacuum manifests. As John Archibald Wheeler once said, I started thinking I was studying particles; then i realized i was studying energy; then I realized I was studying information. From a multidimensional standpoint we exist in both material and non-material forms. It is within the infinite possibility of information (and uncertainty) of possible outcomes that a probablaility converges and ultimately a choice, on one of an infinite # of posible timelines manifests. I would enjoy hearing a discussion with Robert and say Deepak Chopra or Amit Goswami or Rupert Sheldrake. Thanks!

[@sergiomeza5389]

Bro, we are not quantum systems. Quantum behavior exists past the Planck scale, any system larger than that immediately collapses. Penrose has proposed that quantum fluctuations happen within microtubules inside neurons that could account for free will, but ultimately it’s the same error that Sapsky points out, AND there is o evidence for these quantum orchestrated reductions anyways. Also, how does information imply infinity? Also what do you mean by infinity? Cause infinity is a place holder for values we cannot get grasp, it doesn’t actually stand for the same thing all the time; infinities in 3.14 are not the same as the infinity in prime numbers; and o on

[@rihhard1072]

Deepak Chopra? Youre joking surely

[@humanjustbeing_]

If we are not experiencing it all first hand, there is a window or a middle-man inbetween us and it. Either we are following teachers or scriptures, we are following just another feeling towards the same thing that we are experiencing ourselves right here in this now, in our slightly different but still same imperfect now. Being taught there is a limit in the sky, when it is a combination of love & mind, on top of all other teachings created to indoctrinate, domesticate, distract & to make us forget about our individual selves, will put our minds into a conscious coma, allowing us to connect to the hive-mind which with time & programming will make us merge more & more with the machine. When learning any kind of passed down information no matter where on the spectrum of truth it is ranging, we are by doing so un-learning ourselves and our own discovered truths, just to put ourselves under and to take on someone else's inner stance like if it was our own, which sooner than later will have us...our inner being, turn into more of a copy and a follower than an actual self. Life is live, feel, learn and re-remember and the life that we live is the teacher itself, where by living it we should be growing into living books of knowledge, if we actually live it for ourselves. Our mind's are what will keep us afloat in life and if we build them up correctly, slow and steady, we have soon crafted our own ark's which we will have full faith in once the water is turning rough. We are both the teacher and the student here on earth, as we are both the observer and the one who is projecting the whole moving picture that we see infront of us and dive into each new day when we open our eyes and the camera is again for us, rolling. We create it each and every single time we choose to see it. We are all here as individual characters, playing the game of life & by playing our own characters we are all going to be acting as each others mirrors as well, reflecting all that greatness but also the inner work which we have been taught to simply just ignore. Reflecting ourselves in each other will let us know what we are, what we are not & where we are at within ourselves at any given time. So really, we should be grateful for all interaction with life as there is a teacher in absolutely everything if we are only allowed to remember that we are indeed the scale, always. In our natural state we always know what feels good and what feels less good, what is our own path of least resistance and which path is the one we do not even have to think, should we walk it or not. We know all we need to know when we have faith in ourselves, are in tune with our intuition and have learned the moral codes. If this is ever tampered with, if we are made numb, disconnected and full of information and knowledge which is only teaching us how to operate a specific function within the system, we are not living life as ourselves or for ourselves. We are moving with the rest of the living dead, as trauma based lifeforms who are pouring our lives into urns, slowly powderised within the daily grind. When breaking it down, all we truly own of any real value to us is our energy & our imaginative mind and together with these two gift's all we truly need in this life is good health, good morals and a fine-tuned instrument, as in us, to express ourselves properly with, in order to free our minds. The door has always been open so let the caged bird fly and let it sing doing so! Follow no one who wishes followers but lend an ear to those who do encourage you to live your life authentically and to walk your own path back home. Only by doing so we'll truly know who we are and what is our own personal way to connect back to ourselves again. We already have it & we need no middle-man in order stay connected to whatever we choose to call our own personal life experience. We are all born out of it and we are given a slightly different perspective to take in the experience with for a reason. So not to fall for false light and to not loose the inner knowing of who we are on a bigger scale. Saying that though, we can not escape what we are not first aware of & as we are observing, feeling and interacting with the nature round us we should, as it is not in our hearts, start questioning; is this truly a world that I would have created when absolutely everything is built up from suffering and where everything is feeding on itself, having to take the life of something else in order to survive? The biggest rule breaker is the rule maker & we are all god's until it finds a way to change the mind. 💜

