Panel: Quantum Theory and Free Will - Chris Fields, Henry Stapp & Donald Hoffman

  Рет қаралды 103,623

Science and Nonduality

Science and Nonduality

9 жыл бұрын

Quantum theory incorporates two seemingly-contradictory ideas about free will. On the one hand, an observer can choose both the system to measure and the kind of measurement to make; given these choices, the theory predicts a probability distribution over the
possible outcomes and nothing more. is is "quantum indeterminism." On the other hand, a system that no one is looking at evolves through time according the dynamics that are perfectly deterministic. No one is "looking at" the universe as a whole - all observers are inside the universe by definition - so the time evolution of the whole universe must be perfectly deterministic. This clash between indeterminism and determinism is sharpened by the existence of a strong theorem, the Conway-Kochen "free will theorem," that says that if human (or any other kind of) observers are assumed to have free will, everything
else in the universe, even electrons, has to be assumed to have free will, too. Is this conflict real, or might it dissolve on further analysis? This panel will examine some of the strikingly different views advanced by physicists on this question, illuminating the concept and role of entanglement in the process."
Dr. Chris Fields is an independent scientist interested in both the physics and the cognitive neuroscience underlying the human perception of objects as spatially and temporally bounded entities. His particular interests include quantum information theory and quantum computing on the one hand, and creative problem solving, early childhood development and autism-spectrum conditions on the other. His recent papers have appeared in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Information, International Journal of General Systems, Advances in Cognitive Psychology, Frontiers in Perception Science and Medical Hypotheses among others. He is currently editing a Research Topic titled “How humans recognize objects: Segmentation, categorization and individual identification” for Frontiers in Perception Science.
Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and author of more than 90 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See (W.W. Norton, 2000). He received his BA from UCLA in Quantitative Psychology and his Ph.D. from MIT in Computational Psychology. He joined the faculty of UC Irvine in 1983, where he is now a full professor in the departments of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research into visual perception, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences for his research on the relationship of consciousness and the physical world.
Henry Stapp received his Ph.D. in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel Laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. Wolfgang Pauli visited Berkeley in the spring of 1958. He talked extensively with Stapp, and invited him to work with him in Zurich in the Fall. Stapp worked in Zurich with Pauli on fundamental problems until Pauli sudden unexpected death in December. In 1970 Werner Heisenberg invited Stapp to Munich, where the two conversed often on fundamental issues surrounding quantum mechanics. After returning to Berkeley wrote an influential article The Copenhagen Interpretation, published in the American Journal of Physics with Heisenberg’s comments appearing in an Appendix. Stapp has has made major contributions to analytic S-matrix theory, generalizations of Bell’s theorems, and understanding the quantum connection of mind to physical processes.

Пікірлер: 176
@sngscratcher
@sngscratcher 8 жыл бұрын
Can't give these guys enough credit for "moving the ball forward." Of course, the most important thing is that their minds are not trapped in the current dogma. And even tough much of what they are postulating may be wrong, we have to keep pushing on the boundaries of scientific thought, if we ever want to truly understand this mysterious reality we are all a part of. Very refreshing! Cheers.
@TheFossie12
@TheFossie12 7 жыл бұрын
yep indeed indeed...............
@AlexHop1
@AlexHop1 4 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Open-minded Skeptic! Often when people say that they're skeptics, they really mean that they're dogmatic materialists. It's good to see someone whose skeptical AND open-minded. I agree that these speakers really move the ball forward towards understanding Free Will.
@Joshua-dc1bs
@Joshua-dc1bs 6 жыл бұрын
If science and philosophy committed the Ad Populum fallacy and only work within the current paradigm, new models and theories would never emerge. We'd still be stuck in Plato's cave if not for scientists who dare to challenge current models by looking through Galileo's lens . It's a damn shame some want to keep science from exploring new ideas. A big thank you to SAND for sharing the latest research and fresh minds.
@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt
@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt 4 жыл бұрын
Even worse is the 'personal incredulity' fallacy. Most people in science will reject universal consicousness, or consciousness as primary, isntantly, as pure unadulterated uncut cocaine smoking.
@oldhollywoodbriar
@oldhollywoodbriar Жыл бұрын
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt stong writing!
@oldhollywoodbriar
@oldhollywoodbriar Жыл бұрын
Snaps! Although I often feel like we’re back in Plato’s cave again. The real world is happening behind your eyes. 😊
@GiedriusMisiukas
@GiedriusMisiukas 2 жыл бұрын
Chris Fields: 0:00 Henry Stapp: 17:00 Donald Hoffman: 36:30 Remarks, questions, etc.: 52:20
@rexjantze296
@rexjantze296 7 жыл бұрын
In context to Donald Hoffman I wonder if the split brain duality is the primary nature of indecision, and why we say one thing and act out another. I've been studying personal development for several years and this new research brings to light one of the most perplexing challenges for personal change.
@annelbeab8124
@annelbeab8124 3 жыл бұрын
If we knew why we said something in the first place, we would not happen to come up with false promises to ourselves or others. It is pretty simple. We only need to starr at the beginning and look into why do we make statements at all about intentions and treat them like facts till we realise that in reality they were mere statements without substance. But why did we want to make ourselves believe something that is not (yet) a fact ? But we also have no problem believing firmly in a past we have not lived in and base decisions upon it and thus make it real today.
