No

"Did you click on this video out of your own free will?" Answer is yes, anyone want to debate otherwise (bonus it's good for the algorithms).

Neil is a materialist hack but I still love the show. Thumbs up.

Yes

I think we're free to comment on things, or rather, to have opinions about things. but the actions are determined based on our comments. we think that free will fails when our comment isn't realized, but that doesn't mean that we can still keep the comment on things despite the impossibility to achieve. basically, if I think that flying is good for me, that's all I'm free to do. failing to fly doesn't mean that I am not free to keep thinking that I can fly. perhaps in the end, I'd end up creating the airplane, so we would attribute the invention to my freedom, yet the invention is on the side of action and stems from my comment on flying.

Cogito, ergo sum

Solipsism is the lazy way out of this question and should be defined as a 4 letter word

Nothing actually exists.

😂😂😂

​@@rickwilliams967 Nothing doesn't exist...

Basically comparing the quality of work to see who's lacking 😂

is saying “let’s have a debate” unfriendly?

@@LikeIverson3 "debate" just has that automatic connotation that pits two people against each other so that was a nice way of phrasing it

yea fr I’m going to start using this

​@@sarahchoi2657His response at 4:35 is way worse than saying let's have a debate. It's 2 v 1 to begin with, he didn't have to question his usefulness to the conversation for "comparing notes".

I'm not sure it's an addition. You OK?

​@@ejlahti Maybe. The Jesuits (Gods Stormtroopers) used to argue over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. This is a little like that. What's with this freewill obsession? Too much spare time meets a sky-fairy groomed general population? I'd be somewhat curious to have a Yes-No answer from scientists on do they believe in god. Especially these social media celebrity scientists. 70% of the humans on Earth believe some fairy story or other so the conversation is at best rarified. At worst hypocritical.

@@ejlahti ya i'm not scratching my arm or anything over this bud 😂

Not really but whatever floats your boat ig👍🏼

uhhh I think that might me a you thing ngl

Her?

Don't be disappointed then.

@@Sammasambuddha How could I be?

And just to think that, under different life circumstances, you might have clicked on a playlist of cute kitten videos to happily binge watch for the entire day. Curse this blasted lack of free will!

@@mikel5582 I think the cat videos were destined to happen. As now based on your response I feel compelled to go watch some. ...what a cute kitty named Jocasta.

Algorithm chose for me

very well said! wow

Why is the fact they are being civil so important to you that you ignore commenting on the actual topic at hand?

Yeah it’s easy to have a respectful debate when you’re not debating the rights of human beings

@@ebony3406 whay are you trying to achieve with this comment?

This is how all “debates” should take place.

Very good thanks for sharing that with us❤❤❤

Hi! I’m also an epileptic, and I have also been misdiagnosed by more than one hospital. For safety, I now carry a note from my neurologist wrapped around my insurance i.d. cards. Congratulations on sticking with it and getting through the dark times. Life really is beautiful! 💖👍

I am happy for you bro but I'm confused if we had free will. Why give us the bible with laws if we had free will? I don't get it

@@blackallday the Bible’s laws are or can be considered man made to people. Free will is we have a choice to follow those laws are not. We have free will to live a life we want to live doesn’t mean it’s gonna be easy or perfect or just go the way we plan yet that’s life. It’s much bigger than free will

The only time Neil Tyson is respectful is when he's in a room with other astrophysicists. Any other time he's extremely condescending and pigheaded.

proof?

Me too!

​@@NelsonLovellReally? Do you have a link to a video showing NDT being pig headed?

​@NelsonLovell that's actuslly not necessarily true, Terrence Howard sent him 36 pages on an idea he had that would revolutionize mathematics and Neil did what he would do with any of his other peers. He gave him an honest peer review with many notes stating where he was wrong and where he should build more a foundation. He wasn't condescending at all. And that's towards an actor not a scientist

Nice

Nice

Nice

Nice

Or he wasn't 🤔

100% agree

For any who don't already know: check out Charles Liu's podcast, "The Liuniverse"

i find him... strange. he believes he is right but has no arguments for that

@@HoD999xmy feelings as well. The problem is that it can be a very heavy topic, where being in a setting like this would leave the topic less productive.

No more of the football guy! Thanks!

RNG??

@@pressurewashingwithkoolfel9738Random Number Generation

Facts

What do you mean by that?

