After you perform whatever (supposedly) scientific tests that you may invent to determine this issue, and after you analyze the data, is your decision to state that free will does not exist chosen freely, or was pre-determined that you would make that decision?
If the latter, then your method is prejudiced, biased, bubjective, and, most importantly, unscientific, being completely divorced to the tests that you conducted, and only pre-determined by your material brain functions.
In fact, only if we indeed have free will can we ever make any truly objective, unbiased, and unprejudiced scientific conclusions about any scientific data that are actually relevant to that data.
Is your decision dependent on:
1. the scientific data at hand (objective),
or,
2. your pre-determined genetic proclivities (not objective)?
@1GodOnlyOne It's not just genetic. Nature and nurture determine who things evolve. It is just the current state of nature determining the next state, basic rule of science everyone from QM to GR and string theorist agree about. Hase never been seen to be violated.
@1GodOnlyOne My ability to come to that conclusion, just like everything else, is a consequence of history.
My method is called the scientific method. This method is not biased/subjective/unscientific, cause that would lead to a contradiction.
The determiniation if someone is conducting a scientific experiment or not, is independent of whether someone's actions have come about deterministic. Just like the determination if something is purple or not, is objective.
@modelmark If it's based on history, not a freely chosen decision based on the actual data, then your decision violated scientific method in that its cause deviated from the actual scientific data, and was instead based on what you call your "history," whatever that may mean.
Therefore, your decision was biased, subjective, unscientific, and incorrect.
CONCLUSION: Free will certainly exists.
For more information, please see my newest video, "Question about Free Will."
@1GodOnlyOne The scientific method is not based on freely chosen facts, but objective facts from history. If you think you see a contradiction please state my premise, conclusion and logic I violated. Your name suggests you do not adhere to the scientific method, so why do you try to use logic to debunk the evidence, while you are an illogical invisible friend believer? Don't you realize you make yourself ridiculous as someone religious playing with logic? A monkey playing with a DSLR.
@modelmark You have just devaited far, far from the issues at hand, failing to realize that I have already proven you wrong about free will, so you lose.
Free will does exist. Everything is a choice, because with every choice comes a new learning experience. At the time of your death you will realize that you do indeed have choice and free will. It is a human misconception that concrete evidence is needed to prove something "real." Reminder - 2 sides of the brain - Logic and Creativity. It was your free will to choose determinism. Enjoy your learning process and Immeasurable love to all living beings.
@modelmark Since animals can fly, elephants are animals, therefore; Elephants can fly is a "valid" philosophical argument. It's not "sound" however. I don't want to get technical ... just making light of some philosophical terminology. Anyhow, I understand that by stating something, it is usually not regarded as "true." The initial point I tried to insinuate was; Since my belief and faith in free will/reincarnation have 0 doubt, I am pointing out that at some point you too will realize the same.
@1chicken90210 I go by reason and evidence, so no I won't believe in gods, governments or free will, since reality is consistent and these are not. You only believe in those if your mind has been deformed in childhood by adverse experiences. "Because my believe in free will reincarnation is 100%, you at some point will believe the same" is an invalid logical argument, or wrong or false or untrue. Logic, reason and evidence is my only guideline.
@modelmark It's interesting how you call my mind "deformed" because my beliefs differ from yours. Anyhow, initially, I didn't desire to ignite a logical argument, or any argument for that matter. I was simply making light of an opinion/belief. My 2 questions to you are: If you go by logic reason and evidence, then is it truly logical to rely only on 50% of your brain? & If you believe in determinism, then why do you care to convince people of it? - Every flower has it's own time to blossom.
@modelmark It's interesting how you call my mind "deformed" because my beliefs differ from yours. Anyhow, initially, I didn't desire to ignite a logical argument, or any argument for that matter. I was simply making light of an opinion/belief. My 2 questions to you are: If you go by logic reason and evidence, then is it truly logical to rely only on 50% of your brain? & If you believe in determinism, then why do you care to convince people of it?
