Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Free Will Part 1

[b991228]

Your unstated premise that we have a soul that you choose to call free will is not an acceptable scientific explanation.

[LowleyUK]

We cannot control which thoughts pop into our heads and the choices we make are decided upon before we are aware of them. All you need to do is examine your daily habits to realise that you are just a passenger in your body, but the illusion of free will is immense.

[Olsonic]

seems more like you are arguing about semantics rather than how the brain functions

[Olsonic]

rob, Im not sure your view is in conflict with what sam harris suggests

[JCmultiverse]

It appears that you have no training in mathematics and physics ??

[rickenione]

"I can scratch my head, therefore I have free will."

Best argument ever.

[robvandjdk]

@rickenione

The argument was as follows:

I can PLAN xyz (where xyz could be scratching)

Therefore my cognitive process can precede associated physiological activity by an arbitrarily long period

Therefore the Dawkins experiment that demonstrates physiological activity that precedes associated cognitive activity cannot mean that I am unable to make choices.

The ability to plan is much more interesting from the perspective of cognitive science than the ability to scratch.

[rickenione]

@robvandjdk From a neurophysiological POV, the statement; "In ten seconds I'm going to scratch my head" has nothing to do with the actual act of you scratching your head. The concept of "Decision" is immensly simplified in folk psychology. Nevertheless, I agree that it serves a useful purpose. It would be difficult to communicate without using the concept of decision making and instead explain things in terms of the firing of neurons. In theory, however, that would be a way to do it as well.

[ackmonra]

(4) They're not talking about the act of performing an action. Only the time delay between the brain deciding and your concious being aware of it.

I think you've misunderstood Dawkins and Harris slightly. They're suggesting that everything you think (not do) was actually dictated by your brain without your concious knowledge. Sure you can plan something for the future - but your decision to do that was first thought about by your brain without your knowledge; then later you became aware of it.

[robvandjdk]

@ackmonra

As for part 4) Dr. Dawkins specifically mentions a nervous system response preceding brain activity as evidence that modern science has torpedoed free will.

[ackmonra]

@robvandjdk

Well the fact that nervous system response can override any notion of "free will" is a decent torpedo into the idea that free-will is everpresent.

If i remember rightly in the context of the discussion this was highlighted as an already accepted suspension of what we call "free will" which science has identified.

But this isn't the latest news. The latest science suggests that brainwork of which you are not aware - preceeds and dictates what you will eventually think.

[ackmonra]

Nice to have you back Robert :)

Some problems:

1. Opposite to the notion of free will is that of determinism, not materialism.

2. Your decision to scratch your head was determined by your unconcious brain prior to you thinking about and suggesting it. The science seems to suggest that you had no concious choice in the experement you chose.

Also, deciding on an experement is not a knee-jerk reaction.

3. Because of (2) you havn't debunked their argument or invalidated their experement.

[robvandjdk]

@ackmonra

While I certainly believe in subconscious processing.I do not believe that my "decision" was made by that subconscious process and that my conscious self is only an observer of what had previously been decided at a subconscious level. If, for example, I am extremely angry at someone my subconscious will throw up images of me beating that person up. I choose to let that image go and to instead pray for that person because I have consciously chosen to act in a Chirstian manner.

[koda215]

@ackmonra It's hard work all this, I believe in science and Richard Dawkins views etc etc. This debate is basically saying we are not people thought but mere machines like robots and we cannot decide or choose anything. It's as if we are a prisoner in our own bodies who as to sit back and witness the neuron processing show ? If Dawkins believed this then why would he waste his own time trying to convince 'people' to change there minds when they have no choice to do so whatsoever anyway ?

[ackmonra]

@koda215

Try not to think about what this means - only realise what it is. Evidence that unconcious decision making preceeds concious knowledge of the choice.

Its still all your brain doing the thinking, which is why more often than not these choices don't surprise you.

The reason why its important to discuss these sorts of things and learn the facts of the matter is because by this process we come to understand and eventually master nature.

Imagine the kinds of technology this may lead to.

[koda215]

@ackmonra ok I agree with you but what I am saying is lets say we are controlled by genes and genetics and nature etc. If both our parents are black we will be black but lets say our father was also as psychotic killer just because we look and may have traits passed on from him does not mean we too will be a killer we could be the nicest guy in the world through nurture etc. I am wanting to ask if we can choose to better ourselfs or are we preprogrammed without no choice in the matter ?

[koda215]

is dawkins through inteligence and choice/free will choosing to believe in evolution and can another person not see it because they are genetically ignorant and have no choice/free will to see the truth ? dawkins tries to say we have no free will or choice so how can he even try and change someone's mind if they are just evolved in a way they cannot change ?

[ackmonra]

@koda215

You don't believe in scientific theories - you accept them if you agree with their conclusions after studying their merits.

But is it possible that humans exist who are incapable of doing this? Sure! The mentally challenged are an obvious living example.

Dawkins advances and engages in a discussion that will lead in the next few centuries to a greater understanding and a superior mankind which is more accepting of the realities of nature.

The discussion itself is progress.

[jonwalksred]

@robvandjdk What made you think that a Christian manner was favorable to a Muslim manner, or Jewish manner? If you are in fact a Christian, what made your decision for that particular form of monotheism? Did you have free will to decide?