Y’all know what he means

Tyson did seem to try to sway Liu away from that stance, but failed. Rather than oppose the idea outright, he began to provide opposing examples, and then he ended up not making a strong enough point. I wouldn’t say he was mollifying Liu, but he was definitely trying to keep the debate non confrontational. They discussed restorative justice as free will, but ignored the death penalty. Out of the entire discussion, the idea that just some tiny portion of what you choose is free will made the least sense to me. If we have free will, then it makes more sense that every choice is free will with options limited by our place in spacetime.

@@catgrin Thanks for your comment and accurate summary. I think they were showing some professional courtesy and respect by not being too forceful in an otherwise polarizing controversy. Let me suggest that "some tiny portion" could make sense. Looking at this as an “all or nothing” is maybe why there are such strong opinions both ways. (Is this human nature, like political opinions?) How would you even know when/if you are using your will? Recent studies indicate there seems to be subconscious brain activity taking place before you feel you are making a choice. Not sure if that is proof at this point but it might be indicative. Subconscious gets messy because you can also argue that subconscious is or is not making automated, mechanical calculations of some kind. We know we do some things habitually, including some of our thought patterns. It is natural that we would like to feel like a unified, centrally controlled director of our lives. At the same time, we see all kinds of cause/effect things going on, like billiard balls bouncing around. Maybe even some of our thought patterns are automated and mechanical. Would you make the same decision if you are exhausted or angry? So, people in different moods, emotional states, levels of impulsiveness, even using different drugs - easily make differing decisions. Is that an actual expression of will, or are they, to some extent, at the mercy of those conditions, with or without realizing it, at least some of the time? If it exists, free will would seem to have something to do with difficult and focused efforts. What about someone who is obsessive compulsive? It might come down to perception of “self” - who is the “you” making decisions. Various meditation practices ask that question. Lately I’m thinking about recent studies that show some people have an ongoing internal monolog (guilty here!) while others seem to think more visually or in other ways. I’m wondering if that impacts their perception of self and free will. Sorry about the rambling rant. I’m attempting an act of will by stopping here. At least I think so, arguably. Because as much as I like cogitating, I have some work to do. Thanks for listening!

Quick addendum - we don't really know what Consciousness is. Does it somehow spontaneously arise from the proper physical structures that somehow developed or evolved? That would seem to imply a deterministic system. How could free will just pop out of an arrangement of stuff? Or, does it come from "somewhere else", whatever that means. Maybe that a particular arrangement of stuff, our brain, acts as kind of a transmitter of something from elsewhere, somehow outside our physical system. That would be a mystical perspective. No answers, just questions.

​@@JohnShramko-lv2pd Hi John - Thanks for the full answer. I didn’t think you were ranting, and I apologize that this will be long. This is one of those questions that can drop anyone willing to consider it down a rabbit hole. While also commenting on a few people’s observations, I also wrote a much longer standalone comment. I’ll repeat some of that info here, but I promise this doen’t just repeat it. I started my other long comment by explaining that I am an epileptic. Over the past 30 years I’ve had various forms of epilepsy, and have even had some interesting (?!?) responses to various anti epileptic drugs (AEDs). I’ve even been in the unique position to experience “waking” from what is effectively sleepwalking, living for days with hallucinations (toxic reaction to an AED), and then at other times having a brain that operates in an apparently totally healthy way. In my other comment, I discussed the idea that free will may only be our perception of choice while conscious (defined most simply as “internally aware of our actions”). Here’s an example I didn’t discuss previously. A few years ago, while out for a walk, I had a febrile seizure (caused by onset of fever) which caused me to fall and break my shoulder. I then walked myself home. I only recall leaving my home for the walk, and then coming to back on my own sofa with a broken shoulder and a fever. Seizures can disrupt the both ability to form and retain memories, so I honestly don’t/can’t know if I was aware of doing so when I walked home. There was no outside observer to later tell me if I was responding as though conscious at the time. On certain AEDs, I have had instances of witnessed absence seizures, so it’s possible that I walked back home (doing what I needed to do, short of getting myself to an ER) fully on autopilot. If that’s the case, it’s possible I made that choice while not conscious at all. My subconscious may have made a far more complex choice than typically recognized. Having lived with this odd perspective for many years now, I am definitely a person who believes that “free will” is an idea which exists straddling both choice and determinism. That confusion seems largely based on how you choose to limit your definition of free will. If you say “free will is our ability to make a choice from situationally limited options” then free will does seem to exist all the time and can still be bound by the flow of time. At some level, we can be aware of making some active choices, and every choice - good or bad - is still a selection between provided options. If instead you say “free will would be the option to make any active choice, but every choice is predetermined by a multitude of preexisting influencing factors and all those factors originated from one action which began this reality” then free will may effectively not exist at all. Predeterminism is not an outrageous claim, but the argument against it would be that consciousness may act apart from physics allowing us to not simply be bounced around a billiard table. I said that I couldn’t agree with Liu’s stance that free will might just be a 1% of the time thing (when we make what he considers good conscious choices) because that stance excludes conscious choice when making choices which someone else believes are “bad”. I don’t agree with his stance that free will must lead us to more considered and better choices. If we have free will at all, then that should mean we have the option to freely select “bad” as well as “good” 100% of the time. You can’t have purely free will without also having the option to choose poorly. If free will is defined as leading you toward making choices which only drive you toward a single “good” goal, then it’s no longer free will. At that point, we’re preprogammed to work toward “good” as we ourselves evolve. So, I was just suggesting that the idea of free will seems to be associated with conscious choice, and every active choice - one where you actually have options and are consciously deciding between them - can be called “an act of free will”. Then the question becomes an issue of “do we really have options at all or is our movement through spacetime fully predetermined”? We know that, on some level, we do make active choices. The boundary we can’t seem to draw is whether preexisting conditions of our place in spacetime limit those choices even more than we can understand. My stance on that issue is that I’m unconcerned by it. I’m OK with just being able to appreciate whatever conscious life I’m given. With my condition, even prior to my death, I have had precious waking hours and memories stolen from me. So, even if all I am is a conscious observer and recorder, I still really appreciate being granted that experience.