[@iiixtheory]

Humanities unique perspective in this universe entails Antinomic truth of all perspectives from their given vantage points. Which is to say the further out into imagination one allows one’s ego to ascend the more likely one would believe they have free will. The closer to the deterministic laws of physics one grounds oneself, the more likely they are to be a hard determinist. And those who split the difference offer a synthesis between the dialectic on what the actual Big ‘T’ Truth may one day reveal… I’m a hard determinist and I used to be hella incompatiblist in my ontological perspective. But in order to understand my POV you’d have to Gnow Nothingness is imaginary, and by the absence of this absence we can deduce Existence itself, what I call the Omniverse, is, was, and always will Be Eternal. I define Eternal as without beginning or end. Differentiating it with Infinite which I define as: a beginning without end. And here is where I posit the possibility of free will in an immortal afterlife that is no longer looping for Eternity in the Omniverse of Physics, Metaphysics, and Pataphysics. What I mean by free will is best understood by analogy of a computer. I say we have autonomy to move the mouse and cursor anywhere on screen. And free will would be the magical ability to move the cursor off screen. Eternity is what exists within the computer. Infinity is represented by the pataphysical postulate of what might Be off screen. To truly break the 4th wall if you will. And thus I say we are 99% hard determined and an enigmatic 1% unknown which leaves wiggle room for any belief one has which appeals to their autonomy. My metaphysics are derived from DMTheory. And the basis of my axioms are found therein. Btw, an iiixtheory is a theory about a theory of everything. Which is what I’d say most commenters on this channel have. I believe we each have a piece of the Omniversal puzzle which, if combined and collaborated with in a dialectical direction would obtain in a pragmatic Common Ground language which could be used to bring a TOE at least to the level of recognition that string theory or E=MC2 is in the public’s perception. When the esoteric becomes exoteric or the Private becomes Public we may begin to see how each Being we encounter in life is at least a piece of one’s own story that leads us to a more complete view of Everything as it is experienced by the individual. Thanks for reading. Cheers to a wonderful new year and a possible breakthrough in humanities collective understanding.

[@kenw8875]

solid content. i need to reread and dwell on the lexicon, the meaning, the summary

[@iiixtheory]

Thanks @@kenw8875 I can do my best to clarify or chat about anything that comes to heart or mind. But this is about a decades worth of distillation on the topic and if I can converse with people to refine it I’m more than happy to oblige as time/life as a father of 3 permits. 🙏🏼🎁💗

[@guitarvorous]

I did not understand anything, so I gave a thumbs down. Sorry 😢

[@iiixtheory]

@@guitarvorous fair enough. It’s as Simple as I could make it so far. Would you be so kind as to share what part was the most misunderstood?

[@Rogn80]

@@guitarvorous maybe then just don't give it anything. You're effectively thumbs downing your understanding, not the content.

[@scotchhollow]

How can we prove that there is a ‘there’ outside of our conscious experience, when it’s impossible to step outside of it? Let alone, declare anything to be absolute fact when it’s based on said information that impossible(?) to know?

[@scotchhollow]

Which Science is the tool we use/have to best describe/map our understanding of our shared conscious experience? It doesn’t tell us what it is, or what’s outside of it?

[@buddyhell7100]

He has some really valid points

[@oioi9372]

No he does not

[@rihhard1072]

@@oioi9372 why

[@skippylippy547]

@@oioi9372 Thank you!

[@armandomacias8403]

he didn’t earn his phd

[@skippylippy547]

@@armandomacias8403 🤔 Why not?

[@armandomacias8403]

based on his own logic he didn’t earn a phd and is not a phd

[@nicknijman2500]

Only humans have free will, however, for example, when a lion hunts, it has to anticipate, it has to make immediate decisions and sometimes it makes an incorrect decision with consequences. So, for example, the decision to turn left or right is separate from free will. Only humans have free will, all other life does not have free will. What distinguishes humans from all other life, what is the difference between humans and all other life? There lies the answer as to what free will is.

[@_John_P]

Not having free will is no big deal, we can still live our lives to the fullest.