@pedrozaragoza2253
@pedrozaragoza2253 2 жыл бұрын
We are profound and infinite beings beginning to become aware of the boundless possibilities available to us. We will eventually realize that our freedom leads to love, a sense that all of existence is free, sacred, eternal and inexplicably beautiful. Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
@ssshurley
@ssshurley 4 жыл бұрын
Donald Hoffman is a genius!
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
of course he is. He is making a fortune by selling comforting ideas as "mathematical models" to people with existential and epistemic anxiety.
@dazboot2966
@dazboot2966 3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 lol ok give us an example of a less comforting 'idea' that takes account of residual issues which are left out of our current description of our environment-?
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
@@dazboot2966 the "amount" of comfort offered by an idea should only be alarming ....not a criterion.
@dazboot2966
@dazboot2966 3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Of course and Hoffman would obviously agree with that. He, as a scientist, is interested in verification, not 'comfort'. I would suggest those that cling to obsolete paradigms are those seeking comfort.
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
@@dazboot2966 Not when a paradigm is supported by objective reproducible evidence...like our current scientific paradigm. On the other hand Hoffman is trying to have a career as metaphysicist, not as a scientist. He is interested in selling his ideas . Providing comfort is a strong point for any idea. Lets be honest. He is a charlatan who uses math as an excuse and an authority figure. We don't have a variable for a biological property...and we will never have.
@AlexHop1
@AlexHop1 4 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU, THANK YOU to all the speakers and to ScienceAndNon-Duality. This is the MOST IDEA-FULL discussion of Free Will that I've experienced EVER! Henry Stapp's explanation of the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem--that Nature is making decisions for quantum particles (given quantum non-locality) is BRILLIANT! I'm going to have to listen again to his explanation of how we move our arms by our own decision (Anti-Zeno Effect). Donald Hoffman's description of split-brain experiments must be taken into account when considering Free Will--looks like there's complementary (in Neils Bohr's sense) between consciousness and the brain. This discussion is so ILLUMINATING! AGAIN, THANK YOU!
@StephenPaulKing
@StephenPaulKing 9 жыл бұрын
@ 26:15ish. Is a "valuation" something like a choice of a basis?
@kathycraig5942
@kathycraig5942 9 жыл бұрын
All so very interesting to think about, thanks for sharing.
@martin36369
@martin36369 7 жыл бұрын
The location of a single Electron at any moment is completely indeterministic, the location of many Electrons however is highly deterministic. Like-wise if there is only one Universe & one goes back in time one can apparently "Change" the past so one has free wil,l but when one changes the past it becomes what already was the past so it isn't changed so determinism, in other words choich is predestined & predestination is chosen
@jfhow
@jfhow 5 жыл бұрын
Once we figure out what free will means, then we can get to work on figuring out whether or not we have it. If we don't have it, how did we ever get the idea that we do?
@pichum4st3r
@pichum4st3r 5 жыл бұрын
Yes, thank you. Many antifree willers will enclose their “antifree will” in unfalsifiability. They think it is a simple impossibility even hypothetically. I have even done some thought experiments with some people about a god having free will or not. They say a god doesn’t have free will. That was when I realized to not take a lot of conversations about free will seriously. Many people have unsatisfiable expectations of free will.
@TheWhaleAndWhasp
@TheWhaleAndWhasp 5 жыл бұрын
pichum4st3r why do you have to invoke a god to talk about free will?
@addajjalsonofallah6217
@addajjalsonofallah6217 4 жыл бұрын
@@pichum4st3r free will simply requires randomness If reality is fundementally random then you have free will because the future can never be 100% certain on any particular timeline The ramdomness creates an interference pattern in time Canceling out all predetermined outcomes until an action is performed in space which would count as an observation
@robertjsmith
@robertjsmith Жыл бұрын
@@addajjalsonofallah6217 confirmation bias
@addajjalsonofallah6217
@addajjalsonofallah6217 Жыл бұрын
@@robertjsmith huh?
@IC4nia
@IC4nia 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for these rooting connections
@mitchellhudson8338
@mitchellhudson8338 4 жыл бұрын
Self determination in terms of existence is not adhering to any presented (and tbh faulty) definitions of free will. As stated, even the most elemental parts of the universe have an (obvious) element of self determinacy in terms of existence - but does an atom have will? Does an electron have will? Where does the will come into the equation if consciousness is not required? How then are we even discussing agency anymore?
@nishantberry4436
@nishantberry4436 7 жыл бұрын
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?