@@JohnShramko-lv2pd If you haven’t already seen it, I can recommend the October 2001 Nova episode “Secrets of the Mind”. It discusses people whose rare neuro/psych disorders are useful for better understanding brain function. One patient, Graham Young, is a man who has blindsight. He can’t consciously see. That path in his brain was damaged, but his eyes still function and a separate (evolutionarily older) path in his brain is still intact. That path allows him to still respond to stimuli which he has no conscious recognition of seeing. So he responds as though aware even though he’s not aware at a conscious level to that input. Unfortunately, we humans tend to assign consciousness to ourselves as a sign of us being separate from “lower” animals. One contributor to conscious thought is apparently a sense of self - “cogito ergo sum”. In recent decades, science has been more accepting of that ability in other animals, even in some insects. A recent study found that elephants, which live in cooperative groups, identify other individuals by name. They use certain tones in low rumbles to address one another. One conclusion being drawn as a possible evolutionary cause for conscious thought is the benefit of being able to live cooperatively in complex societies.

yup, a much needed improvement, it elevates the show to a new level Thanks Chuck ... still appreciate your funny side though ❤

Chuck has come a long way. He still adds comedy here and there and it's the perfect amount. The ONLY cringe part is when they bring up politics, but they rarely do that

Not nearly enough improvement to have him there. Just Neil and someone else would be absolutely amazing, Chuck is just a distraction.

@@otaldobet That's just a nasty thing to say. If you don't like the show, nobody's forcing you to watch. Plenty people don't mind the light entertaining aspect of Star Talk. There are plenty other channels on YT if you prefer plain old boring. The entertaining factor is attracting people who would otherwise probably not even watch anything science minded. If you care anything about it, you should just appreciate that more and more people are getting educated in areas they would otherwise not have a clue about and just go on your own merry way.

​@@jakke1975 imagine if all talk shows let their side kick chime in whenever they wanted. The guy in the middle is a hindrance on this clip whether you like it or not.

woah

Bingo.

Ive for a while now believed that there is a distinct difference between free will, and will power, in that we do have will power, but we do not have free will.

​@@elementalds... So what would be the advantage of having a strong will power, if you didn't have free will to exercise it.

​@@elementalds Yes, that seems quite reasonable. Will power enables life to fight through struggles and continue to live and reproduce, thus carrying on the genes that lead to those behaviors. It's perhaps the most fundamental requirement of ecological success. Evolution can also select for the capacity to make choices with higher and higher levels of sophistication; but evolution can't endow a species with the ability to defy natural laws and suddenly have a ghost in the machine.