[@dai19721]

Shut up.

[@ComeAlongKay]

Well you wouldn’t be living your life your life is living you you’re a prisoner and a robot basically and all you do good or bad is meaningless so there is little to fully do other than exist and in vain hope that all the random forces that decide you don’t hurt you.

[@_John_P]

@@ComeAlongKay Why is it meaningless? It's still meaningful to me. Plenty of people who believe they've got free will, yet they feel life is not meaningful to them.

[@Jontheinternet]

So I'll go around and make each decision by flipping a coin. Then I'll have free will 😂

[@_John_P]

Not when the decision to flip the coin, the will to do it consistently, and the decision to what decide with it are all tied to underlying properties completely outside your control and knowledge. In other words, the coin is being flipped already to decide whether you're going to flip the coin.

[@Jontheinternet]

@@_John_P humans have the ability to set an intention. But certain conditions must exist - we don't set our will or intention continually. But we have the ability to reprogram our operating system, unlike any animal. I disagree we have no free will. Even the ability to analyze and reflect on your past and consider your condition can change your will. As we know in science, the observers changes the observed. And humans have the ability to do this under certain conditions of self control. Without self control, yes, we are robots controlled by our passion as limited by our situation. We are like an operating system within an operating system. But we can debug and reprogram/redirect our intention and perspective.

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

​@@_John_Pno he's got a really good point here, if I put a 199 balls into a mixer and ascribed 199 different actions I could take whenever I and had to make a decision and stick to that outcome, was the ball determined? Of course not.

[@nickmiou8049]

​@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu the fact that due to your bad English I typed this comment is free will or determined by your actions 😮 or that you'll feel the need to find at mine also will make you answer to me?thus making us both biologically upset 😂😅

[@Jontheinternet]

@@nickmiou8049 maybe Siri has free will when I use it. If you think bad grammar is too much, probably avoid reading KZbin comments.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

"I choose to insist that I have no free will". I hope every one understands that biological arguments (whether for or against free will) are without merit?

[@ganjacat8408]

THERE ARE NO EMERGENT PROPERTIES >>>>>>> That is just spontaneous generation re-phrased. Consciousness isn't an emergent property, it doesnt just "come from no where". That is ludicrous.

[@lordliege]

As we have no free will, we also have no choice about our belief in free will and in the belief we act with our free will and the results of our actions being the result of our free will. Illusions all the way down.

[@Ry-jn6jd]

He’s assuming none of the things that got you to this moment weren’t spiritual in nature, like Love. I have always considered everything outside of pure love is determinism…. He can’t prove that love isn’t free will, just because you can track it, doesn’t make it material

[@fastbow9]

Interesting even without free will nothing changes! Life goes on just as it always has, so what is the point?

[@simplemonde]

1 In order to proove that you need to fusion with the creation and then you can say if there is free will or not. 2 NDE are revealing the fact that we incarnate in order to experience things needed by soul's evolution : you do not really have free will regarding the big events of your life but you have free will in between. Also some soul's contract can breach if the incarnation is too difficult. 3 Because consciousness is creating what we experience, we experience what we create, then we decide what we are gonna live = ultimate free will, and once decided we live what we created for us to live and then we don't want free will because something has to be experienced. Then, regarding things like this we have free will and we don't at the same time : the question is not relevant and induce a misconception of reality.

[@workingTchr]

Sentience is what matters, and nobody has yet explained how that can come from electrons and molecules. Maybe they will some day, but another reasonable explanation for sentience is that there is more than just matter and energy in the universe. Why not? Why does it HAVE to be just matter and energy? You can say that we've never observed anything besides M&E, but every time you have an experience, isn't that observing it?

[@_John_P]

Anything that exists in the universe is necessarily physical by definition, thus it can be examined with instruments, described with math and exploited. I don't know what you mean by experience, but you certainly can't produce a rock having experiences, or a mind that exists without a brain.

[@workingTchr]

@@_John_P " necessarily physical by definition". What definition? The one that says everything is physical? LOL.

[@_John_P]

@@workingTchr In Physics, anything that manifests itself in the universe can be formally described once examined. So even if there was anything missing in the model of the universe, which was neither matter, nor energy, and manifested itself, it would still be an ordinary physical process and have an ordinary material existence.

