I think there can be made a case for a theory of long term planning that is based on neuronal function or impulse talk. The important thing is that there is not this unified central organ (the will, the conscious mind) that does the planning and deciding. In the old days people would have talked about "drives", I think that language is more intuitive than neurology talk and used to be employed to describe the same mechanisms.There is a very fine aphorism by Nietzsche titled "On Self Mastery" that makes a similar point. Coming more from a Freudian and Nietzschean philosophical angle, I see some fine Nietzschean ideas coming back into the broader picture via cognitive neuroscience. It is a fascinating time to study philosophy

Consider twins, as well.

You mean better than sam Harris

Way better than both

@@jameslovell5721 you are right. I just mentioned Harris because he is more concerned with free will with his ptrdetetmination theory while Peterson don't really have a theory on free will

However, we are beings operating at an emergent level of phenomena, meaning we need meaning to coordinate ourselves. The philosophical and psychological question of what makes the self is quite important for a human being living in the artificially created realm of society. Science cannot and should not be differentiated from that level of human operation, because otherwise, it will alienate itself. Sure simplicity is basically the foundation of science. Considering your proposal about diminishing the usage of 'will', 'self', and 'consciousness' as terminology, we then need to look at the theoretical paradigms without using these words. That makes them useless for explaining what they are thought to explain at a greater organizational level. We need such mental terminology to find our way from what Neuroscience explains to what we experience. And our experience is greatly made up of using mental terminology to describe it. We are, as a society of human beings, not far enough developed to make usage of eliminative materialism. Not in a psychological sense. We might be moving towards it as Neuroscience shows. If there is a discrepancy between what science tells us and what we experience, we need to question both. Science is not pure of methodological and interpretational biases. If we have a sufficient explanation of behaviour I would like to listen to it and see how it connects to our everyday experience. I, however, think that we don't have sufficient explanations for our mental experience - and that nags us. That means either we need to assume such mental experiences as not existing, or our conceptualizations of them are simply not good enough for testing them scientifically. As a human being relying existentially on meaning, it would be the most devastating thing to ignore this meaning. It is a path towards Nihilism. And within Nihilism, there is no sense of going anywhere. It is reasonable that meaning has an evolutionary perspective and therefore an eligibility to existing. At least I would argue to rationalize the actions I undertake to prevent an existential doom due to meaninglessness. And that indeed has the utmost importance as a human being I would presuppose. And in that sense truth must be subjective and relative to escape the despairing life confronts us with. So what that ultimately leads us to is the following: to question whether a self exists, what we describe with that and what eventually would emerge if we were to deny its existence. And with that, we are at where we stand at the moment - advancing our conceptualization of mental phenomena to test them.

That's why Paul and Patricia Churchland inevitably come up in the topic of Eliminative Materialism. I'm pretty sure it was Paul Churchland who first named and pioneered EM as a proper school of thought.

MrMitras18 Without shooting an answer directly at you, let me share a method of how to deal with the most of paradoxes like this, if you will. E.G. When you see a chicken vs egg problem, the first step is to try to restate the question from another perspective. The quest for discovering a new perspective is either a challenge or an insight. Or, to question the question is another way of dealing with... In this case, What does it mean to have an agency? Can we come up with either absolute or relative description of agency? What if an absolute agency is debunkable, but relative isn't. Can we claim that the dichotomy of free will vs determinism is valid? Or these two are radical degrees of a spectrum? Can the will be not free, but limited? By asking a series of questions I start seeing more direct course of discovering the core meaning of this puzzling inquiry.

@@YuriRadavchuk so the will in humans is the mechanism or apparatus that decides. It is not the decision, but the mechanism. If you admit that we don't have free will, but in your words - that the will is limited, all that means is that the decision mechanism is limited. of course it is. All physical chemical systems are limited. But there's no freedom within those limits. Those limits are physical limits not limits of freedom.

I agree with you. She is not clear or she is also did not explain what understanding in itself and who does it? Just details.

@@thetruthoutside8423 Please, can you clarify me a doubt? Why does she talk about selfcontrol? is she dualist? Sounds paradoxical when she talks about self control and at the same time she says that persons are just brains, machines. Who controls the machine?