... Well, I am not much into science, I just believe that we have our own free will, but if god exists you have to agree that he has his own will too which manifested in different accidents or karma or destiny, whatever you may call it. Anyway, I believe a person possesses it's own free will - maybe it's just the body that decides how to apply it.
They've also found out at that heart research institute that the heart has it's own little brain which regulates it's beating and which is comprised of just few hundred thousand cells and every surgeon specialist knows about this space in the heart, they know that if you incidentally touch that space - it's so delicate that a person will die.
... If you comprise all the different body systems you will get a whole human consciousness. The brain is just the part of it and there may be another reason why it starts it's activity before a man makes decision in this particular case.
@modelmark Well, there are studies, if you wish to rely on them, that the essence or source of human conscuosness is not brain or it's not only the brain. Everybody and every body has it's own intelligence, the heart, according to the research at some independant institutes (i don't remember it's name but they investigate the heart), also has it's own intelligence and it is stronger than the brain, it forms the biofield of a body.
@creanus then by all means, provide this source and its studies. even IF it were to be the case, that wouldnt change the point that the heart and all the other parts are ruled by the rules of chemistry and physics. there has been no study done that indicates a person's personality changing when receiving an artificial heart or a heart transplant. "stronger influence than the brain" you say? well, whos personality changes more, a person with brain damage or a heart case? jesus
Free will exists but it's kind of a loose thing. There are different possibilities, different roads you can take both equally valid options and when you can not do both a decision has to be made. If you only have one option to do something than that is what you will do and you did not use your free will but it happens at times that you have equally valid choices neither more appealing than the other. I'll send you an email to talk about it because I'm running out of texting room here.
The fact that there is time between when you make a decision and when you act on it is not at all evidence for determinism. That decision is still being made.
'indeterminism is coming into fashion' 'Understanding less and less of how things work, is gaining popularity, soon we will understand nothing at all anymore of true causes.'
You might just be right there brother, but I sure hope for all of us you are projecting
Whoa, indeterminism is nothing like theism. Clearly we choose to do things. Sometimes I do random pointless meaningless things for no reason other than to do them and I conscioussly choose to do them. Undoubtedly I am being restrained to an extent by deterministic laws but not completely. The little bit of free will that we have we use and that is evident to a lot of great minds. Beleiving in free will is not like believeing in a god. This is an observable seemingly apparent phenomenom.
If anything determinism is more like a theistic belief because you have to deny the obvious fact that you do what you want and that you want what you do. Denying that takes faith that that is some kind of misregistry of emotion. So youre the one that has faith here and believes in something funny not me.
can you tell me a little bit more about these negative reaction times of your free will? SO you register your will to flip your hand at t=10 s and then your brain activity starts at t=9 s and your hand flips at t=11s.Your Brain activity precedes the urge by 1 s. You claimed this was a reaction time that was negative. Is the brain activity clairvoyant towards your will?
When your brain activity starts at 9s that's when you make the call obviously. Nobody is denying we have free will here. Clearly it is there even you can't deny it is actually there. But you are taking a leap of faith by saying that it is there but it is not as it appears it is only an illusion and I am telling you that there is no reason to believe that it is an illusion. We both agree that it is there we just disagree on what it actually is.
There is no reason to believe that brain activity exists before you make the decision, we have no way of accurately measuring that. There may be delays in reaction time but at some point that brain activity takes place. That is when you have made a decision. There is no proof that this activity is a precursor to a decision. Like I said we both agree that we have free will. Only you take the faithful step and call it an illusion.
No, obviously brain activity means your thinking either about making a decision or you've actually already made it. It may take a while for you to be fully conscious of it but you do consciously or maybe even subconsciously make that decision for yourself.
so sometimes they are made subconciously and sometimes they are not? Can you elaborate on what decisions are made subconciously and which are not in your opinion? The ones in the experiment were obviously subconciously.
Does this mean you don't know the two categories?
How can you be sure these things do not have a cause? Is there a proof you have for that? Is there a neuron that spontaneously fires, without a physical explanation for it? Does this neuron not obey the laws of physics by firing without a cause?