[@workingTchr]

@@_John_P I'll assume you understand what you said and leave it at that.

[@_John_P]

@@workingTchr What you mean? It's the job of the physicist. Be it ghosts, souls, gods, if they truly existed, they would manifest themselves, and the only way they could do it is by interacting with the universe, which would instantly make them material things, thus subjected to mathematical models, lab testing and technological exploitation.

[@Jontheinternet]

While we are biological machines, humans sadly uncharacteristic ability of any other animal in that we can reprogram. we are not a robot bouncing around on pure conditioning. We can change the conditioning and operating system through self-control and will. That being said, someone with no self-control, addictions, or passions running the show, we are purely reactionary robots. In the right mental and physical state, we do have a choice. But this is rare and not a constant state

[@sault.qracker5163]

Flawed logic. How we became who we are now is the sum total of all previous decisions, some we made, many were made for us; in all cases we chose our response and outcomes occurred, then we chose again, and so it continues.

[@jpwski9425]

❤ poleciłem znajomym, superr kanał naukowy, dziękuję za szerokie spektrum postrzegania, poruszania tematów z różnych punktów odniesienia

[@adk5746]

God gave man free will.

[@notanemoprog]

No gods.

[@bilal535]

@@notanemoprog how do you know that?

[@_John_P]

@@bilal535 There are no gods, as described by any of the over 5,000 religions that exist or existed in the world, as there's zero proof for them.

[@Aizman87]

Future is already written in stone but everything probably happens for a reason.

[@bilal535]

​@@_John_Pwell ok for religions but he is making a claim that there is no god. If he said that he doesn't believe, ok. So I am just asking how can he prove that? Just bc there is no evidence for something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Or myb you guys think that e.g. God's properties are mutually inconsistent?

[@theeternalnow6506]

Since i've started looking into things like childhood developmental trauma and eastern philosophies i've come to the same conclusions. I dont believe in free will. It makes no sense.

[@TheMg49]

Try to define the term, free will. What does it refer to? I agree with Sapolsky that the fact that we make decisions has nothing to do with those decisions (our wills) being free from or free of the causal chains that they're a part of. But I don't think that it's quite correct to say that we have no control over what happens to us. The things we think, say, and do are all part of the causal chains that shape our lives. It's just that it's nonsensical to assert that we could have done otherwise.

[@Homunculas]

I have a feeling that if someone offered Sapolsky a piece of pie, he'd say pie is an illusion, that the "pie" is really just a collection , a particular arrangement of ingredients, and even that is just a collection of molecules, and so on.......

[@_John_P]

No, he would know if his brain wants it (i.e. full stomach, sugar addiction, mood, social awkwardness, past experience with pies, risk taking, expectation of food being available later...).

[@nickmiou8049]

Hmm...but again is biological cause if one is craving to eat it will depend on the ingredients thus making you decide based on your taste cells

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@_John_Pseems like you’re missing the point of the comment. The point of it being an overly complicated and maybe irrelevant analysis. Also none of those things fully determine anything your perception of them does and your perception can be controlled if you learn how to program it. Ultimately if free will isn’t a thing then why learn, you can’t change your ultimate course and if learning. Also why not do whatever you want it’s not your fault whatever the consequence is, and even if it makes you feel bad life is a robotic endless series of repetitive so who cares. One choice or another is irrelevant as choice itself is a meaningless concept as there was no real choice but the one you were predetermined to make.

[@_John_P]

​@@ComeAlongKay The OP point is to misrepresent Sapolsky in order to discredit him, because the OP likes to believe he has free will and will attack anyone that challenges that belief. But if you stick to Sapolsky's main argument, area of expertise (biology, neurology), subject of the video, and what he actually said, then my comment adjusts for it. When you play RPG, does the character in the game have true free will, or is it just following what the programmers created, and the storyline prepared upfront, with its finite options for dialogue, limited interactions, goals and choices? If the latter, then does it prevent you from enjoying the game at all? Don't you still play the game the same, get immersed, involved, emotional, and experience the storyline with all its limitations? If everything in the game had a real world consequence to you, such as, you'd be arrested and prosecuted for committing crimes in the game, would you go rogue in the game the way you suggested?