@prateekgurjar1651
@prateekgurjar1651 7 жыл бұрын
Nishant Berry it can't be. Just like science still can't explain observer's effect and conaciousness
@rovrola
@rovrola 7 жыл бұрын
Discussions about freewill are generally lacking but I was hoping these great minds might offer something substantial. Aside from the neuroscience presentation, this was not very insightful and failed to demonstrate anything beyond their starting assumptions; that choices are being made by a free someone. They merely describe possible natural mechanisms by which this "willer" is presented with alternatives. Even if the range of possible states isn't completely determined by history or external agency, nothing has been said to demonstrate that there might be any supernatural causal element of a hidden consciousness variable which selects states. This was hinted at when discussing the electron's freewill but nothing was said regarding human agency. Unless you're a compatibilist or flat-out denier, your arguments need to distinguish between willed outcomes and naturally determined selection of presented alternatives; if nature chooses for the electron why not for us as well? If nature is consciousness, what's so special about the agency of the "I"? Furthermore, it remains unspecified if the (initial) values or questions of the willer are decided randomly, by determinate cause or will itself. If it's the first two then operation of will isn't obvious. If the third, how can the will chose if it has no prior values or preferences? Unless that's addressed references to phenomena like the Zeno effect demonstrate nothing already being attributed to the observer.
@PeterDmitriyev
@PeterDmitriyev 5 жыл бұрын
it proved there is no free will
@ericpalmer3588
@ericpalmer3588 3 жыл бұрын
All of these concepts and models exist within consciousness. Free will is a feeling/sensation within consciousness. Cause and effect is a concept/model utilized by human consciousness as a survival tool in the 3d world we construct. Cause and effect only exist separate from one another in this spacetime we construct but it's not fundamental, space and time is not some underlying physics, its just one way to model information.
@nietztsuki
@nietztsuki 3 жыл бұрын
@@ericpalmer3588 Brilliant response! That sounds similar to what Donald Hoffman (and others) has proposed in his books and many of his other lectures; i.e. that the mind (consciousness) creates space and time, not the other way around. I was disappointed in his presentation here, as it did not delve into that theory.
@hoon_sol
@hoon_sol 3 жыл бұрын
@@ericpalmer3588: They exist within consciousness, but only by virtue of the will. Free will is not a "feeling/sensation within consciousness" at all, free will is what determines the contents of consciousness to begin with. Schopenhauer conclusively proved the identity of the willing subject and the knowing subject, so what the word "you" refers to is what's popularly known as a "self", an entity possessing both will and consciousness. You are merely echoing Kant's work when you say that cause and effect and spacetime only exist as constructs to model information, but are neglecting to take into account Schopenhauer's further refinements on Kant's metaphysics, which he (needless to say) was intimately familiar with, and greatly respected. I recommend reading On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason first, and then The World as Will and Representation.
@hoon_sol
@hoon_sol 3 жыл бұрын
@@nietztsuki: It's completely identical to Kant's metaphysics, and nothing new. No matter how brilliant, stopping there without going further and trying to understand the way in which this model is created, namely by the will, is to only go halfway. See my above comment if you wish to understand this more clearly.
@Nonconceptuality
@Nonconceptuality 9 жыл бұрын
What if the fundamental choice is whether or not to ask the question? Seems to me that the choice to engage in the question/answer, yes/no system IS the creation of duality/illusion itself. What is the experience of not forcing as 'yes' or 'no' out of reality? What if the observer just observes? Or even better, what if the observer focuses only on the observer?
@wulphstein
@wulphstein 5 жыл бұрын
Sounds like psychobabble.
@2phalanges
@2phalanges 4 жыл бұрын
is it really free will if all the different decisions we make end up at the exact same destination?
@robertleclair2195
@robertleclair2195 8 жыл бұрын
August Sundstrom,,,,never thought of it like that,,thanks,,peace,,
@acitizen9824
@acitizen9824 4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your video!
@Life_Is_A...
@Life_Is_A... 7 жыл бұрын
How could anything in the universe have free will if: 1- It's always governed by the laws of physics / chemistry. 2- It's pre-determined by earlier events which make certain probabilities much more probable to happen.
@SimplifiedTruth
@SimplifiedTruth 6 жыл бұрын
Abdo M The same way you have freewill in a virtual reality game. The avatar and the environment in the game are governed by a pre programmed rule set....but the rule set in that game does not govern your choices as the player, who is the non local conciousness. All that is needed for freewill is the option between two or more choices. Look left or right etc.
@ryanm.mclaren9543
@ryanm.mclaren9543 5 жыл бұрын
people think that because quantum mechanics is not deterministic it leaves space for free will
@Nonconceptuality
@Nonconceptuality 9 жыл бұрын
After Dr. Hoffman's talk, I understand why Ramana Maharshi didn't speak for many years. Perhaps Self-Realization requires the shutting-down of the functioning of that part of the brain.
@philippevermeiren7081
@philippevermeiren7081 9 жыл бұрын
Ramana Maharshi would have said: "there is no separate i, so there is nobody to have the free will..."
@synesthesia251
@synesthesia251 9 жыл бұрын
Philippe Vermeiren perfectly said, and experienced "at times"
@lolinfroreslascano4185
@lolinfroreslascano4185 9 жыл бұрын
mmmmm
@Nonconceptuality
@Nonconceptuality 8 жыл бұрын
***** Nothing. More mindstuff. The only substantial thing I have ever learned has been from Bhagavan.
@314Leothelion31
@314Leothelion31 8 жыл бұрын
Quantum theory is interesting but it can only be a partial thing. Constructed of thought and the study of the interface of reality to try to understand the whole of it. Thought can never cover the whole...therefore words will never reach the immensity of what reality is. Free will is tainted with science, religion, culture, mamma and daddy so strongly that man is not Free enough to understand his will. This talk is simply the movement of thought. Entertainment. The truth can only be witnessed when thoughts end and reality comes forward to witness itself.