@@ZenGuitarStudios So you are admiting that humans are moist robots and free will just means how well functioning is that robot

I think it might be because, as she stated, the brain itself is a causal machine, so information stored in the brain creates "disposition" more than "determination." Self control allows expression of our dispositions through determinations made which enhances survival, or "success," if you will, in the conditions of a given environment. I'm just spit-balling here. Trying to wrap my mind around it too. lol

You are simply moving the location of the control to prior causes, and ignoring the most significant causal mechanism, the human brain. What is the Big Bang's interest in what you choose to have for lunch? Where is that interest actually located if not within you?

@@marvinedwards737 Well, the Brain ultimately is a machine... and therefore is governed by the laws of physics, like any other machine... Whenever the brain is taking a "decision" it actually is processing data in some or other form... and that processing is governed by evolutionary algorithms.... Therefore, Nature is the ultimate master..... Even when decisions are governed by factors like social norms, moral values, upbringing etc., the control is still in hands of Nature, because all these factors are ultimately the result of some decision making process which again is governed by Nature.

@@MrMitras18 The "laws of physics" are a metaphor expressing the reliability of the behavior of inanimate objects. The only thing they actually "govern" is the behavior of the physicist as he calculates how to get the rocket and the moon to show up at the same time and place. But the moon does not consult any legal manuals to figure out what to do next. It is the reliable behavior of the moon as it orbits the earth that the physicist observes and records. The "laws of physics" are descriptive. They have no causal powers. The same is true of the life sciences (e.g., biology and genetics) and the social sciences (e.g., psychology and sociology). Each science derives their "laws" by observing reliable patterns of behavior in the objects of their interest. It is the objects themselves, and the forces between them, that cause events. And this is important to keep in mind, because empirically the control is situated within the objects and forces themselves. For example, Nature has no interest in what I have for lunch today. That is a choice that I, and I alone, will make. And, while my choice will be causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, it will also be causally necessary from any prior point that it will be me making that choice to satisfy my own interests. And that's what we call free will.

@@marvinedwards737 The moon probably does not have brain... It's motion is governed by the way it's mass interacts with space-time.... The motion of beings that have a brain is governed by the brain.... The activities of the brain in turn are determined by chemical/biological phenomena.... those in turn are determined by the interactions between particles and forces of nature..... It may seem obvious to you that you alone made the decision of choosing your lunch, but that is only because you consider your "self" as an independent entity.... which actually is nothing more than an illusion...

@@MrMitras18 The mass of the moon interacts with the mass of the earth via a force called gravity. Inanimate objects behave passively in response to physical forces like gravity. Matter organized as living organisms respond purposefully to physical forces in order to survive, thrive, and reproduce. The behavior of a squirrel on a hill is not governed by gravity, but by a need to find his next acorn. Intelligent species have evolved a brain capable of imagination, evaluation, and choosing. These objects can behave deliberately, and this is where you find free will. The self is not an illusion. It is a physical object which is a living organism of an intelligent species. If you think all these selves are merely an illusion, try punching one in the nose and see what happens. The term "illusion" is often inappropriately used rather than the correct term "model". The brain organizes sensory input into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When this model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we successfully navigate our bodies through a doorway, then it is called "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause a problem, as when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, that we call it an "illusion".

The term "illusion" is often misused. The brain organizes sensory input into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful (as when we successfully navigate our bodies through a doorway), we simply call it "reality" since the model is our only access to reality. When the model is inaccurate enough to cause problems (as when we walk into a glass door, thinking it is open) then THAT is called an "illusion". The "self" is our body and its experiences, including its thoughts and feelings. We may have a few mistaken illusions about the self (like its location when the patient has an out-of-body experience during an operation) but generally it is accurate enough to be useful, so it would be an error to call it an "illusion".

how does quantum randomness make anything more free?

nah mate. Shes nothing

But why does she talk about selfcontrol without believing in the self? There is only the machine in this worldview.

@@pepedestroyer5974 I think she only spoke as far as falsifiable results can steer her explanation. I don’t think she’s philosophizing as much as you perceive

Respectfully, I think it's you who misses the point. From the position of Paul and Patricia Churchland's background as pioneers of Neurophilosophy and Eliminative Materialism, the way we talk about things pertaining to the functions and processes of the brain no longer serves us well in light of the discoveries of modern neuroscience. The neurological processes are far too complex for the old, familiar language which EM refers to as "folk psychology." So to you, I think, she seems to miss the mark, when in fact she's just talking about the subject in a different way. One that's more nuanced and complex than the way we're used to thinking about such things.

It's just higher parts of the brain overriding lower parts of the brain. Still just chemical reactions determining larger, macroscopic behaviors.

How clever 🫤 but are they in opposition ?