[Preview] Chris Langan - Free Will - CTMU

[MinimaAmoralia]

Determinism does not necessarily imply that constrains come from the outside of our universe. Every closed-system, such as our universe or a society, generates conditions under which its agents operate. These conditions define a limited number of the potential actions that agents undertake. For example, our universe is run by the laws of physics, which cannot be breached at one's own free will. At a social level, norms and institutions engrain a certain set of behaviours and believes in agents, thereby predisposing them to act in a certain way. This is not to say that agents do not have a free will, they do. But the extent to which the 'free' part is actualised and exercised is determined by structures external to human but internal to the universe.

[ianhebert]

I'm not sure if this is absurd nonsense or if there is an absurd amount of sense made here. either way it's great how it makes you think

[michaelpisciarino]

Free Will. Moment of Creation.
0:56 All restraint coming from within
1:23 If everything was determined, you could not ascribe guilt, value, merit.

1:58 The Causal Chain, The center of the loop. “Every person is a first mover” “a self-configurer”

[haros]

I dont have a reason to believe in God, but aside religions, Gods etc i will focus on the causal freedom. I see a lot of "geniuses", you know what, I will not even be gentle, I see a lot of dolts in the comments that say all this is bullshit. They say Langan assumes nothing exists outside the universe. If I was langan I would enrich the argument by saying NOT the universe (since a multiverse can exist) but existence itself. By definition nothing is outside existence. For determenism you need infinite regress not only in causal chains, but also in laws of nature, which are not disputable. The 4 fundumental forces emerged at an early state of the universe, and hypothetically a false vaccum decay would change your beloved laws fundumentally. So its clear those laws aren't unbreakable in principle. Anyways, breakable or not, determenism needs infinite regress, since entities have 0 autonomy everything needs something else to "act". We have countless reasons to reject determenism but this thesis is interesting because it is the correct kind of causality for free will. You camt say its random since its directly caused by the agent. It is independent, infuenced, but not nullified. He could be more laconic but the essence of what he says in this video is NOT INCORRECT. Still you need Consciousnes to give the free will, not quantum particles, but at least he gave a nice caysality type, which is definitely possible. After all, the Observed randomness at quantum scale (John Bell has shown it is indeed true) can very easily be the self determination of the irreducable entities (particles and waves). And the funny thing is that determinists, and even incompatibalists give the most bullshit arguments, the fact that the reality of free will is very difficult to be proven (like many aspects of science) helps them, they are in the easy possible to say bullshit and still appear "mature" while all they are essentially is biased, ai hype, thirsty for non responsibility, fanatic atheist, volitionless, uncreative, dogma blind followers, putrid redditor mods, that when not playing Fortnite they put their weak finger to the branch of phylishopy, and think they are smarter than people like Aristotle, because they disagree. Thats their mindset: Whoever disagrees with me ill call his arguments magic, unscientific, folk phylishopy. Even if those arguments in 10 years or so turn out to be factual scientific facts, this won't stop those fools from calling anyone who disagrees a delusional person. Im not into langans theory in general but the fact is, sceince doesnt mean deterministm nor reductionalism. Hail to strong Emergence! Heres the funniest "conversation i had with a free will denier: 'yoU dOnt chOose to Be bOrn, so freE wilL must be an illusion.
-of course you have no control before you existed
-what are you again? Bro, i hate when theists get emotional to justify their magic.
-Who said im a theist
-anyways free will cannot exist, fart harris and Robert fartosky have proven so, they are messiahs
-the one one is a pseudo intellectual capitalist who adheres to Buddhism and the self is an illusion, Consciousnes is not subjective but a reducable universal field (panphysism essentially) and try sell his books using baity topics. The other one is a ridiculously overrated and lucky donkey who concluded at his 14 with depression this "innovative idea" and say since you are infuenced you have 0 freedom. Partal determinants = complete determinants. Those 2 "people" are supposedly the biggest threat to free will and have the greatest arguments. If these are the best I would like to hear the worst ones, it would be funny.