@emeejay5430
@emeejay5430 3 жыл бұрын
you guys are The best proffesionals ! Thank you for sharing the truths about this life of illusion ! And yes there is free will! We are the co-creators!
@mitchelltaylor5540
@mitchelltaylor5540 3 жыл бұрын
I have a similar question as the Indian guy at the end. Does free will, choice in nature, us even down to a quantum level. Does that come from cause and effect. I feel like it does and free will is an illusion or an effect we experience. Can someone school me please
@Constantinesis
@Constantinesis 4 жыл бұрын
There is actually no way to prove that you could have done something different than what you already did.
@nishantberry4436
@nishantberry4436 7 жыл бұрын
NOTES ON THE WILL: 1) As an innate property of mind-consciousness, the will is the determination or the intent of the inborn sentience in the living being to act in a specific manner and in no other. 2) To begin with, the will-impulse arises from the melange of thoughts, memories, instincts, hunches, experiences, emotions, sights, sounds, desires and other sentient inputs stored in the subliminal (or subconscious) aspect of the mind-consciousness and it then draws on the interactions with the current environmental factors and personality features of the individual to make a choice in a given situation. 3) As a result, once the will-impulse to act in a particular way, based on the above, is formed in these subliminal/subconscious depths then it rises to the surface mind where the human subject now takes note of it and attempts to realise it to the best of his/her capacity.
@cvan7681
@cvan7681 4 жыл бұрын
Statements of any kind cannot be true or false.
@johnellis7614
@johnellis7614 4 жыл бұрын
Our will being the decision maker of our being, we should have the desire, ability and freedom to enjoy life without being enriched upon the misery of another. Also, to truly have a freewill and not be a slave to good, we need to have both the ability and freedom to cause misery.
@OliveWeitzel
@OliveWeitzel 5 жыл бұрын
Does this discussion help to make this world a better place?
@markbrad123
@markbrad123 9 жыл бұрын
Don't know or understand all the physics of free will vs determinism but the Serenity Prayer seems to make sense. If your atheist you can make an atheist version of the Serenity prayer(Accept what you can't change, change what you can, wisdom to know difference) Whether everything ,even choice, is determined or not, it maybe foolish, belligerent,negligent, even deadly to miss the best alternative. However, people do tend to be sometimes over-reactive when they can just sit back and enjoy the ride unless choice is necessary.
@cam0875
@cam0875 3 жыл бұрын
As an alcoholic, I can tell you I dont have free will over the next drink
@RickDelmonico
@RickDelmonico 7 жыл бұрын
There is what I will call the intentianal field of implicate order. This is a social field and has an influence on freewill. Also, the choice you make now will influence the degrees of freedom for all future choices.
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
They are all interconnected right?
@timelsen2236
@timelsen2236 6 жыл бұрын
huge uncertainty in henery's talk, idea or ideal, and oh by the way, and while were answering future questions, what?
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
Can I fix this with out consequence
@escofhari
@escofhari 9 жыл бұрын
either there is a vibration harmonically or there is a non vibration or countering with disharmony which lead the anti-matter non continuum. The opposite of existence. When they oppose itself then there is invisibility which shifts itself dimensionally and is supremely dangerous to existence.
@asdfjklo124
@asdfjklo124 2 жыл бұрын
Dang, I shouldn't have taken Hoffman and Stapp together in one session, I'm on one hell of a trip right now!!
@RickDelmonico
@RickDelmonico 7 жыл бұрын
The lawful regularities of our physical reality are emergent.
@Aluminata
@Aluminata 8 жыл бұрын
Off to a quantum in-deterministic start...
@moorzy8385
@moorzy8385 2 жыл бұрын
Sooo we couldn’t edit out the awkward attempt to get things going in the beginning?🤣
@NickEdgington
@NickEdgington 9 жыл бұрын
Everyone talks about free will but nobody does anything about it.
@jstarret
@jstarret 8 жыл бұрын
+Nick Edgington That's because they can't.
@outofturn
@outofturn 8 жыл бұрын
+John Starret Well then I think is safe to say if we can not do anything about free will we kind of don't have it; by definition.
@whynottalklikeapirat
@whynottalklikeapirat 8 жыл бұрын
+Nick Edgington Like it
@pichum4st3r
@pichum4st3r 5 жыл бұрын
outofturn We can do something about free will. It is called killing or at least rendering the mind incapable of decisions.
@Adm_Guirk
@Adm_Guirk 5 ай бұрын
I wish someone made the freewill choice to use noise cancelling software when recording
@marcusfreeweb
@marcusfreeweb 9 жыл бұрын
What if some one IS looking at the universe from the outside? Just if.
@SimplifiedTruth
@SimplifiedTruth 6 жыл бұрын
marcusfreeweb seems to point to a Great Concious Observer.
@tonystephen6312
@tonystephen6312 4 жыл бұрын
Wigners Friend !
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
I do not want to split it
@ilikethisnamebetter
@ilikethisnamebetter Жыл бұрын
I think Chris Fields is somewhat misleading about the Free Will Theorum. It doesn't say anything at all about whether humans have Free Will. It uses an assumption/axiom of (strong) human Free Will to make a - conditional - statement about fundamental particles. [Edit - actually the assumption made is that the human 'decision' is not dependent on previous events, which condition Conway and Kochen define as Free Will.]