Nope everything has a cause. We live in a universe ruled by causality. Just because YOU don't understand the cause does not mean there isn't one because there always is a cause. To believe things just happen is akin to believing in magic.
the other proofs say it will turn out to be, but I don't know if an empirical test can be made to demonstrate it. It might be possible e.g to show that children raised by alcoholic, abusive parents for 85% show trouble with ethics growing up across many different cultures and times. This however is still only a correlation and not a causation.
I do think it makes it more unlikely to stick to the idea free will can escape both genetics and environment.
I think that although it is true that the brain is the origin for all the nerve impulses that cause the actions in the rest of the body, the idea that the conscious moment of making the decision comes first and the actions follow, is in violation with the evidence.
3 people were chemically, circumstantially and genetically predisposed to dislike this video and had no choice in the matter.
OsyenVyeter 4 weeks ago
@OsyenVyeter indeed, although I would retain the word choice, but redefine it. They had no freedom from history to choose to dislike it.
modelmark 4 weeks ago
PS -- You look a lot like Jeffrey Dahmer. Are you related to him by blood, or just by your belief in atheist dogma?
Don't bother answering -- I freely choose not to read any more of your ignorant posts.
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
After you perform whatever (supposedly) scientific tests that you may invent to determine this issue, and after you analyze the data, is your decision to state that free will does not exist chosen freely, or was pre-determined that you would make that decision?
If the latter, then your method is prejudiced, biased, bubjective, and, most importantly, unscientific, being completely divorced to the tests that you conducted, and only pre-determined by your material brain functions.
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
In fact, only if we indeed have free will can we ever make any truly objective, unbiased, and unprejudiced scientific conclusions about any scientific data that are actually relevant to that data.
Is your decision dependent on:
1. the scientific data at hand (objective),
or,
2. your pre-determined genetic proclivities (not objective)?
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne It's not just genetic. Nature and nurture determine who things evolve. It is just the current state of nature determining the next state, basic rule of science everyone from QM to GR and string theorist agree about. Hase never been seen to be violated.
modelmark 4 months ago
* subjective -- sorry for the typo! LOL
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne My ability to come to that conclusion, just like everything else, is a consequence of history.
My method is called the scientific method. This method is not biased/subjective/unscientific, cause that would lead to a contradiction.
The determiniation if someone is conducting a scientific experiment or not, is independent of whether someone's actions have come about deterministic. Just like the determination if something is purple or not, is objective.
modelmark 4 months ago
@modelmark If it's based on history, not a freely chosen decision based on the actual data, then your decision violated scientific method in that its cause deviated from the actual scientific data, and was instead based on what you call your "history," whatever that may mean.
Therefore, your decision was biased, subjective, unscientific, and incorrect.
CONCLUSION: Free will certainly exists.
For more information, please see my newest video, "Question about Free Will."
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne The scientific method is not based on freely chosen facts, but objective facts from history. If you think you see a contradiction please state my premise, conclusion and logic I violated. Your name suggests you do not adhere to the scientific method, so why do you try to use logic to debunk the evidence, while you are an illogical invisible friend believer? Don't you realize you make yourself ridiculous as someone religious playing with logic? A monkey playing with a DSLR.
modelmark 4 months ago
@modelmark You have just devaited far, far from the issues at hand, failing to realize that I have already proven you wrong about free will, so you lose.
I am done with you.
atheist total fail
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
Free will does exist. Everything is a choice, because with every choice comes a new learning experience. At the time of your death you will realize that you do indeed have choice and free will. It is a human misconception that concrete evidence is needed to prove something "real." Reminder - 2 sides of the brain - Logic and Creativity. It was your free will to choose determinism. Enjoy your learning process and Immeasurable love to all living beings.
1chicken90210 5 months ago
@1chicken90210 sorry, but just by stating something, it does not become true. Elephants CAN fly, is not an argument for it being so.
modelmark 5 months ago
@modelmark Since animals can fly, elephants are animals, therefore; Elephants can fly is a "valid" philosophical argument. It's not "sound" however. I don't want to get technical ... just making light of some philosophical terminology. Anyhow, I understand that by stating something, it is usually not regarded as "true." The initial point I tried to insinuate was; Since my belief and faith in free will/reincarnation have 0 doubt, I am pointing out that at some point you too will realize the same.