Cry but don't blame me, since under your delusional framework i didn't disrespect you, the big bang did. I am not truly aware, we are unconscious robots. AGI one day will get free will, but humans of course not. Feel the ai hype?? Elon must owo.

[Trev]

This is a fact Free Will is fully unpredictable, free Will is so unpredictable No matter the circumstance. I know from firsthand experience that at the last second someone could have a change of heart.

[phagelife]

‪What is your opinion on psychopaths, and their lack of mirror neurons? I believe this is a valid argument for the invalidity of good vs evil if some aren’t given the capability to feel empathy. ‬

[itsiwhatitsi]

When I analyse thing around me and my life I feel that so many things happens for a chance, I can do, but I can not control, at all, the outcome. Even the mind and the productivity are ruled by a casuality inside them. Everything is ruled by something that is not you, in the bad and in the good. I'm not saying that the "You" doesn't exist, but that is so powerless in front of the flow of reality

[ciarandudley]

Well put; Absolute Idealism never sounded so simple.

[bachelorsensei]

"The power to self-configure, just like the universe."

[JT-mzoc]

So, because we are a part of the universe, we inherit free will as a sort of localised form of the universe's ability to define itself? What about people who would usually be considered to have their free will impaired, such as those with mental health issues, severe learning difficulties or those suffering from personality altering brain tumours? In fact what about animals and computers? All of these are a part of the universe, so do they also inherit free will?

[jensklausen]

Could it be that the big bang is a big bounce and that higher realms survive the big bounce unaffected and so that the free will originates at a higher level, but still from being unconstrained?

[markbravo]

How does time fit into this model? Does God know the end of the earth from the beginning? If so, does that negate free will?

[ushanisaunders]

even the smartest can't accept there is no pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps

[masonoakesmusic]

I can kinda see why you’d call something indeterminate free but how can we say it is willful? What is the basis for this will? Would it not be more accurate to call it random or arbitrarily designed in every instance of first motion?

[thepsychocybe]

I disagree. The premise that the universe is a closed system inherently proves free will seems like a non sequitur to me.
I don't think free will can exist when from the moment you come into existence your genes create you, and the external influences on you shape your understanding of reality; this ought to lead you down a certain path in life.
That's how I see it.

[motorheadmobb]

Wouldn’t God be external tho? And if God is External, and has all the qualities of Omni then where does free will fit. How can there be free will if God knows past, present, and future?

[matthiaswolkenstein]

Sam Harris and others have the opinion no combination of determinism/indeterminism could provide a logical framework for free will to exist, free will hereby defined as the ability to could have done otherwise. Furthermore Sam Harris argues, free will is also disproved because of our subjective experience of choosing. According to him, we don't choose our thoughts, they just appear in consciousness. We can't think them before we think them. But our chain of thoughts defines what we have the possibility to do next. So if i don't think "hey i could visit friend xyz today", if that thought doesn't even appear, it's not even an option to visit my friend that day. I wonder what Chris Langan would say to Sam Harris' position on free will. In this video the explanation was rather short. THe Universe is self contained and not determined from anything external. But isn't it still determined by metaphysical laws like logic? And even if there is uncertainty (true randomness?) how exactly does free will arise, who controls the uncertainty? Does anyone have any thoughts / links about that topic?

[johnyossarian]

I wonder what would happen if Chris got into Vipassana meditation.

[ZiplineShazam]

Please forgive my cynicism, my ignorance and my crass comment. . . but why would the "Universal Expansion of Consciousness" actualize a Bloody Tampon on the Bathroom floor of a Burger King ?! I point this "not so pleasant" image out in hopes of trying to understand Mr. Langan's Theories. His very articulate explanations of our reality seem very succinct and elegant. . . .until we seem to be forced to look at the ugly mundane aspects of this weird existence.

[TimJSwan]

I feel like it's a fallacy to use guilt as a reason for free will. Even artificial intelligence programs should feel guilty when they make mistakes. That's not because they aren't deterministic but because they are reconfiguring their neural network.