It's obvious everyone does have the ability to change. I find it absurd and useless to claim to people that there is no free will.

People make the same argument you are here to advance the idea that their particular brand of religion is true.

If free will doesn't exist, then the people who were going to challenge themselves and takes risks will do so anyway because they can't choose to do otherwise. In that scenario, the thing "locking people down" is not the action of telling them that free will doesn't exist... but rather that they are locked down by the absence of free will in the first place.

​@@bobwilliams4895 But are those changes themselves the result of prior causes that people have no control over? What if our "choices" to change are inevitable, predetermined outcomes that come from the particular state/configuration of neurons in our brain? If you didn't choose the exact configuration/placement of every neuron and electrical signal in your brain that's making those choices... then your choices are being made by something you don't control. Our brains may be like an algorithm where given some input, it will always return the same output. But given the complexity of the algorithm, combined with the fact that the algorithm is being constantly changed in response to prior causes, it may give the illusion of choice. It would be very interesting if we could somehow take a digital snapshot of someone's brain in the moments prior to them feeling as if they made a choice... and then run a simulation where you feed the snapshot the same choices over and over again. Something like, "pick a number between 1 and 1000". My guess is that no matter how many times you run it, it will always pick the same number.

It's one of those questions I don't think can ever be proven with 100% certainty, but believing that you don't have the ability to change is is a destructive mindset, be it a preordained mindset or not. I personally like to think it's sort of a mixture of both. Genetics and environment write most of your story but you still have some ability to recondition your mind to overcome the effects of those factors. If that's the case i still feel like those two factors can still limit the expression of free will. A lot of people are more robotic and go with the weather, while others are much more individualistic in their thought. If it exists it's probably on a spectrum.

yes, even I felt that he assumed if someone has a positive thought that contradicts their negative actions, it is an example of free will, which is clearly an incorrect way to think about this whole concept

Totally agree. Compassion and selfishness can both easily be caused through genetic predisposition and reinforced environmental and sociological conditions. Cooperation is a successful survival strategy for evolution. Obviously, everyone would Like to think they have free will. Take a look at the concepts of Egodeath and the Frozen Time Block theories of determinism. Above all, apply critical thinking and work things through in your own mind rather than parroting "experts"

That is a very interesting way to look at it. Furthermore, our judgement on right and wrong actions is not even free.

The nature of will is positive. It’s a force, that’s why it’s called will power. If you chose to remain still, that’s a choice and you are exercising free will, but not in any demonstrable way. You not moving is indistinguishable from you not having the free will to move. Hence, it’s pointless to discuss ‘negative’ free will.

​​@@pablolasha238Weren't they speaking about positive and negative in terms of morality or preference (right and wrong, good and bad)? As in trying to say that good actions were more aligned with free will whereas bad actions were deterministic. In this way you can adequately have both positive and negative expressions of free will. Of course, this is regardless of whether you believe in it as a true mechanism for behavior

Right. It may be impossible to predict outcomes, because of the high amount of variables, but complexity does not give rise to true randomness or free will.

It may be impossible to predict outcomes (to quote Ryan), but that doesn't mean it's not deterministic. So, I don't know how to calculate the outcome but I know the outcome could be calculated. For me, that meant being free from my sense of guilt and overwhelming responsibility. It's like it turned out in a "belief" of "not believing" in free will which made my life better.

@@RyanJesseParsons We still have free will. You are just referring to things we can't control outside our scope. It is what we have control over that is our free will.

You may be able to calculate the future in theory, but the calculation would involve the exact same complexity as playing out the sequence of events that would happen in reality. So yes, deterministic but unpredictable in advance of the events actually happening. Only retrospectively predictable.

​@@akinibitoye7908 "We still have free will. You are just referring to things we can't control outside our scope." You mean like the very nature of existence, the very rules you cannot even comprehend to disobey? Because that still don't particularly look like free will to me. "It is what we have control over that is our free will." Yes, and the main argument is that we have no control over anything that has not already been a direct consequence of something outside our control. You coming to be as you are has 13 billion years of history at a minimum (if not infinitely more) preluding the very notion of control. Choose? The elementary particles building up that very thought process seem to disagree, as they've had no choice but exist as themselves with their interactions exactltly the same as they have for the 13 billion years prior of them being apart of that set of chemicals and neurons. Can't add up to 0 of you only have positive integers.

or you could read Robert Zapolski, who is a much more awarded neuropsychologist

Could there be an underlying past experience or a moral religious organisation applied on us from childhood that affects our decision to not hurt the person who hurted us?