@johnlawrence2757
@johnlawrence2757 5 жыл бұрын
These are Western philosophers whose idea of creative debate is to get bogged down in discussing the meaning of the words they use and they just end up chasing their own tails round and round and round Eastern philosophy has a different approach (even though individual practitioners do get distracted): such things as the subject of this debate are completely irrelevant. What matters is the relationship between the individual and God, and as a consequence of understanding this, the potential for individual happiness in this life
@TheWhaleAndWhasp
@TheWhaleAndWhasp 5 жыл бұрын
John Lawrence I’d wager these men do not believe in God
@SnoopyDoofie
@SnoopyDoofie 4 жыл бұрын
I chose to watch this video... or did I?
@KanoaB123
@KanoaB123 4 жыл бұрын
I highly doubt that there is free will... With enough information everything is predictable. We are just not able to process the information but if we were everything could be predictable... Which means there is no free will just the illusion of it
@stevenewsom3269
@stevenewsom3269 4 жыл бұрын
This is my view as well.
@analodimripe4816
@analodimripe4816 7 жыл бұрын
what about about freewill being determined by an error correcting environment in non deterministic space of which you play a role. How could error correction occur in such a deterministically hostile environment as for this plane and you in it to exist without a god well how could an environment harbor a god at all well the answer is complex but yes error correcting systems can naturally emerge from such an environment however this goes against the second law of thermo dynamics which must be wrong or some super natural god is making it so. In other words order must emerge from chaos and vise versa it can't all just go to chaos or the universe would have never been.
@TheYoli182
@TheYoli182 4 жыл бұрын
If I had Free Will I would have chosen wealthy parents.
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 3 жыл бұрын
Actually, we have a steering wheel and that's ALL free will is. We don't decide all possibilities while driving but predetermine destinies based on our personal objectives and act on the way based on our view.
@StephenPaulKing
@StephenPaulKing 9 жыл бұрын
What about the question: "what is the nature of my own consciousness?" It is hard to rephrase such a question in binary valuated terms, so we might not be able to ask that question, What about one observer asking: "what is some other observer measuring of me?"
@timothyclancy8381
@timothyclancy8381 4 жыл бұрын
Consciousnesses, like the brain and it's other functions, is simply evolution by natural selection.
@billysbains
@billysbains 3 жыл бұрын
its seems radical in west wot hoffman is saying but yogas in tebet and india have been sayig concousness is fundemental for last at least few thousand years...
@timemechanicone
@timemechanicone 3 жыл бұрын
Multi position/worlds? or Time wave collapse or timeline reconstitution. Particles need coordinates or the system needs to integrate and allocate them information, data etc? Every particle! No one ever wonders how a timeline is ordered or how systems or base reality technologies intersect with reality. Time Mechanics - timeline science.
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
Can I continue to be individual
@pdoylemi
@pdoylemi 7 жыл бұрын
This was a fascinating discussion, but I only heard one panelist really even begin to address the basic question that must be answered before we can discuss human free will. Not surprisingly, it was the neuroscientist. That basic question is "What am I?" Before I can discuss whether "I" have free will, I have to determine what I am. This also feeds into the discussion of the legal system and intent. I tend to define myself as the current brain state of my brain, physical, chemical, and electrical, which has been shaped by many factors -some of which, such as my life experience, and my genetic history, I may be aware, and possibly influences of which I am not aware. A brain in any given state will have tendencies, some strong and some weak, which determine what choices that person is likely to make in a given situation. Whether it is a fully conscious process or not, it is still my choice. So when my alcoholic father cracked open a beer, that was his choice. Perhaps his conscious mind knew it was a bad choice, but what was "him" was the complete package - including the part of him that craved alcohol. In this way, we can still (and must) assign intent to that choice. As a society, we must deem those whose conscious minds cannot govern their behavior as still responsible, even if possibly to a lesser extent. From there, the issue of intent can go to whether the person consciously wanted to do whatever it is they did. Thus a person who is unable to control his subconscious instinct to kill his wife when he sees her with another man, might be considered less responsible than a man who learned of the affair and consciously plotted her murder. In the first case, one part of the sum total of the person momentarily was in control and did something that the whole might not, and in the other, the whole person is on board with the decision to kill.
@robertleclair2195
@robertleclair2195 8 жыл бұрын
Light and darkness are opposites,,,,if you bring light into the darkness what happens?,,,,
@93August
@93August 8 жыл бұрын
+Robert LeClair Well, darkness is just absence of light, so what you're asking is, what happens if you shine light onto an area where you have no light? So what you get is an area with light (photons). If on the other hand you define darkness as an area absent of light and light as an area with photons, and you then bring them together, you get an bigger area that is not as photondense as the previous "lightarea".
@RandyFricke
@RandyFricke 4 жыл бұрын
My speedometer in my car had begun to not work intermittently recently. I visualized it working and it would start working. Then it would not work again and then the next time it would work. This wen on for a couple of months until one day when it stopped working again and I just gave it a smack on the dash board. It started working again and has been working ever since. I exercised my free will by smacking the dash and got the result I desired.
