Procrustes Stretched
This place is nothing without the membership.
Been here before - Post #95
Because of some things I had bookmarked links to Robert Sapolsky, Max Tegmark, and others. I don't believe I've viewed this video before. But the argument(s) and points put forward by Sapolsky, especially this: "the onus is on people saying there's free will" is difficult to argue convincingly against.
"How am I going to know if you're ever wrong?"
"Here's how you falsify it. Show me - and at this point like everyone is 'oh prove to us there's no free will, prove to us there's no Easter Bunny, prove to us that like there's, till you turn around there's somebody creeping up behind you - oop they disappear - that absence or proof, proof of absence that whole deal. um By now the onus is on people saying there's free will and this is what would falsify all of this - show me a neuron, or a network of neurons, or a brain that just did something and show me that it did that completely free of its history. It wouldn't matter what...
"quantum physics"
"This is this is where I get conniptions, when quantum physics is wonderfully relevant to quantum physics. It's got squat to do with free will issues, because it's like what this physicist at MIT, Max Tegmark...calculated...he's 'counted?' 23 orders of magnitude that an indeterminist subatomic effect would have to scale up to influence the behavior of "a" molecule"
"That should shut everyone up who's trying to explain Consciousness with quantum physics exactly and the next...because if they find a way where somehow magically it bubbles up what you've just explained is a mechanism for Randomness, for random Behavior, not like the moral system you've had since you were in your diapers, and the consistent and..."
Because of some things I had bookmarked links to Robert Sapolsky, Max Tegmark, and others. I don't believe I've viewed this video before. But the argument(s) and points put forward by Sapolsky, especially this: "the onus is on people saying there's free will" is difficult to argue convincingly against.
Do We Have Free Will? with Robert Sapolsky & Neil deGrasse Tyson
starting around 21:00"How am I going to know if you're ever wrong?"
"Here's how you falsify it. Show me - and at this point like everyone is 'oh prove to us there's no free will, prove to us there's no Easter Bunny, prove to us that like there's, till you turn around there's somebody creeping up behind you - oop they disappear - that absence or proof, proof of absence that whole deal. um By now the onus is on people saying there's free will and this is what would falsify all of this - show me a neuron, or a network of neurons, or a brain that just did something and show me that it did that completely free of its history. It wouldn't matter what...
"quantum physics"
"This is this is where I get conniptions, when quantum physics is wonderfully relevant to quantum physics. It's got squat to do with free will issues, because it's like what this physicist at MIT, Max Tegmark...calculated...he's 'counted?' 23 orders of magnitude that an indeterminist subatomic effect would have to scale up to influence the behavior of "a" molecule"
"That should shut everyone up who's trying to explain Consciousness with quantum physics exactly and the next...because if they find a way where somehow magically it bubbles up what you've just explained is a mechanism for Randomness, for random Behavior, not like the moral system you've had since you were in your diapers, and the consistent and..."
