mmm brain juice so mysterious

@@muza-pe1183 waht the fuck

what

@@muza-pe1183 mysterious and yummy for my tummy

What if the philosopher and the neuroscientist are the same person 😳

Nah, nowhere near enough tangents

Nah needs more stuff in it maybe more what if Main point is that the ending does not match the original point

It's better in quality than Michaels videos.

How is it a parody? It may be inspired by Vsauce, but it's not satire?

@@IIIlIl parody and satire are not the same thing. There’s some overlap, mostly on satire’s end, but they aren’t the same.

I think that the genre is "video essay". Many prominent ones include EmpLemon and Turkey Tom, I think.

@@bobbymcbobmcbilly322 yeah but we have video essays for movies and stuff as well. Btw you would love Adam Something. The guy recently blew up. I would recommend you start with his "Elon Musk loop is bizarrely stupid" video

I like the name "variety channel" you get a variety of content. One video might be about buster keaton, next about zeppelins another about new labour.

@@vozil7829 yeah, been thinking of the name 'social-commentary' as well.

I think these are Educational Philosomeme videos 🤔

We found it. The best compromise

Well it's their job and their whole thing lol

compatibilism?

@@shzarmai I thought that said cannibalism for I minute idk why but It made me laugh

man you read my mind lol

Do we exist?😂

@@jessica49arrow yes and no I guess

Yet some quite influential moral intuitions are based on the belief in free will, and they are quite damaging intuitions. The common notion of free will is incoherent, and it is upon this common notion that these intuitions are based.

@@MrNikeNicke agreed

I also feel like the pain most people feel when they think they don't have free will comes from them finding out that they aren't what they thought they were. Most people go day to day believing they have a soul or that their conscious experience is outside of the realm of physics. When you really narrow it down all we really are is our genetic makeup and our past experiences. If you believe this to be who you are then no problem arises sense theres no alteration in identity. You act the way you act because this is who you are. On the other hand if you perceive yourself to be something else then all of a sudden nothing has meaning anymore for some reason.

it obv will soon. If this channel was a stock I'd buy it on leverage.

@@DimAngelProductions 5x leverage to the roof and yolo it in option?

@@DimAngelProductions i dont know what that means, but this is 100% a channel that will blow up, it's just a matter of a random algorithm blip

@@Phianhcr123 125x

@@DimAngelProductions this is the way

sound logic

@@binguscat2514 Logic good sound

@@faisal3398 sounds good, logic

Good logic sound

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 logic? Sounds good

The fact this conversation is even being had shows that it cannot be relevant, it is at least relevant to millenia of discussions. In fact, that take of yours is one of the few provably wrong ones.

Well put

I think free will is largely irrelevant when it comes to personal matters (although it may help/hurt your decision making if you believe in it or don't), but I do think that if our culture at a wide scale did not believe in free will, or at least did not believe in it to nearly the radical extreme that we often do (speaking from a US perspective here), that we would be better equipped to deal with societal problems. If you accept absolute free will, then no policy implementations really matter. Let's take crime for example. If absolute free will exists, then people will just decide to commit crimes when they feel like it, when they make that decision, and that decision can hardly be influenced. But if we assume instead that people are deterministic in nature, we CAN prevent future crimes by changing the starting conditions that would lead up to it. For example, people tend to commit far fewer crimes, especially violent crimes, if they have easy access to healthcare, including mental healthcare, and have some form of financial security. We can use that to influence our policy making and influence people in the direction we want society to go. It isn't perfect, like the example in the video about the magnetic field making only 80% of people raise their left hand, but it's at the very least better. And I would argue that the remaining 20% (like the remaining people who commit crimes) simply had a different, unpredictable environment, sort of like you mentioned with the angle of the mentos. But even in these cases, approaching it from a deterministic PoV leads to better results, in my opinion. For example, let's say a man kills his mother in a rage. He gets arrested, shows great remorse for killing his mother, goes to prison, and when one day he gets some medical treatment and gets an MRI, it's revealed that a tumour is growing in his brain where the impulse control of the brain is, leading him to be more violent and impulsive. If that tumour gets removed and he no longer has any violent impulses, no outbursts, nothing that would lead him to commit a crime like that again, what reason is there to keep him locked up? Revenge, I suppose, for his action but it was an action that he had little control over in the first place. Almost as though he killed her while sleep walking.

at that point it doesn't even matter anymore

@@carlosandleon I have no explanation as to why I should comment this in reply to you or why I had the urge to comment this in the first place but I would like to say "YES"

@@Survivalist_Redo Fair enough brah

80% of libertarians are anarchists in denial anyways. This sounds fine.

I just wanna know, how is quantum mechanics deterministic if its output is probabilistic

seems to be more evidence for compatibilism

@@zoogl I think that's just brain tumors causing a type of frontal lobe damage. Certain types of brain damage can cause emotional sensitivity of some sort, and it some rare cases it can cause psychosis and enable violent behavior.