@cam0875
@cam0875 3 жыл бұрын
Id keep it broke, so if i were ever speeding and a cop pulled me over to ask how fast I was going..Id say "no, I was hoping you could tell me"..lol
@TokyoShemp
@TokyoShemp 3 жыл бұрын
Stapp was rattled by hearing Bohm's name.
@timothyclancy8381
@timothyclancy8381 4 жыл бұрын
In no way does freewill effect law. What you do is determined by outside forces, that includes gravity as much as law. Thus laws influence actions regardless of freewill.
@praveenrai6965
@praveenrai6965 6 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is all-pervasive, unitary. There is no splitting of consciousness, just because left and right hemispheres of the brain lose connection. Just as two people make different choices, yet exist within the same underlying consciousness, split-brain exists in one consciousness, making "different" choices. It just shows all intellect is capable of doing is categorize, divide, measure the material world around it, to level of abstraction, to deal with the world, without consuming too much of meager brain resources. That's why spiritual traditions of the East insist on transcending the limitations of sensory perceptions and the intellect to experience the unitive consciousness, or in Vedantic terms, the Brahman. Brain helps us to survive the physical world, so it must divide the world to discern threats and opportunities; therefore, it is incapable of seeing unity of all things. Transcendence happens in a different dimension, the one, intellect can only point to, but not beyond that.
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
Does my experience affect nature in a negative way
@satnamjt607
@satnamjt607 9 жыл бұрын
Read J.k. Murti book our first and last freedom,
@cvan7681
@cvan7681 2 жыл бұрын
The most fundamental problem with science is that it believes it "knows" something...
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
So your telling me there is nothing but free choice
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
I pick up a pick ring
@darkmath100
@darkmath100 7 жыл бұрын
I hate to play the party pooper but Quantum Mechanics only works at a level where objects have little to no mass. Every human being has quantum mechanics happening somewhere within them, like smelling a flower for example relies on some quantum mechanics within our olfactory system. But an entire human being as a whole will never undergo quantum mechanics. I will never be able to walk through a wall. I will never be able to exists in two places at once a la super-positioning. Sorry.......
@TheFossie12
@TheFossie12 7 жыл бұрын
The absolute essence of your analysis is your definition of 'I'. You can leave your physical dense body where it is eg on a bed and move your 'energy' counterpart around, through walls, other dense objects and at quantum speeds, by employing your focussed intention. But you're 'Iness will be in one vehicle or the other. Youre right, gravity doesn't affect this Etheric vehicle because there's no mass. But there are operating laws there. This 'electromagnetic' realm is the other side of the coin to our dense world. The two co-exist in quantum. But the whole thing is in a state of flux moving back and forward between frequencies - matter and antimatter? None of the above has much to do with growth in awareness. It is merely part of the mechanics of existence which current science has yet to define and peer test to its satisfaction. But it exists nonetheless. Science will evolve. One of its ultimate goals must be the endlessness of outer space. Scary stuff to find in a testube....
@TheFossie12
@TheFossie12 7 жыл бұрын
To fill in the rather sketchy comment above: The beam of awareness or 'I'ness, CAN be localised out of the physical into one's etheric 'body' and from there, can be temporarily inhabited and controlled. Something similar is what is termed a 'lucid-dream', where one's awareness is not nearly as acute - more dreamlike. So where one's 'beam of awareness' is focussed is where the action happens - physical, etheric, or dream (subconscious?) There are vast amounts of historical data (and religious nonsense) regarding this phenomenon. Mainstream science is cautiously approaching the subject from the standpoint of either treating it as totally unreliable, or creating/discovering its own system of delving into this fascinating and extraordinary world of matter-energy and its apparent illusions. It wont be too long before the unbelievable and the shocking will have been discovered and ultimately become commonplace as with most things. Travelling in the Etheric regions is actually not recommended by those that are experienced in it. (note: Etheric is not 'Astral' as often referred to) It requires an understanding of the electromagnetic nature of the local conditions and has been likened to visiting a completely foreign country that can become dangerous with out a guide. My own experience was and has been mostly good. The only reason I mention it is because the first time it happened, the most irrefutable and outstanding thing I noted was the clarity of the experience and my clear memory of bouncing along my bedroom ceiling like a balloon and pushing my arm through the ceiling itself. To this day I remember every little detail of this extraordinary experience. F.
@tomg2946
@tomg2946 6 жыл бұрын
I (and most quantum physicists I believe) would disagree with your statement here. QM theory can be applied successfully at all mass values. However clear 'apparent' quantum *effects* at typical everyday *action* (units of energy*time) values, most very probably don't occur, as the probability upon measurement is so very tiny (eg a human being diffracted when walking through a doorway ). In fact elementary freshman physics textbooks carry typical problems applied to everyday situations, such as estimating the time duration for quantum tunneling effects that lead to a car in a locked garage to most likely be able to exist outside the garage. QM works very precisely at all action values, and actually explains why you are hardly likely to walk through a wall. To say QM only works for small mass values is a misinterpretation of QM theory, which has never, yet, been found to disagree with any experiment.
@TheBeastlyBit
@TheBeastlyBit 6 жыл бұрын
Ask yourself this... In infinity could all of the particles in your body be in a state of quantum tunnelling at the same time?
@christophersellittowithout6978
@christophersellittowithout6978 3 жыл бұрын
My left hand let go
@jimmybrice6360
@jimmybrice6360 4 жыл бұрын
for people who do not want to take on the responsibility of their own actions, they will cling to the negative concept. cuz then "someone made me do it" can always be used as an excuse. i go along with my arm going up - total free will
@vagabond172
@vagabond172 7 жыл бұрын
No contradiction. Determinism (superdeterminism) does not allow true probability.Can no one imagine expectation fulfillment? Are you kidding?
@RIMJANESSOHMALOOG
@RIMJANESSOHMALOOG 4 жыл бұрын
Chris 'Fields'
@vinylsoup
@vinylsoup 4 жыл бұрын
why can you cuss but not speak if you have a stroke in your left hemisphere
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 3 жыл бұрын
The real questiom is, is everything rigged and if so can we go against the rigging. The answer is Yes!
@SnoopyDoofie
@SnoopyDoofie 4 жыл бұрын
45:12 Your left brain's hemisphere can talk but you're right half can't. Probably why Jesus said, don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing - It might just snitch on you. lol
@jesuschrist1501
@jesuschrist1501 3 жыл бұрын
you got it wrong, when i said that i meant in relations to how you shouldn't boast your actions in pertaining to feeding the poor, its in gist of how you're doing it and the consequences of the other hand follow suit, it needs love too but in fact it doesn't need love it only needs to not know anything other than you do your thing without boastfulness or pride or others knowing, just do it for the sake of my fathers will breathing into you. read my bible over again this spring ok.
@paulmccray4055
@paulmccray4055 3 жыл бұрын
@@jesuschrist1501 hahahaha
@Eazy_Danny
@Eazy_Danny 3 жыл бұрын
“Jean Klein: The difference between you and the film is that you are the light that gives reality, existence to the film. Questioner: Does this give us the free will of choice? Jean Klein: You have the idea that you act freely. But this acting is also in the film. You are essentially free when you awake in your light.” - Jean Klein, “Living Truth”
@Blissfullsleep00
@Blissfullsleep00 7 жыл бұрын
the microphone are way way to sensitive. can hear one guys nose whistling constantly, then another's lips slapping together after every sentence, couldn't even listen to what's being said because every noise from breathing and lips slapping together where so damn annoying!!!!
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 3 жыл бұрын
So negative is positive and positive is negative? Yup! Hilarious
@jamesram4869
@jamesram4869 8 жыл бұрын
god is not controlling anything. he either created everything including time ,or sin comes back to us (karma) , so either way free will is sort of an illusion because everything goes towards god, free will is very limited.
@metatron5199
@metatron5199 8 жыл бұрын
It all depends on what you mean by God.... Though for all intents and purpose it is not useful to use such language when discussing philosophical concepts which are asking fundamental questions about our reality which is all supported by physics...hence speaking in physics would seem to make more sense especially if one is to say anything important on the subject.
@jamesram4869
@jamesram4869 8 жыл бұрын
wat
@RDpapichulo
@RDpapichulo 9 жыл бұрын
Http
@kierenmoore3236
@kierenmoore3236 7 жыл бұрын
This was so rambling, and difficult to listen to ... the lateralisation was interesting (heard it all before, as i studied Psych), but not really on topic (Quantum Theory?!). Waste of time.
@johntoobad4705
@johntoobad4705 8 жыл бұрын
Three ducks on a row: Quack, Quack, Quack.
@whynottalklikeapirat
@whynottalklikeapirat 8 жыл бұрын
+John Toobad One know-it-all troll in a comment section: mew mew mew
@whynottalklikeapirat
@whynottalklikeapirat 8 жыл бұрын
Alex Azazel I am sorry - how does this apply to anything I have said whatsoever?
@Jester123ish
@Jester123ish 7 жыл бұрын
Do these hypothetical ducks have free will?
@dougerhard2128
@dougerhard2128 6 жыл бұрын
Funny. Now would you care to make a useful, intelligent statement?
@johnellis7614
@johnellis7614 4 жыл бұрын
We have the freedom to do everything that we have both the capacity and desire to do. Suicide is a thing most everyone has the capacity to do, but in the U.S. only 13 people out of 100,000 have the desire to take their life. Also, most everyone has the desire to be rich, but only 25% of U.S. society has the capacity to be rich. Since the beginning of civilization, the more educated upper-half of every nation has had both the desire and capacity to hoard all the land, wealth, political power and healthcare. Which is exactly what has happened, for every nation has had a 50% working poor. Wealth being the excess property we own above what is needed for a comfortable life, wealth being a luxury the 50% working poor has never known. The one billion least intelligent humans have the desire to not starve, but they have not the capacity to earn a living wage, so for a fact, they will slowly starve to death. Reality is, seven billion sinners have the ability to help end hunger. Problem is, sinners love to enrich themselves upon the misery of those with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin. Truth is, virtually all of us are born sinners. Therefore, the real issue: The only purpose of planet earth, is it to reach the ultimate conclusion of the realm of sin? For hunger, global warming and nukes exploding, surely the only possible destiny there could ever be, in this paradise for ingrates O woe is me. That's what I always say.