[@_John_P]

@@ComeAlongKay The OP point is to misrepresent Sapolsky in order to discredit him, because the OP likes to believe he has free will and will attack anyone that challenges that belief. But if you stick to Sapolsky's main argument, area of expertise (biology, neurology), subject of the video, and what he actually said, then my comment adjusts for it. When you play RPG, does the character in the game have true free will, or is it just following what the programmers created, and the storyline prepared upfront, with its finite options for dialogue, limited interactions, goals and choices? If the latter, then does it prevent you from enjoying the game at all? Don't you still play the game the same, get immersed, involved, emotional, and experience the storyline with all its limitations? If everything in the game had a real world consequence to you, such as, you'd be arrested and prosecuted for committing crimes in the game, would you go rogue in the game the way you suggested? This entire comment is not to be removed, or flagged for moderation.

[@bigt9374]

It would be true if the divine consciousness didn't create life with intent .

[@notanemoprog]

No divine consciousness.

[@bigt9374]

@@notanemoprog that's your opinion

[@a.s.2426]

Under his definition of “free will” and his suggested means of proof, we can neither prove nor disprove that there is free will. The entire enterprise is trapped in a hypothetical.

[@darrellowings2343]

Ah three listens and I was able to pay attention enough to tune out at 56 seconds.

[@TheMaddBlackMann]

This scientist is off base. Free will is not the freedoms to do anything. It is a range of available choices. All the choices are set. Nobody can add or delete new choices. However the freedom to choice from the available choices is up to the organism. It’s choices being good or bad being the basis for evolution

[@notanemoprog]

" It’s choices being good or bad being the basis for evolution! Actually you do not understand how evolution works. Chomsky has a wonderfully concise explanation of the mechanism of evolution by natural selection - it beats anything I could have come up with: a simple mechanism with three phases - disruption, reconstruction, winnowing - can account for everything we see. ________ " let's go back to Evolution again first A *disruption* takes place a mutation symbiosis some other thing many things then comes the *Reconstruction* stage nature tries to make the best of whatever happened if it was a mutation try to organize the new system in the best possible way then comes the *winnowing* stage where among the things that have been created the more adaptable ones survive = natural selection but at the second stage nature hasn't the slightest idea what the functions are going to be doesn't care about them is just finding the best design based on what's around now that often leads to highly dysfunctional systems because it may be that the best thing is not well designed for functions we'd like it to carry out so for example during this last year I've discovered that ears are highly dysfunctional for wearing masks when you have glasses and a hearing aid it's a horrible pain in the neck nature Made a terrible mistake and should have had different kind of ears well same is true of the spine and any engineer could engineer a better system than the spine but the way it developed over time this is the best that could be done" ________ So: there's an environment. There is a population of different individuals inside that environment. Some have genetic traits that make them more successful (able to survive and reproduce more often) in that environment than others. Because the better suited ones reproduce more, the genetics that make them better suited are reproduced more and become more frequent in the populations. Thus, nature has "selected" the best genetics for that environment. BUT there's no conscious "choice"; no entity actually "chooses" between one or another. It's just a consequence of a certain genetic makeup interacting with a certain environment. The weaker ones die, and those genes die with them, thus lessening the prevalence of that particular genetic makeup in the population. The stronger ones survive, and make more copies of their genes in the population.

[@jacksaturday4506]

Seems lack of eternal memory is more interesting than no free will...that we won't remember we ever were eventually feels way more shocking than "I am a product of priors".

[@ComeAlongKay]

Unless the concept of a formative field influences that and our memory exists beyond our concept of it.

[@supamatta9207]

Not to confuse with a system that inacts very weak thought processes and cause big impacts untill you are stuck in a linear path/matrix

[@E______]

Why doesn’t everyone have an insight to what “free will” is? Free will is a concentrated effort of thought (which is your default operating mode that sees the world in dualities/choice. With full uninvited attentive choice-less awareness (because there’s a crisis) the man that is free of will and sees life clearly is free of measure so doesn’t need to chose and every choice he makes is the right choice.

[@_John_P]

In the most selfish way, it's the wrong choice when it has negative consequences to the individual, hence the need for some level of processing the information beyond the flight/fight initial response. However, the thought itself is still subjected to environmental and biophysiochemical factors, experience and belief bias which ultimately define what the decision is going to be by at least limiting acceptable options.