1chicken90210 5 months ago
@1chicken90210 I go by reason and evidence, so no I won't believe in gods, governments or free will, since reality is consistent and these are not. You only believe in those if your mind has been deformed in childhood by adverse experiences. "Because my believe in free will reincarnation is 100%, you at some point will believe the same" is an invalid logical argument, or wrong or false or untrue. Logic, reason and evidence is my only guideline.
modelmark 5 months ago
@modelmark It's interesting how you call my mind "deformed" because my beliefs differ from yours. Anyhow, initially, I didn't desire to ignite a logical argument, or any argument for that matter. I was simply making light of an opinion/belief. My 2 questions to you are: If you go by logic reason and evidence, then is it truly logical to rely only on 50% of your brain? & If you believe in determinism, then why do you care to convince people of it? - Every flower has it's own time to blossom.
1chicken90210 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@modelmark It's interesting how you call my mind "deformed" because my beliefs differ from yours. Anyhow, initially, I didn't desire to ignite a logical argument, or any argument for that matter. I was simply making light of an opinion/belief. My 2 questions to you are: If you go by logic reason and evidence, then is it truly logical to rely only on 50% of your brain? & If you believe in determinism, then why do you care to convince people of it?
- Every flower has it's own time to blossom
1chicken90210 5 months ago
what do you do with your life? seriously i want to know your very educated have stuided anywhere? what is your job at the moment
mygodDYLAN1 8 months ago
@mygodDYLAN1 I studied electrical engineering in Delft university of technology. I work as a digital designer for Broadcom
modelmark 8 months ago
... Well, I am not much into science, I just believe that we have our own free will, but if god exists you have to agree that he has his own will too which manifested in different accidents or karma or destiny, whatever you may call it. Anyway, I believe a person possesses it's own free will - maybe it's just the body that decides how to apply it.
creanus 8 months ago
@creanus "Well, I am not much into science, I just believe that we have our own free will, but if god exists you have to agree"
This just about says it all. Thanks
modelmark 8 months ago
They've also found out at that heart research institute that the heart has it's own little brain which regulates it's beating and which is comprised of just few hundred thousand cells and every surgeon specialist knows about this space in the heart, they know that if you incidentally touch that space - it's so delicate that a person will die.
creanus 8 months ago
... If you comprise all the different body systems you will get a whole human consciousness. The brain is just the part of it and there may be another reason why it starts it's activity before a man makes decision in this particular case.
creanus 8 months ago
@modelmark Well, there are studies, if you wish to rely on them, that the essence or source of human conscuosness is not brain or it's not only the brain. Everybody and every body has it's own intelligence, the heart, according to the research at some independant institutes (i don't remember it's name but they investigate the heart), also has it's own intelligence and it is stronger than the brain, it forms the biofield of a body.
creanus 8 months ago
@creanus then by all means, provide this source and its studies. even IF it were to be the case, that wouldnt change the point that the heart and all the other parts are ruled by the rules of chemistry and physics. there has been no study done that indicates a person's personality changing when receiving an artificial heart or a heart transplant. "stronger influence than the brain" you say? well, whos personality changes more, a person with brain damage or a heart case? jesus
OsyenVyeter 8 months ago
You just operate your own illusions and preconceptions, my friend.
creanus 8 months ago
@creanus what is your proof for that?
modelmark 8 months ago
Free will exists but it's kind of a loose thing. There are different possibilities, different roads you can take both equally valid options and when you can not do both a decision has to be made. If you only have one option to do something than that is what you will do and you did not use your free will but it happens at times that you have equally valid choices neither more appealing than the other. I'll send you an email to talk about it because I'm running out of texting room here.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
that did not answer my question, but perhaps it will be in the email.
modelmark 2 years ago
The fact that there is time between when you make a decision and when you act on it is not at all evidence for determinism. That decision is still being made.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
there is negative time between when you claim to have made a decision and the action. That was what this video was about.
modelmark 2 years ago
YEah that negative time is just reaction time it doesn't prove determinism at all. And indeterminism is coming up in the world.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
lol
modelmark 2 years ago
Dude, negative time does not prove determinism. The fact that you think it does is laughable.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
'indeterminism is coming into fashion' 'Understanding less and less of how things work, is gaining popularity, soon we will understand nothing at all anymore of true causes.'