How did they know the tumor cause it?

@@blugaledoh2669 once removed the guy wasn't crazy

@@zoogl Isn't it mostly correlative? Even if we supposed that the brain tumor impacted his mental state contributing to his later action, it doesn't suggest that cause him to make the decision to murder his family and other. There is a difference between urges and decision.

I think it is already known by God but you are the one choosing it. But I will bet that we chose to choose in a sort of a pre life scenario. It isn't possible that we are the only creatures who are conscious like that there must be a reason

I don't catch your drift.

Fukin nerd

Yeah, the chaotic systems were severely misrepresented. The most random event I can think of is the collapse of the wave function. The idea of parallel worlds implies that we could have made any number if decisions in our lifetime, but even there is still a point to be made that the only thing that matters when we make choices is the randomness in our universe, which is certainly not a conventional way to describe free will.

@@baggelissonic The indeterminate output of hardware random number generators indeed arises from wave function collapse. Please note that the many worlds interpretation is a fringe view, with the Copenhagen interpretation being a more popular competing view. Further, it seems unlikely that indeterminate phenomena determine our cognition. Every neurological experiment has shown brain behaviour to be classicly mechanical.

A 'homunculus argument' could only be called a fallacy if one has already decided upon the pretense that a conscious, singular agent (However that agent may arise), whose choices are influenced but not determined by neurological, physiological, and any other factors 'external' to it, cannot exist, and thus the agent being posited (The 'homunculus') must itself be another 'body'. It hold about as much weight as a Hitchens 'Super-God' argument. The same goes for the statement that "As far as we know, everything is forced by "external" factors". It shows a train of argument where the premise and the conclusion are identical, and the premise present is what's being rejected in the first place. That seizures (Or any other degenerative or harmful neurological illness or event) affect the conscious agent is something, of course, obvious, but it means little. One easily asserts that these things, like almost any other factor which belongs to either experience of the 'outside world' or state of the 'body' (Including the brain), can, in some instances, influence choice, but do not determine it; They do not rob the agent of agency. You are partially correct about chaos theory: It is concerned with systems supposed to be determistic. However, chaos theory is concerned with deterministic systems that are supposed to be practically unpredictable past their early stages, despite being posited as deterministic. The statement that "Every neurological experiment has shown brain behaviour to be classically mechanical" is untrue, even if taken with the fewest presumptions. Most experiments of that sort not only are unable to show anything regarding quantum or classical mechanics in neurological function, they do not desire to do so, not to mention the fact of modern neuroscience being so often among the most tenuous fields of its kind, even given my distaste for others. As far as it is addressed, such relations are hotly contested even among 'mainstream' science, like essentially everything about quantum mechanics and theory. And if we do take the statement as carrying the presumption of 'brain behaviour' being synonymous with the conscious agent, we encounter the same error of the conclusion and the identical premise (The one which is being rejected in the first place) which I addressed before. I should say that I am steady in my belief in the singular human soul, created by God, despite this likely meaning irreconcilability, as well as an opening of myself to ridicule or dismissal.

yeah the only thing that is technically free in that scheme is a closed system. Humans are not closed systems.

Yes but because perfection don't exist in the real world, the same initial values will never be same and so it is not predictable, with the same values it's like rewatching the same tape over and over again but we can't reverse time in our world (im bad at explaining so i hope u understood)

SEU's in electronics, or radioactive decay are not deterministic. But at the same time, neither nucleons, nor electrons have free will.

Spiritual successor™

Sounds (and feels) like schizophrenia.

@@letzte_maahsname Yeah, it was written like a horror story. When his thoughts were synced, his actions felt like his own. But when he started lagging, his brain kept going as if nothing was different, except he was now trapped in a body that went on to live his life without any input from him. He couldn't communicate with anyone, his body just talked with people like always without him being involved. It gave me anxiety when I read it as a teen. Wish I could remember what it was called.

no, because the halves can still communicate, since the brainstem still exists along with those below the corpus callosum.

@@serraramayfield9230 then why don’t they cut the brain stem as well?

​@@serraramayfield9230 Isn't it the case that people that had that procedure done may somewhat lose control over left or right side of the body. Example: They move their left/right hand without wanting to do it. Assumed to be because the other brain half is doing it and the main decision center cannot properly control the action / veto in this video's case? Note: Los of control =/= random actions, proper minor action but without wanting to do it.

@@h4xorzist i don't think so, though strokes can do it

reminds me of Alien X in ben 10. Alien X is omnipotent, but the 2 beings inside it need to agree first before they can do something. What if we are alien x and the 2 consciousness inside us just never agree lol

Yeah I agree this is a weird experiment to bring up while debating free will

There's definitely a lag between the will and conscious expression,the electrical signals at the decision making centers have to travel to the neocortex.

dude, it should be hard to be a deterministic haha.