[@E______]

@@_John_P that’s based on thought and accumulated knowledge, insight is devoid of the “me” and is instant complete comprehension

[@gulsen8015]

Could there be psychological reasons behind his hard determinism ?

[@_John_P]

That would immediately prove his point.

[@gulsen8015]

Why not ?​@@_John_P

[@OspreyFlyer]

Or psychological reasons to disagree with him? This debate never ends, lol.

[@gulsen8015]

@@OspreyFlyer Don't be ridiculous, I'm not looking for a reason to disagree with him. There is such a thing as the unconscious.

[@skippylippy547]

Yes Gulsen. He was raised by Orthodox Jewish Parents in New York City. That's reason enough. LOL. He rebelled against his parents and now he's an angry child inside an adult body. Perfectly normal. 😂

[@bearheart2009]

I wonder if there’s any prospect of you facilitating a debate between Daniel Dennett and David Bentley Hart. That would be compulsive viewing!!!

[@maxraboi8162]

thats crazy...you can change your thouts and actions on a whimp. like sometimes you stop in a middle of an action

[@rihhard1072]

That doesnt disprove a deterministic outlook

[@G3nsis1]

If determinism exists, then proof should be supplied outside of philosophy. We should see determinism in science related to decision-making across life. Yes? If everything is already determined, then we have the ultimate pool of information that should give us insight into what is being predetermined and why it's determined. Our decisions should have a reason for already being determined. There should be a quantifiable reason for why we question even though its determined. People talk about "survival" but never give reasoning for why life needs to survive on a physics level. Its always biological. But Biology is made of particles. So all particles on the smallest scales can create and contribute to life. So all forms of interactions that life partakes in should be quantifiable if determinism is the case. Just a thought.

[@a.s.2426]

Curt, Did you not catch on to a major flaw in this man’s argument when you pointed out that the argument “could be” as simple as pointing out that people are entirely reducible to matter the behavior of which is completely determined by factors which (according to current theory, anyway) leave no room for agency as we conceptualize it. Seems to me that it not only COULD be as simple as that (as you suggested) but that it WOULD HAVE TO BE as simple as that as, I don’t see anything in biology, sociology, psychology, and the like that asserts that the laws of the field “completely determine” human outcomes in a way that leaves no room for agency.

[@abelchavez8786]

WE DON’T … free will implies we could do whatever we want anytime we want and we cannot do everything we want all the time we want , we need multiple people to make things happen and other peoples choices affect everything as well .. we have limited free will for a limited time .

[@jeremyed9507]

The argument feels kinda ridiculous here. Absolute free will, yeah we don't have that. We are easily influenced and guided to certain actions and outcomes. Everything plays a part from things at birth to what you ate this morning. But, we have infinite levels of recursive self-awareness. Probabilities of outcome are only that and you can change your habits. Responsibility for your actions is still on you. Don't get it twisted Cleetus.

[@fancycavegaming620]

I think you have free will, but there is at least one dimension outside of time where our time can be traversed instantly like we traverse a book. From that point of view everything is written and done, but we don't have direct access to that point of view.

[@Rogn80]

Yes there are lots of ideas out there that "our spirit/higher selves" chooses our life we are going to live, in order to learn certain lessons... So what does that say about free will? Our higher self has free will, but we don't in the physical world?

[@iiixtheory]

My position kinda echos what you and @@Rogn80 have said here. I wrote a comment on it somewhere in this thread. I’d love to hear what y’all make of it if you have the time to respond. 🙏🏼💗🤙🏼

[@fancycavegaming620]

@@Rogn80 Actually I see it as kind of the reverse. We have free will in the physical dimension, but everything to the end of time is already finished in the upper dimension. You did what you did to reach the end of time, what happened happened, we chose what we chose. If we join with the upper dimension, the question becomes for me, will or would we experience anything analogous to time?

[@Rogn80]

@@fancycavegaming620 if there is no time, then how does one make a decision? The removal of time seems to mess with the framework of what we would understand as choice.

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@Rogn80well the concept there is that our higher self is linked to a lower self and I guess that there’s some back and forth at some level. That’s an interesting point though in a sea of overly wordy and seemingly self satisfied comments. I start to think people are commenting to hear themselves talk and see how advanced they are in their theories. It doesn’t feel like a practical conversation reach a greater truth it feels like a battle of preferred worldviews.

