Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

In this video, episode number 910, Kuhn and the first interviewee start off with false dilemma of determinism and indeterminism. Indeterminism is equated with randomness in this nomenclature.

In my view free will is perfectly true as all human being confirm on a daily basis based on their experiences, or know a posteriori. Everything else should be based on assigning free will to be true, rather than vice versa. Among other things I am building my foundation on the following two verses of the Quran to appeal to the religious or spiritual sentiment of the two billion Muslims:

What is self evident, fundamental or Muhaqqim takes precedence.

For additional details on these verses please read: After Monotheism, the Two Most Seminal Verses of the Quran.

The second interviewee in the top episode in this post, numbered 910, is Nobel Laureate in physics David Gross. He alleges that both consciousness and free will are an illusion. I have the audacity to differ. I understand I would be in a minority position, judging from the following 2013 survey of contemporary philosophers:

JP Moreland a Christian philosopher comes to our rescue to reinforce free will in the above video around minute 13 of the video.

Before we proceed further, I would like to share some foundational information about free will through the following post: Free Will: It’s the Best Proof for Providence of God.

The concluding remarks of Kuhn reassure me that if free will is indeed a reality then not only human consciousness and soul become a reality but also Afterlife.

I will keep collecting additional videos and adding my comments and analysis here.

John Searle, the first interviewee in the above video, episode 609, tries to precisely define the issue at hand, free will versus hard determinism. He also suggests the possibility how one could move from randomness of quantum mechanics to free will. He concludes by saying that for solving the mystery of free will he has offered three other mysteries. Then the discussion goes into split brain patients. Then we have Roger Walsh, a psychiatrist, tells us that without free will we could get very depressed.

Henry Stacks, a quantum physicist, puts forward quantum mechanics as a basis for our free will. This could have been a possible closure, but Kuhn hedges his bets and denies the closure offered by quantum mechanics, as a ground for our free will and by extension for God’s Providence.

It seems to me that hard determinism is created by ignoring that human freewill, thoughts, or desires can have effect on present or future brain states.

Kuhn concludes this video by saying: “I feel forced to conclude with a stark choice, either freewill is an illusion or something large is missing from current understanding. Of only one thing I am sure, free will gets us closer to truth.” May be it takes us to Divine Providence as well.

John Templeton Foundation has sponsored a multiyear study about free will. Around minute 30 of this video, we get into a discussion of hypnosis. Neurobiology not only does not know how brain states create consciousness or free will but also the next step how free will then affects the future behavior or brain states. This simply reflects the ignorance of present day neuroscientists and not the absence of free will. Suggested reading:

Why does the Science of Consciousness Need a Muslim Theologian and a Sleep Specialist?

Short video clips: Quran: Is human soul or consciousness a miracle or a mystery?

Commentary of the Quranic verse about human soul

Around minute 56 of the video discussion moves to how a frontal lobe tumor made a man a sex pervert. Around hour timeline, we learn that if it is highlighted that we do not have free will cheating rates go up.

This video like a few others on the subject goes into false dilemma of determinism versus randomness, in the first few minutes. Libet experiment is the most quoted evidence from brain science to deny free will. But, what one has to realize is that free will not only affects the brain states but is also produced by the brain states. What scientists are recording and deciding on the timing of their record, may be getting misunderstood and mislabeled?

If we doubt free will, then funnily enough, we may have destroyed the very foundation of the Western science, laid by Rene Descartes.

The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated into English as “I think, therefore I am“,^[a] is the “first principle” of René Descartes‘s philosophy. He originally published it in French as je pense, donc je suis in his 1637 Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.^[1] It later appeared in Latin in his Principles of Philosophy, and a similar phrase also featured prominently in his Meditations on First Philosophy. The dictum is also sometimes referred to as the cogito.^[2] As Descartes explained in a margin note, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt.” In the posthumously published The Search for Truth by Natural Light, he expressed this insight as dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I am — or what is the same — I think, therefore I am”).^[3][4] Antoine Léonard Thomas, in a 1765 essay in honor of Descartes presented it as dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”).^[b]

Descartes’s statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one’s own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one’s own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.