Of course there is lag, it’s called reaction time

@@adamdinar376 well no, reaction time is the time between deciding to do something, and doing it. Whether there's a lag between deciding to do something and the conscious awareness that the decision has been made is a different matter. That's the only point I'm making - it could be that we have free will, and there's a lag between 'the will' and our conscious awareness of it. I don't believe that, because I don't believe we have some special 'free will' module in our brains that somehow non-deterministically makes independent decisions. So the lag being measured is, it seems to me, the lag between the decision-making mechanisms and the conscious awareness of the outcome of those mechanisms. I'm just saying that either way, the existence of lag is not evidence for or against free will, in itself.

I’ll third that

Because of the incomplete info??? 80% success rate with crude tools clearly demonstrate the lack of free will.

Individual events at the quantum scale are truly random, in that knowing the outcome is fundamentally impossible (according to current quantum mechanical theory) and they individual events cannot be coerced to fall with certainty a certain way. Only over time can more predictable patterns of probabilities emerge. A single 50-50 quantum event is truly truly random and non-deterministic in the truest sense. Experiments have shown too that these outcomes can't possibly be decided by some hidden underlying or unknowable parameter either. They're random, plain and simple.

@@geoffdavids7647 only according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is the main interpretation, but still. That's why I said it was imprecise to call quantum mech non-deterministic, not incorrect.

Didn't Turing prove that something like the 3 body problem isn't necessarily deterministic because math itself isn't deterministic. Doesn't mean all starting conditions don't have determined outcomes but that not all can be pre-determined. Seems more like a problem with math then whether or not the underlying principle is deterministic

@@geoffdavids7647 no. It's completely random _to us._ Which is why we treat them as completely random phenomena, but we don't know what's happening "under the hood". The fact that we can link particles that _always,_ 100% of the time, behave in the same way even if seemingly completely unlinked and separated, makes us think that there's something deterministic that we don't yet know, and maybe never will. (And yes, I study this stuff, I'm not coming up with it based on random stuff I find on the internet.)

@@FAB1150 ​ @Nuovo Well granted I don't study this stuff officially - but there was one incredible video that seemed to really disprove the idea of a hidden variable under the hood determining what the outcome would be. It seemed to say that quantum outcomes are really truly random kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sMmhjauK1J2zfqc.html

This is actually such a simple yet brilliant conclusion! Despite all of this discourse, the "true" truth doesn't actually make any difference. You, your free will and your mind still exist to _yourself_ and that's all that really matters. Whilst deep philosophical debate is definitely helpful, it's sometimes good to just take a step back and appreciate the simpler, more concrete things. No matter what the science says, from your own perspective you are here, you feel things, you think and you do. And even if your future is predetermined then so what! It doesn't change the fact that you yourself have no idea what will happen to you next week or next year. The Universe may have it all figured out, but life's still a mystery to us and maybe that's for the better. At the end of the day, the only thing we truly know is that we can never truly know anything at all. And the joy in not knowing is getting to find out and think of an answer for yourself. The world is what you make of it, there isn't _a_ universe, just _your_ universe.

@@Scien_Tific Nice one mate. Simple is best.

Also, there is a difference between, for example, having a memory and moving your hand. Moving your hand is a sudden action caused by an electrical impulse, so it makes sense that a seizure could cause it to happen. Memories and habits are more permanent. They are stored chemically in and in the way neurons have connected to each other over a long time. I doubt random electric activity could affect them.

Also, there is anecdotal “evidence” (I know that’s not actual evidence but humor me for a moment) of people that received physical damage to the head or brain and changed their personality. Also, also, it is known that certain diseases will affect the brain and will also affect people’s behavior (syphilis and rabies are famous examples)

Corrupted picture, is a different picture. There will always be gates to read binary values from.

​@@gebys4559 That's assuming only the values defining the actual image get scrambled, but I'm willing to bet filling a hard drive with random 1s and 0s and plugging it into a computer wouldn't give you an image.

@@Haibing22 Personality changes due to head trauma are extremely common.

Because the information is incomplete and wrong. 80% success rate with crude tools clearly demonstrate the lack of free will. Imagine what a finished tool will do.

I feel like he would have, but it would break the whole vsauce parody that this video was going for (all the music in this video has been used in vsauce videos). He has used Libet's Delay in other videos, though.

Occam's Razor

The problem isn't just across different people, if that were the case, you could prove against this by showing that the same person manipulated in the same way would show either 100% or 0% response. The problem also exists across the same person at different times.

I read your "top comment" and all i have to say it is laughable. Quantum mechanics is determenistic with indeterminenistic output... Ok .... But free will is neither determenistic or random. I know what category it is but you don't deserve to know. Also, a passive observer.. what an energy inefficient evolutionary update! Truely, loosing time and energy to have comsciousness to just be cosmetic... Very rational.. And for sure... When someone is aware of something he is doing its the same when he isn't... Of course humans are mere automatons.. Pathetic confused determinists, doing everything to eliminate moral responsibility, and live like embryos!