This is honestly the best takeaway from compatibilism I've ever seen.

💯

Makes you god though...

If free will does not exist, then laws shouldn't exist because people cannot be held accountable for their actions

@@sepg5084I have no choice but to say laws should stay in place

There’s some moments Neil Degrasse Tyson interrupted Charles Liu and Chuck Nice instead of letting them finish. And you can see Neil’s face tense up and he’s pinching his thumb.

They're not really debating they're just agreeing and adding upon a topic

Brandon Melo!

Neil still shows a lot of hubris.

Yes, your extremely low bar for finding discussions "incredible" is that they don't insult each other

Lol so obviously AI generated nonsense

Yeah it's my new tool i invented , and solves the debate, cause and effect is related to this ancient debate as well..​@catwithmachinegun

I solved this months ago . Freewill and predetermined is a synthesis, not separate like these the debate claims. And the Ten-point format is my new A.I tool I invented.The above section is a small part of the essay on this discourse.

​@@ReflectionsofNarcissism I'm with you on this!! I think it is all somewhere in the middle. The combination of free will and pre-determined is what gives rise to influence

Hindu spotted ​@JinnDima39605

@@mikeonthetube79 Uncertainty surrounds us everyday. All the measurements of planetary and celestial motion, atmospheric conditions, even the functions within our own body all have a degree of uncertainty. There is no way we can accurately measure anything EXACTLY. Edward Lorenz learned this, when simulating a weather system with a minuscule rounding error on his computer back in the 60s. This accident led to the birth of chaos theory. With it, the idea that no matter how small the difference between the initial conditions of two systems (e.g. a single flap of a butterfly's wings), given enough time, the two systems will diverge in behavior, so much so that nobody would have ever thought they once shared an almost identical state. Combine this with the notion that was brought up at the beginning of the video, the idea of 'stochastic uncertainty'. There exists a degree of randomness in the universe. Our understanding of quantum physics supports this with the discovery we can never know the position of an electron around a nucleus precisely, and are better described as "cloud-like regions of probability" with predictions for where the electron may reside. I admit that I may have brought you more questions than answers, but I do not think that we can so readily assume that free will exists or does not exist. The history of science and philosophy reveal to us that often ideas sprout with a thesis (e.g. Free will exists), which an antithesis opposes (e.g. Free will does not exist), to ultimately fuse together in a synthesis (e.g. Existence is governed by spaces of determinism and spaces of free will interacting with one another). Going back to chaos, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the visualizations of the Mandelbrot set. Beautiful stuff. The Mandelbrot set is defined by a recursive function, and for every set of initial conditions as input, the plot is color coded. Black regions denotes those initial conditions that never 'escape to infinity' during the recursion, and the colored regions denote how quickly a point reaches the escape point (an absolute value greater than 2). As you delve into deeper detail into the Mandelbrot set, a beautiful and complex fractal pattern emerges. No matter how fine the detail, you will infinitely encounter pockets of 'black' spaces (points which do not escape to infinity) and pockets of colored points (points which do escape to infinity) that consistently repeat earlier motifs in the pattern. These fractal patterns tend to feel very organic and mimic the natural world and universe in many ways, so much so that these recursive fractal equations are used in computer generated graphics that try to resemble nature. They can even describe natural dynamical processes such as population growth over time or the dynamics of the flow of fluid through a medium. While we do not have sufficient observation to understand and declare with certainty whether free will exists or not, I think the answer is likely a synthesis of the two opposing points of view. Just like in the Mandelbrot set, there infinite recursive pockets of points which do not escape to infinity and points that do with varying degrees of quickness. My hypothesis is that the nature of free will is similar, in that, there are pockets of reality and the universe in which determinism rules absolutely, while there are other areas in which the free will of conscious beings such as ourselves, can influence. I hope this sparks great thought and that you had as much fun reading that as I did writing it! Cheers :)

@mikeonthetube79 Uncertainty surrounds us everyday. All the measurements of planetary and celestial motion, atmospheric conditions, even the functions within our own body all have a degree of uncertainty. There is no way we can accurately measure anything EXACTLY. Edward Lorenz learned this, when simulating a weather system with a minuscule rounding error on his computer back in the 60s. This accident led to the birth of chaos theory. With it, the idea that no matter how small the difference between the initial conditions of two systems (e.g. a single flap of a butterfly's wings), given enough time, the two systems will diverge in behavior, so much so that nobody would have ever thought they once shared an almost identical state. Combine this with the notion that was brought up at the beginning of the video, the idea of 'stochastic uncertainty'. There exists a degree of randomness in the universe. Our understanding of quantum physics supports this with the discovery we can never know the position of an electron around a nucleus precisely, and are better described as "cloud-like regions of probability" with predictions for where the electron may reside. I admit that I may have brought you more questions than answers, but I do not think that we can so readily assume that free will exists or does not exist. The history of science and philosophy reveal to us that often ideas sprout with a thesis (e.g. Free will exists), which an antithesis opposes (e.g. Free will does not exist), to ultimately fuse together in a synthesis (e.g. Existence is governed by spaces of determinism and spaces of free will interacting with one another). Going back to chaos, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the visualizations of the Mandelbrot set. Beautiful stuff. The Mandelbrot set is defined by a recursive function, and for every set of initial conditions as input, the plot is color coded. Black regions denotes those initial conditions that never 'escape to infinity' during the recursion, and the colored regions denote how quickly a point reaches the escape point (an absolute value greater than 2). As you delve into deeper detail into the Mandelbrot set, a beautiful and complex fractal pattern emerges. No matter how fine the detail, you will infinitely encounter pockets of 'black' spaces (points which do not escape to infinity) and pockets of colored points (points which do escape to infinity) that consistently repeat earlier motifs in the pattern. These fractal patterns tend to feel very organic and mimic the natural world and universe in many ways, so much so that these recursive fractal equations are used in computer generated graphics that try to resemble nature. They can even describe natural dynamical processes such as population growth over time or the dynamics of the flow of fluid through a medium. While we do not have sufficient observation to understand and declare with certainty whether free will exists or not, I think the answer is likely a synthesis of the two opposing points of view. Just like in the Mandelbrot set, there infinite recursive pockets of points which do not escape to infinity and points that do with varying degrees of quickness. My hypothesis is that the nature of free will is similar, in that, there are pockets of reality and the universe in which determinism rules absolutely, while there are other areas in which the free will of conscious beings such as ourselves, can influence. I hope this sparks great thought and that you had as much fun reading that as I did writing it! Cheers :)

​@@mikeonthetube79you don't need to have full understanding of your consequences or the situation to have free will. I can start swimming in the Pacific and not know how long I will last until I die. It's still a decision taken with freedom of will.

Is it full of uncertainty, though?

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@hazesummer8328 The point is why is that something you would want to do? Why did you choose that example in the first place? Why wasn’t it I could start to walk through a desert? Why specifically the Pacific Ocean, Why not the Atlantic? Why did you comment at all? It’s all causality, the brain makes the choice based on what it knows and wants and is shaped by outside causality. Not trying to change your opinion, I just disagree.

If only society could be more like this.

@@tomwozne because it’s rare to find debates that are discussed this way now lmao ofc people are gonna be shocked

@@tomwozne You felt the need to argue with the original commenter and other commenters like them, even though they weren’t presenting an argument. Behavior like yours is the reason people fawn over a civil discussion.

They're more than grownups, they are senior citizens.

For a lot of people, the goal of a debate is to "win" and make the other person feel like an idiot, no matter whos right or wrong. A civilized debate is meant to fill knowledge gaps from both parties, because both sides know at least a few things the other doesnt. Even if one side is completely wrong, they (hopefully) have arguments that help the other learn something. Often times however, opinions become identities and debates turn into yelling competitions, and whoever is louder "wins" despite learning absolutely nothing.

i wanted a punch up. oh well.

I mean, this isn't something that srs

That's what usually happens when educated people have discussions or debates. They are guided by mutual respect for each other's input and the possibility of learning from each other, instead of being driven by ego or emotions.

@@WillieTaggettand usually also are able to hold on to their own belief while still accepting it could be wrong.

How old are you? This is a conversation between adults, what else do you expect?

😁😁😁

😂

i'm disappointed too, i already have a free nelson mandela.

You just feel like you have free wifi, but you're actually being puppeteered by your provider. Your wifi is predetermined 😉

Neil lives in Manhattan. Free wifi is the last of his problems

Yes but I can argue that it wasn’t free will that you commented. It was simply all those neurons in your brain firing that could have been pre determined. There is essentially an infinitely complex equation that could be calculated of all the interactions and events and emotions in your life that would calculate that you would have commented. Everything has a cause and effect.

Agreed, compatibilists often commit conflation and reification fallacy as well as adding an unwarranted metaphysical assumption that is absent from the body of evidence when they presuppose free-will exists. Self-reflection isn't decision making, but we fool ourselves into thinking it is based on all the evidence from neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophical logical coherence in Theory of the Mind. Our self-reflective strange loops, if that is what compatibilists are reifying as 'decision making' don't equate to free-will, even in the compatibilist sense from any logically coherent argument I have found in any of the research. Sam Harris so eloquently argued, "Our thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.", I struggle to find anything that would be an exception to this rule.

I think we have the capacity to make choices. That being said, all choices we make seem to be bound by internal processes and external events outside of our control. Our desires, whatever they may be, are the root cause of our choices, yet it seems to be the case that we cannot "freely" choose our desires. It simply is the case that I like cheeseburgers. I cannot force myself to hate cheeseburgers and like eating chicken feet. In the words of Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". Do you agree?

This would be cool

Very cool to think about. I’m no expert but isn’t quantum mechanics currently probabilistic and not deterministic. Unless you have some sort of higher dimensional mathematical framework in mind. And you said predictable, but that’s still probabilistic. Determinism is not the same thing as approximate predictability. Even if most of the time you know the outcome, there’s still a degree of uncertainty. I think that’s what Dr. Liu was refering to. And chaotic systems are unpredictable look at the n-body problem. I’d love to look at some of your work though. Where’s the best place to find it? I’m by no means an expert on any of this I just like to think about this stuff. My intuition would tell me that quantum entanglement and energy are 2 key areas in this problem. If the thought is like potential energy and the action is kinetic energy, and nature prefers to minimize the difference between these quantities over time, then maybe that can explain some sort of predictability. But adding a second brain to the equation likely makes it way more complicated which is why we humans seem to be free will machines. Because humans can affect other humans and overrule natures preference to choose that path of least action. The thought about entanglement came from an idea I had that the appeared predictable nature of the local universe is a result of all systems being entangled with each other. And unpredictable behavior or “free will” is the result of disentangled states.

@@YvngHomieRyanhow do you account for knowledge in determinism? Are you surrendering ethics because in this worldview, there is no grounding for ethics. No truth or falsehood. No good or bad. Answer that for me please. Do you believe knowledge is possible in this world?

Chuck has incredible insight and skill paired with incredible discipline over his own ego, which allows him to play whatever role makes the moment successful, including the fool. Immense respect for that.

@@avrenna agreed!

So true!! It's awesome to see

His gained experience has informed his decision to instead of make jokes he is now more inclined to engage in the theory 😂

Chuck is a genius he just plays silly for the camera. He is obviously VERY smart and had a degree before being on the show

He’s gotten to a level I never thought possible. He’s an active participant in debates. Very impressive!

Osmosis. Like my mother us to say: "you can often tell a person by the company they keep"...

Man's always on point...

Bingo

and the mutual acknowledgement of what would be necessary for free will to exist....like they can't even agree on what they are looking for. the base is just a generic "could i have done otherwise"? another thing is people talk about it in terms of absolutes. you either ALWAYS have it or you NEVER have. but the way i see it, the addict INITIALLY has far more a sense of choice than AFTER he's become addicted. when faced with a decision, you'll bring to mind a lot of relevant data, some of which are personal things (like your own value system). but in reflecting, are YOU determining (free will is synonymous with self-determination, which is a theory in psychology regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivations) which data to consider and which to ignore? another part of the problem is how you define the self...the "I". but doesn't the who depend on what, like who is epigenetic (i'm interested in how this relates to consciousness as the emergent function of the neural system) relating to the what...the genome, where consciousness is like a theater (experiences) that plays out your drives, beliefs, etc basically, freewill is a concept that is dependent on relativity rather than absolutes. would something like open-mindedness on the big 5 play a factor, where people with low scores are less likely to have choices while those with higher scores are more likely out of sheer curiosity that something doesn't have to be what my preconceptions think it should be? the irony is that conservatives are likely to express belief in freewill, while never really allowing it (the "moral majority" and their dependence on things like tradition) while progressives are the ones that allow it politically, but are the ones telling you it doesn't exist. for it to be scientifically sound, should not the hard determinists have to show that they can predict what someone will say or do (and regarding things like fear of the dark, they might be predictable, where other things would be less so)? and why is it not always the same? sure, i can have coffee today. last week i "choice" tea. what explains the inconsistence of "choices" if they are determined? how far does determinism go before you just call it fate? is an asteroid predetermined to crash into something, or does it just fly in direction x until it encounters something which brings about an event that can be interpreted as "determined"? how do various systems of thought and experiences play out (think of multiple chains of determinism that interact simultaneously within a single system...you...)? if you are also your subconscious (if you are also unconscious things, like your skeleton), does it have to come into awareness to count as a choice? does the urgency of a "choice" affect anything (such as your answers to existential questions vs more mundane things, like chocolate vs vanilla...your existential answers are things you tend to hold far more closely. you see this is things religious fundamentalism, which they consider their answers not to be just highly important, but the entire point of living)? i used to be a determinist, but i also became a little disillusioned with the entire debate. i think it's too shallow and narrowly focused on generalizations with the idea that you either always have it or you never do

That came to light several years ago in the Harris/Dennett written exchange on the topic.

Yep! My inital comment is a long talk all about how both stances can be correct just based on what you believe free will is.

@@jeromyrutter729 Imagine a combination lock with millions of possible combinations. Even if the combination to open the lock is predetermined (deterministic view), if you don't know the combination (inability to predict), it's practically impossible to open the lock on your first try. In this way, determinism might not deny free will entirely, but it suggests a very limited kind of free will where the illusion of choice arises from the sheer complexity of the causal chain. For example we may never be able to perfectly predict weather patterns but that in no way refutes determinism. Summary, our ability to predict something is not required for it to be determined, however you are correct that science may require it to claim it is true, that doesn't mean it isn't true without that evidence. If i missed the point entirely go easy on me.. i'm new to thinking about this.

Yeah and NDG is great at communicating nonsense! 😆

I've thought about free will at least once a week for 30 years. If I had free will, I would make myself stop. Believe me

It's a very common view among many scientists, I have come across very few accomplished scientists who believe in free will, did you actually have a point?

My point was, “if you liked this discussion, search for the Star Talk episode with Sapolsky for a lot more of it.”

@@jackwhitbread4583 Yes, Poo Poo Point

As soon as Neil brought up the epilepsy point, I could tell immediately that Sapolsky had a huge impact on his thinking. Sapolsky is an awesome guy, so that was great to see.

I don't think same outcome is proof that there is no free will and different outcome is proof that there is free will. There could be "something" random that occurs prior to what's generating thoughts and actions but that doesn't mean we are in control of it. So if we played back the cloned reality and there is a random component to it, we would see different results but we wouldn't say free will was the cause of a different outcome.

@@tothespace2122 I think thats an exciting idea as well. I didn't necessarily go into it in my comment, because a lot of it is beyond me. But I definitely agree that there is some... inate randomness in the universe. Either quantum mechanics or otherwise. Certainly just because something different *does* happen, doesn't mean its free will.

how can you say so absolutely that there are no choices?

Enlightening anecdote! (But I don't believe that's exactly what Dr Liu did here, but I'll rewatch for clarification)

​@@TheNickarnett Rewatch about 0:25 into the video.. His following "but" affects determinism but not free will.

This is exactly what he did. Chaos/randomness does not lead to free will. If something is random, you had no control over it

I also found Liu's logic to be quite odd. He freely admits that nearly all personal decisions are deterministic but then asserts that there are outliers that demonstrate free will but never provides any coherent logical explanation or example. To me his position can be paraphrased as "Almost all decisions are deterministic except the few that aren't. These outliers are examples of free will because......society and chaos theory". Theses examples are essentially 2+2 = 5 bc reasons🤷

@@TheNickarnett Also at the end talking about the "line/god of the gaps" bit. When he says the shooter made the decision to write the note, completely ignoring that that "decision" was just another output based on all of that guys prior inputs. Charles talks about that "1% of the time when you can use free will" rather than just react. But there's really nothing different about that 1% of the time other than the time limit being less of a limiting factor, letting your brain take more time to mull over its "choice", but the inputs are still there determining that choice. He's confusing "time to decide" with "actually CHOOSING".

Me too. I could watch, debate, and think about Star Talk all day! I love it!