Free Will doesn't exist

I really like how at one point in this video, she says we believe in free will because we are aware of our brains processing information before a decision is reached.

She also makes a great point about information. How it’s the information itself, which determines what happens in the thinking process.

There is no future in which I am doing something other than exactly what I will do. So there was never a free choice.

1 Like

“We are all just running software that is trying to optimize our well being.” Well said. It goes without saying that some individual programs will be better optimized for that task compared to others.

Brings to mind what Richard was saying on one of the DVD’s. It’s an illusion that you are in control. Therefore, you can retire. “He didn’t become redundant, he realized he was redundant.” The universe is already running your life (for better or for worse, I might add!). It’s an illusion that you are in control.

So whether or not you buy into that illusion – and by the way, it’s not up to you as to whether or not you buy into it – conditions and causes innumerable are at every moment dictating every thought, event, emotion, decision, leaving “us” with nothing to actually do or decide anything. All that’s left is to either be or not to be. (And whether we are or are not is, ultimately speaking, not up to us. It never was. And that, for this individual being at least, is quite alright.)

1 Like

Yes, which is the point of communication. The more that a person is inclined to seek information and share information, the more probable actions in line with that information happen.

To a point, it seems.

I began to realise this week that this (communication) seems to be as far as I desire to go. Thus seeing the simplicity of “wanting to”.

So what we all do is a big exchange of information, which often conflicts with previous information. Until there is a tipping point, the balance is to remain much the same.

Blame/Credit is solely based in the idea of Free Will.

Colloquially, “choice” works to describe the decision making progress, but who is making the decision? What is deciding? Was there ever a choice? or simply awareness of the time it takes to process information?

1 Like

My computer doesn’t “choose” to start when the button is pushed. It does take time.

Like Kuba’s link to Peter and Vineeto exploring Ledoux, things take time.

I really like what they talked about when something “interrupts” the normal traffic of ‘self’ information between the primative and modern parts of the brain.

Is it time to get some “Direct Pointing” going on?


Asking the real questions here. :white_check_mark:

When Free Will is seen as an illusion, it makes sense why so many things are silly.


If people are processing information (emotional, intellectual, sensory) then they will continue on a path set by that information. When I “trust” someone, am I not “trusting” that all of their information is in my best interests?

Sounds ridiculous right?


I would be better off “trusting” that they will continue to process their information in their best interests.

(acknowledging that often the “best interests” are survival of ‘self’ parasitically).


Presumably, an ally will want to provide information that will further your best interest. The nature of an alliance is that both parties share their “best interests.” As opposed to information provided by an adversary whose best interests are counter to yours. Naturally, even information provided to you with the best of intentions may be ultimately untrustworthy, that is, unreliable. But maybe you are getting at something else? (I recognize that the word “trust” is a bit of a loaded word among our little group. It carries stronger connotations for us beyond conventional definition.)

Addendum: making it more complex, the role of ally and adversary is not static and is entirely contextual. A relationship that is in alliance can turn adversarial and vice versa. Not that one has any ultimate choice as to which way things will go. (There’s my weak attempt to shoe horn all this into the topic of free will. :smile:)


There is also the case of the “true friend/ally” whose information is unpleasant, unwanted, otherwise counter to what I want, yet, it’s sensible and worth acting on.

I was getting at the improbability that anyone else’s information matrix is in my best interest.

For example, the reactions I have regarding beauty are directly against the natural desire of the woman I started seeing. My emotional information is saying “No”. I will probably end it.

However, I feel her trust. She is very insistent on how well we get along, (we actually share the same name in male/female form, and can talk at length on many topics).

However, the reactions in me are “end it”.

Her trust is misplaced.

I have been in exactly the opposite situation. Where I was the one being reacted against.

So, without even going into anything else, trust is misplaced.

In the context you provided, sure. She can’t rely on you to satisfy those deeper needs and vice versa. If she does rely on you, that is, if she trusts you, then her trust and reliance would be misplaced.

The weatherman is doing all he can to give you his best prediction of the weather tomorrow given his own information matrix and this is what you say about him? :expressionless:

1 Like

Indeed, it’s a good example. Many things are predictable, including human emotions and thoughts.

However, there are different contexts.

A trained weatherman is exactly that. Providing a narrow band of information which we generally rely on to plan.

One could have this in other situations, given enough honest communication.

In which case, it’s the type of “trust” based in wanting others to be as we want them which is silly.

is this a roundabout way of saying that you aren’t attracted to her?

Haha, yes, round about way indeed.

In the context here, I was being “round about” because it’s a piece of information. One that felt very compelling.

Other information was involved. Like my intent to be free. My intent not to cause her harm.

I don’t want to continue to be subjected to “beauty and ugly”.

It’s a shit game.

gotcha yeah i feel the same. i barely feel attracted to anyone honestly. i enjoy the companionship of relationships but then often feel put off by the sex. i don’t think i’m attractive enough to afford the degree of selectiveness that my brain has landed on which results in me either being in relationships where i feel something is kinda sexually off and i’m going through the motions for the other parts of the dynamic i do enjoy, or being alone

Indeed. Regardless of our own beauty, we are programmed to seek out the most beautiful.

We can rationalise all we like, but blind nature doesn’t hear.

It’s enough to want to do something radical. Like psychic suicide :yum:

This can be subverted.

By deliberately treating those we “settle for” (regardless of them probably being in our league) as if they were a Greek god/goddess type, in bed, we switch up the game.

It doesn’t mean the bliss of infatuated sex happens, but it does mean we are taking action.

an interesting idea. what keeps you from doing this with the woman you are dating currently?

I already do. Sex was great.

The beauty reactions were automatic. A lot of my angst (I can now see) was wanting to be the best actualist vs the reactions that I was having.

I felt naturally disappointed about her looks but also a failure at actualism. I talked about actual intimacy being better than love, explained so much else too, but felt a complete fraud when I couldn’t move beyond the beauty reaction.

I am feeling really good now, and will most likely continue seeing her.

These posts by Kuba and Josef showed me the key to feeling good again.

Idk about the deterministic view which she is basing this video from, the physical laws we use (and infer determinism from) were invented by us and are convenient at the scales at which we spend our time, but are not ‘the fact’ of ‘how things work.’

‘How things work’ is much deeper and stranger than physics.

It may not matter though if the particles involved in our brains are predictable enough structurally.

Not in the same way humans once invented “laws”.

These are being tested and used.

I like the “it’s all one waveform” interpretation. It makes the universe instant while not violating the observation that nothing travels faster than light.

If the universe is an infinite and eternal “waveform” then anything in it can still conform to sub-light communication.

The medium itself doesn’t have to conform to the behaviour of the things in it.

A metaphor; An ocean can transmit vibrations at the speed of sound, but nothing else can travel that fast through water.

An infinite waveform can collapse instantly, but no finite object can travel that fast through it.

Makes sense to me.