@treich1234
@treich1234 4 жыл бұрын
Loose the scuzzy beard man
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
I can literally see real scientists facepalming themselves just by reading the title of this video.
@scienceandnonduality
@scienceandnonduality 3 жыл бұрын
Yes! REAL scientists would never explore questions like free will, who am I or that kind of questions! REAL scientists know ALL the answers and if they do not know the answer they make sure they DO NOT ask the questions any longer! Wait... is that science??? I thought science is asking all the question, science is curiosity, ingenuity. Are you talking about scientists or maybe people attempting to keep their chair warm in an academic setting? If a scientist is not afraid to take a chance on a new idea, explore all the possible angles at the risk to be proven wrong is not a scientist to me. Was it Edison that said: I did not discover electricity but I discovered thousands of ways in which electricity do not work? You saying that Edison is 9,999 times an idiot (not a scientist) since only got one thing right? 9,999 to 1 is quite a bad hitting % in my book. If we do not stretch our questions we'll never get the revolutionary answers we are needing to evolve as a species! Let's ask the big questions!
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
@@scienceandnonduality -"Yes! REAL scientists would never explore questions like free will, who am I or that kind of questions!" -Well real scientists first check whether a question is begging the question fallacy. "Who am I " questions are epistemically meaningful since they are subjective. They might appear important to us but far from that no one can really work upon such "answers" and produce further knowledge. -"REAL scientists know ALL the answers and if they do not know the answer they make sure they DO NOT ask the questions any longer! Wait... is that science?" -That is a false accusation. Just because they reject irrational correlations by magical thinkers, that doesn't mean that they know the answer. Rejecting unfalsifiable indemonstrable claims is the default position defined by the Null Hypothesis. -"Wait... is that science??? I thought science is asking all the question, science is curiosity, ingenuity. " -Of course, its not only asking all the question, its also acknowledging fallacious questions, questions that beg the questions and exclude them. IT is also avoiding making up magical explanations. You are confusing science, with scientists and academia. These magical ideas are rejected because they do not meet the standards of science. Objective empirical verification should be the main criterion for every claim. Its not science fault that those ideas fail to provide answers with those qualities. Your whole argument is a fallacious from conspiracy. "our ideas are good, our enemies have conflicting interests". Sorry mate but the rules of science are really simple. Meet the standards and you have a scientific framework....fail to do so and you have a pseudo philosophy.
@scienceandnonduality
@scienceandnonduality 3 жыл бұрын
​@@nickolasgaspar9660 Thank you for your further comment! I agree with some of your comments but first I would suggest you look deeper on who Henry Stapp is before you continue. He is an icon in the scientific establishment. Clearly you are not a scientist yourself and that explains your comment. And read more about Donal Hoffman methodology before you talk about him. I also wonder what REAL scientists said when Galileo told them the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. HERESY!!!!! And what REAL scientists did say when Quantum Physics was first mentioned! WOO WOO BS!!!! And that weirdo of Roger Penrose? Come on! What nonsense is that! Wait... did they just gave him a Nobel Price???? Yes, science need rigor but without scientists pushing the boundaries of it by defining new questions we will still in the middle ages riding horse carriages! Thank you!
@cashglobe
@cashglobe 3 жыл бұрын
@@scienceandnonduality Preach! This guy is a nihilistic atheist with a lot of time on his hands who can’t open his mind to the fact that the non-physical could be rigorously proven.
@lorenjames7668
@lorenjames7668 7 жыл бұрын
These guys don't bring life they bring death, ....and professing to be wise they became fools
@nishantberry4436
@nishantberry4436 7 жыл бұрын
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?
What Is Entanglement Anyway? Chris Fields
39:00
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 269 М.
Entanglement, Space-Time Wormholes, and the Brain - John Hagelin
46:10
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 149 М.
Вечный ДВИГАТЕЛЬ!⚙️ #shorts
00:27
Гараж 54
Рет қаралды 14 МЛН
Жайдарман | Туған күн 2024 | Алматы
2:22:55
Jaidarman OFFICIAL / JCI
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
Henry Stapp - What's the Essence of Consciousness?
13:57
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 27 М.
Should we abandon the multiverse theory? | Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku
53:43
The Institute of Art and Ideas
Рет қаралды 1,5 МЛН
The Mystery of Free Will: Donald Hoffman
17:32
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 159 М.
Henry Stapp - How Do Brains Function?
13:23
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 9 М.
Something Deeply Hidden | Sean Carroll | Talks at Google
57:04
Talks at Google
Рет қаралды 597 М.
The Physics and Philosophy of Time - with Carlo Rovelli
54:54
The Royal Institution
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Roger Penrose | Gravity, Hawking Points and Twistor Theory
43:14
The Institute of Art and Ideas
Рет қаралды 323 М.
The Reality of Consciousness, Peter Russell
38:22
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 305 М.
How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?
1:55:51
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 165 М.
Understanding Quantum Entanglement - with Philip Ball
19:46
The Royal Institution
Рет қаралды 670 М.
Вечный ДВИГАТЕЛЬ!⚙️ #shorts
00:27
Гараж 54
Рет қаралды 14 МЛН