[@Jimmy-el2gh]

Seeing that we are last to the party on decision making is quite freeying why do people get so bent over not having freewill its not as though its being taken from them just now, it was never there...lol

[@johnnytass2111]

Is there such a thing as (Free) Love?

[@flysky6248]

Of course everything is predetermined,otherwise (it) wouldn’t exist.Intent>thought>gravity.

[@a.s.2426]

Curt, On this topic, please bring in John Searle. At least he takes the problem seriously, rather than just saying “science tells us it’s impossible.”

[@willnash9700]

It’s like solving a math equation, it takes steps and time and has to happen in order but there is only one defined method that will work and no matter what you do, you can’t change the method

[@Corteum]

He has the free will to assert that he has no free wil. 😂

[@_John_P]

He has the will to assert there's no "free" in "free" will.

[@Corteum]

@@_John_P He's free enough to use his free will to demand there's no free will. lol

[@skippylippy547]

@@Corteum LOL! 🤣👍💯

[@skippylippy547]

@@_John_P Exactly! 👍

[@No2AI]

Compromises and adaptability for survival.

[@Ndo01]

At the level of the universal will though it would be compatibilist.

[@donsll]

We are not above nature therefore we must be governed by the laws of action and reaction

[@donsll]

It’s a hard pill to swallow but it is what it is

[@Auspex1980]

He says that we have no control over our biology. He also says we have no free will whatsoever. I do agree that a lot of my instinct and desires and decisions are based on my biology and environment for sure, but humanity as a whole does have the ability to see what we lack and alter it. We compare ourselves with other animals. We have the ability to see what we lack physically and augment that with technology. We see that birds fly so we develop flight. We see how much stronger animals are and yet we develop machines to match them and even surpass them. We have abstract thinking and create things that we do not inherently see in nature, such as technology, music, an instrument, spaceflight, splitting the atom, etc. etc. We are and have evolved to a point where we can now facilitate our own evolution. We have CRISPR technology and we are no longer dependent on the external forces of evolution. My ultimate point is that we can create things that do not inherently exist within our observable reality even when discoveries happen by accident we have the ability to see and observe something new, and make choices based upon that. How can that be accounted for without any free will whatsoever? I don’t know the answer to this question maybe he’s right, but, the one thing that I truly know more the older I get is that I know nothing. This whole reality is a fucking weird experience and if anyone says they know this to be true then I say, turn around and run for the hills. Stay humble folks. I know nothing, but I will question everything.

[@_John_P]

His point is that either way you decide, the decision was caused by things you will never have any control. For instance, there are many people against CRISPR for changing humanity, but that doesn't make it the correct or incorrect decision, as either way the collective decides, it will still be decided based on underlining factors that are outside the collective control, including their beliefs.

[@hermeticlaw9097]

You have the choice to choose your thoughts, you have the choice to whether act morally or immoraly, anybody that says the contrary servers the dark forces that want you too feel powerless bag of meet and bones without a soul.

[@eenkjet]

Perhaps it's time to interview Peter Tse or Uri Maoz who are free will pioneers and experimentalists rather than going about this same reductionist method?

[@BfianMillerusedtobeis]

The only time he will NOT have ‘free will’ is when he shows up ON TIME for his last appointment, and he WILL be on time for it… HIS LAST EXHALE OF BREATH.

[@jasonmcghee1266]

Weird comment, man.

[@lori3032]

He just nailed it. This is the perfect explanation of determinism, imo. Thanks for this interview! ❤

[@shardovl586]

Determinism was proven wrong, God does throw dice

[@shardovl586]

It is the wave potential that is deterministic.

[@_John_P]

@@shardovl586 Free will also does not exist if the universe is not fully deterministic.

[@bgz42]

No... he rediscovered input lag... it has nothing to do with freewill. His faulty 300ms brainwave to click discrepancy tells me more about the hardware he used to run the tests. He should have achieved 220ms to 240ms if he were to have actually looked objectively at the data and tried to get the number down (that's the number he should have got it to). He didn't, he used his crappy hardware, saw 300ms, said see? No freewill.

[@_John_P]

@@bgz42 That's a complete misrepresentation of what he's saying.