You might just be right there brother, but I sure hope for all of us you are projecting
modelmark 2 years ago
Whoa, indeterminism is nothing like theism. Clearly we choose to do things. Sometimes I do random pointless meaningless things for no reason other than to do them and I conscioussly choose to do them. Undoubtedly I am being restrained to an extent by deterministic laws but not completely. The little bit of free will that we have we use and that is evident to a lot of great minds. Beleiving in free will is not like believeing in a god. This is an observable seemingly apparent phenomenom.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
If anything determinism is more like a theistic belief because you have to deny the obvious fact that you do what you want and that you want what you do. Denying that takes faith that that is some kind of misregistry of emotion. So youre the one that has faith here and believes in something funny not me.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
can you tell me a little bit more about these negative reaction times of your free will? SO you register your will to flip your hand at t=10 s and then your brain activity starts at t=9 s and your hand flips at t=11s.Your Brain activity precedes the urge by 1 s. You claimed this was a reaction time that was negative. Is the brain activity clairvoyant towards your will?
modelmark 2 years ago
When your brain activity starts at 9s that's when you make the call obviously. Nobody is denying we have free will here. Clearly it is there even you can't deny it is actually there. But you are taking a leap of faith by saying that it is there but it is not as it appears it is only an illusion and I am telling you that there is no reason to believe that it is an illusion. We both agree that it is there we just disagree on what it actually is.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
There is no reason to believe that brain activity exists before you make the decision, we have no way of accurately measuring that. There may be delays in reaction time but at some point that brain activity takes place. That is when you have made a decision. There is no proof that this activity is a precursor to a decision. Like I said we both agree that we have free will. Only you take the faithful step and call it an illusion.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
So when you think you take the decision, you are experiencing an illusion. The actual decision was taken earlier when the brainactivity started.
modelmark 2 years ago
No, obviously brain activity means your thinking either about making a decision or you've actually already made it. It may take a while for you to be fully conscious of it but you do consciously or maybe even subconsciously make that decision for yourself.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
So your decisions are made subconciously?
modelmark 2 years ago
Not necessarily. But the point is that decisions are made. At some point that brain activity is triggered.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
so sometimes they are made subconciously and sometimes they are not? Can you elaborate on what decisions are made subconciously and which are not in your opinion? The ones in the experiment were obviously subconciously.
modelmark 2 years ago
Either way the decision made originates from within the brain not outside of it. Sometimes you do things without a cause.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
Does this mean you don't know the two categories?
How can you be sure these things do not have a cause? Is there a proof you have for that? Is there a neuron that spontaneously fires, without a physical explanation for it? Does this neuron not obey the laws of physics by firing without a cause?
modelmark 2 years ago
@ICANGO247:
Nope everything has a cause. We live in a universe ruled by causality. Just because YOU don't understand the cause does not mean there isn't one because there always is a cause. To believe things just happen is akin to believing in magic.
searcher619 1 year ago
the other proofs say it will turn out to be, but I don't know if an empirical test can be made to demonstrate it. It might be possible e.g to show that children raised by alcoholic, abusive parents for 85% show trouble with ethics growing up across many different cultures and times. This however is still only a correlation and not a causation.
I do think it makes it more unlikely to stick to the idea free will can escape both genetics and environment.
modelmark 2 years ago
I think that although it is true that the brain is the origin for all the nerve impulses that cause the actions in the rest of the body, the idea that the conscious moment of making the decision comes first and the actions follow, is in violation with the evidence.
modelmark 2 years ago
Topdown consciousness is a myth
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago