this man is one of the most honest scientists I have ever seen, too many scientists today act like journalists, they take a few meaningless facts and create a whole story from it. Science is wandering dangerously into fiction, let's stick to the facts and to hell with public opinion.
Free will means that you can make a choice without a cause. And if something is caused by something else, it's not free will. Everything works on the principle of cause and effect.
This guy is just rushing to the conclusion that he wishes to be true. He said: "science doesn't tell us much about our behavior"! That is just ridiculous.
@erasmusso Causality breaks down because it only describes temporal effects. The Universe itself has no cause. In other words, our notions of causality are based upon intuitions that before/after are "things".
Well put, -but- though you have a point I believe you miss the target when moving to the specifics. Our brain is ruled by causality and we are ultimately determined to do what we in the end will end up doing, this is simply because we are not the universe, but a part of it. This is not an assumption, this is a logical implication of what we can see in the natural world and what we can test at a smaller scale (smaller than the whole of the universe that is...)
Yeah, so conclusions are premature, but he himself was willing to declare that "neurolaw is neuromyth" or something like that. He gave us no reason to be anything other than agnostics about free will vs. determinism, but still he seems to be saying that we should prefer the traditional way of viewing ourselves (i.e. rational agents possessing free will) on the grounds that this is more convenient if it is true.
I did not clap. This guy is dismissing the free will argument far too hastily.
We can still have names, we can still blame one another, or more accurately, the events that made someone behave in such a way, or the events leading to other events (conditioning, traumatic events, mental illness as a parallel to physical illness, etc.) As a specie can't avoid it forever; at some point we must begin to realize that what we think we are is different from what we really are.
@AegeanKing You can question or deny it all you want. It's like saying using Logic is horrible means of solving a problem. Name another source that has a higher authority than Science in any academic setting.
Hmmm...Psychology, Sociology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, and Anthropology tell us very little about behavior. Now that's fucking hilarious.
He talks about some experimentation as the ONLY experiments ever done for all science. This is Wrong. Science IS broader than Neuroscience. All that Sciece tells us is that Determinism is a fact. Free will is a Haux, an illusion.
No, it doesn't. I wouldn't even consider determinism a scientific theory. Firstly, it's unfalsifiable. I mean, could you design me an experiment which proved that we live in a determinist universe? To predict such a future, you'd have to know an inconceivable amount of information about the past and present - and you'd have to have ways of quantifying it. As optimistic as I am, I don't see this as ever being a possibility.
Secondly, the world of quantum mechanics has, so far, shown us that sub-atomic particles have a random, indetermined nature. Scientists can never precisely calculate the position and momentum of such particles, which should be more than possible if they behaved deterministically. Thus, determinism is not a fact.
Not quite- Your statement above is flawed. Talk about "The world" of Quantum Mechs? There's no such thing. Quantum mechs is a human construction to understand a series of phenomena that can -yet- not be explained any other way AND is largely based on statistics and probability, some say even more than in solid observable facts. The randomness might very well be an illusion, but we just can't do any better at this point than Quantum physics.
Oh, come on. I didn’t mean “the world of quantum mechanics” like Narnia or Middle Earth. It was a figure of speech. I actually acknowledged the theoretical, man-made aspect of QM with “so far”, implying that theories may change. The fact is, if you’re going with the scientific mainstream, sub-atomic particles do move in a somewhat random manner. So your statement about determinism is false.
... determinism still rules the macro Cosmos and that is a demonstrable fact. The fact is we simply cannot tell what 'will be' based on the billions of posible outcomes. It's simply not possible to do with the entire universe as a probe, but CAN and has been done thousands of times at smaller scales. And even more, to your surprise Quantum physics enables determinism more than it ever denies it, determinism is routed at the core of reason for starters...
Figure speech or not, people think this two are separate and almost not related or part of the same reality. AND IT IS OK FOR THEM TO SEE THAT WAY. The big time fail of modern physics is we haven't been able to cope with this reality and so find ways to better explain it than -well- Quantum physics. Science is NOT a complete omniscient discipline. It is also a common misconcept to think subatomic particles "come in and out of existence" just because we have limited...
@DrErkencho ...means to meassure and track their position or mommentum and their energy given the queer *world* they thrive in.Where queer is NOT random. Quantum Physics DOES NOT show any evidence in favor of randomness in the universe, even more it supports the idea of a basic state of matter where uncaused events are Impossible... Vg; a subatomic particle CANNOT and will not turn into a Giraff, nor do anything any more "random" than -well- vanish from our sight...
@DrErkencho .. and that again is given our understanding and how far we san SEE today. If you think about it, it is even as it almost had to be that way AT THIS scale, in order for IT to have a total and absolute start point, where randomness is at best obsolete to put the bigger machine at work. You cannot -with todays technology- predict exactly where every little spark of lit fuel will go when you turn the key on your car, but it is a fact everything that happens from there on is
@DrErkencho .. set to happen and it will in very specific ways. That's determinism. and more important, THE LOGIC behind EVERYTHING we ever discover is deterministic, even if the whole world was not we could do nothing better but to live in a deterministic scene, or resign to reason.
Does that not strike you as something of a double standard? On one hand, you’re asserting that free will is an illusion because our intuition of it is contradicted by the logic – but, on the other, you’re asserting that randomness may be an illusion because the logic of it is contradicted by our intuition. To quote Prof. Brian Cox, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is “one of the most famously misunderstood and misrepresented parts of quantum theory.” [cont'd]
The principle is derived from a fundamental equation; it is not the consequence of practical matters.
Furthermore, the laws of QM apply to everything. Theoretically, a planet could vanish in the same way that electrons do. But its mass makes this so incredibly unlikely that we don’t even consider it a possibility. So, even the macroscopic fails to be deterministic.
Also, are you getting your definition of “random” from the Mighty Boosh? An electron doesn’t have to be able to “turn into a Giraff” to qualify as acting randomly. It just has to have more than one possible future available to it at some point. I'm simply defining "random" as "not completely determined."
No double standard at all!! - ok let's pin it one by one -BTW nice debate ;)- Free will is an illussion because as far as we can understand it we have to come to this conclussion or resign to Physics as we know it and, well- we do not have an alternative model -for starters-, also the idea of free will being something of that nature is perfectly compatible with Occam's Razor and DOES NOT entail we cease to act as we do and will, it is a delussion that we CANNOT escape.
About our intuition, IT is part of a Physical process as well, it is NOT a bi-product of reality that sits on any higher level. Point made, it is our intuition -thru our reasoning- that needs to shift to the correct, more complete, and more representative scheme of what's attempting to mirror. Our "intuition" is a product of evolution, and we did not evolve looking at quantum fluctuations and the sub-atomic mayhem, so it is of little use *at that level*, right now.
Finally, you are placing the carriage before the horses. Intuition likely came first, before, logic; just as a natural evolutionary advantage, but as soon as the structures of logic took place in our brains and proved further more effective than intuition, they expanded and "took over". Most animals live by intuitive thinking, we humans DON'T, we are logical, and logic is obviously superior to basic intuition, it enables us to perceive our "fabric" and that of nature.
No, I'm not. I know intuition came first. Actually, this is one of Tallis's arguments against the mind being a computer. The human mind judges most activity by qualia; its logical faculties are pretty small. However, a computer masters mathematics long before it 'feels' anything (if they're even able to.)
Yeah, I know all this. We probably agree on a lot more things than you realise. I'm an atheist, determinist, UCL student - I'm just applying my empiricism very rigorously. Your arguments would be improved if you assumed more from your opponent.
Don't take any of my disagreement personally btw. It's great to be debating with somebody who clearly has a real passion for it. It's just that these conversations tend to be fuelled by a kind of academic pugnacity...
But I was accusing you of a double standard because, in some cases, you placed logic over intuition - in others, you did the opposite.
You suggest "resigning to physics as we know it" but, to do that 100 years ago would be to disregard all of quantum mechanics as illusory. And, yeah, but Occam's Razor is starting to look more like a chainsaw. Rolling a dice twice, getting two 6s and declaring that the dice is loaded is compatible with (and favoured by) Occam's Razor.
That's true. I rather like Sam Harris's quote that "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion." It's like being told you're in a dream; you can contemplate it and accept it - but then a freight train comes crashing through the walls and the illusion becomes true again.
I wouldn't call it a "delusion" though. "Delusion" implies something that has negative consequences.
@JustMereArt ... just a piece of advice... "never" state things such as your quote "Scientist can NEVER precisely calculate... yada yada.." Science is an ongoing thing, it might very well be they ALREADY are able to do this and you don't even know about it. It seems people put their empathy in this subject and rush to conclussions, is almost as if they felt betrayed by their brains telling them "yeap, you are me, nothing more" "yeap I am matter, nothing more".
Experiments as such have been conceived already. At a neuroscientific level, we take a region of a brain numb it and see the results in the individual. We ARE our brains. Remove a piece of grey matter, and you might loose coordination, speech, sight, even alter your conduct, turn agressive, etc. Damage the WHOLE of the brain and you are dead. What makes people think that one is something more but just unable to express 'itself' if the brain is damaged is beyond me.
But you could make the same argument for a house and its foundations. Remove some of its foundations and you’ll lose some of the house; remove all of them and the house ceases to exist. However, neither of us would for a moment argue that the house IS its foundations. I do feel that physicalism is likely to be true – but I’m still yet to see it properly explain consciousness. And until it does, I’m not going to call it a fact.
The only reason that people DO NOT argue "the house is ITS foundations" is because People are NOT Houses. Everything else just follows.
I know you'll argue "houses don't have conciousness", "houses do not have a soul" but then consider a person in deep vegetative coma, then tell me why should we think he will regain all his faculties and knowledge intact in his *soul* when he dies? People think about their thoughts, that's the concious "illusion".
What? No. Why would you even expect me to argue that?
My point is that, just because the functioning brain is a necessary condition for the mind, doesn't mean that it is the mind. Agreed, I think it probably is - but we need to understand how consciousness can exist before we make this conclusion.
This doesn't entail me suggesting a "soul with knowledge" or anything like that, just an un-physical aspect of a human being.
Well.. yeah... just as "un-physical" (whatever that *really* means) as the *mind* of my laptop right now.
The fact we are far more complex and capable of "perceiving" the thinking process as it unfolds from within ourselves thru different stages DOES NOT imply an "un-physical" --- anything. As said before, it's been researched, and tested, so far all we can say is consciousness is just a *trick* of a region of our brain thinking -about- our thoughts, all the time.
Well, okay, consciousness is a trick. But who is it tricking? There has to be a 'self', which is the subject of the illusion. To say otherwise is to disagree with 'Cogito Ergo Sum.'
I simply meant "un-physical" as in "unable to be explained by physics." You make a good point though; something could be un-physical by this definition because it's unable to be explained by physics yet.
"I" made me do it is perfectly plausible. The brain acts independant many times, where different regions elaborate separate instructions and interpret the world or memories in well distinct AND SEPARATE regions. While one region might be well aware of what's going on , another region might be "aslept" or out, just to come concious at a later time in which it's use is more practical. The speaker seems to know better, is just so nice to keep the illusion going.
Its a difference when you use the "words" BRAIN and MIND just like hardware and software, and just as the software in your computer ,your mind does.nt belong to you, someone designed it .and owns it !!
if "my brain made me do it " is not a reasonable argument then how is it reasonable to accept that my brain cant grasp certain concepts, or understand certain values, or cooperate on higher principles and functions? How come try as I might I can not play the dam piano? My brain won't make me do it!
I would like to suggest everyone this video. He takes the scientific discoveries (that there's no free will for example) and implements them for social concern:
Genius 'schemer' Shakespeare showed us that '(free) willing' is complicated. He scanned man with poetic intuitions. Jago advocates for reason and control, but when Roderigo is away, Jago's free? will is out of control for hate of Othello. Did Shakespeare know how neurons in the brain functioned? Of course not. He had a fine 'nose' for human motives. Reading old latin literature, history of royal man and living his (unsafe) life made him word smart: HIs free will embedded commands in personae.
Brain: memory is crucial. Without good hardware software (sounds, language, images) is useless. Good software (a fine vision on world and self) makes hardware more effective. Nowadays we discover a lot of images about the brain: but those images can be misleading. Reaction brain of an invidual in a crowded surrounding isn't easy to scan. Fast interactions between man are decisive. It's gradual: choises are social embeded, brain quality, self consciouness and personal motives determine decisions.
Even if we are entirely determined by our biology or surroundings or both does innocence (no incarceration) logically follow? Shouldn't we incarcerate criminals on the premise that they are dangerous and liable to re-offend? Whether they themselves are (entirely) responsible or not, they are incremental.
"my brain made me do it" isn't implying that you're not one with your brain, it's saying that you cannot control your brain and thus activity or thought. People who are convinced free will is an illusion aren't condoning criminal behaviour or the release of such criminals, they're just stating a fact that our genetics predispose us to much of our behaviour- it still doesn't make it right. just cus it itsn't what we like to hear (that we are not in control) doesn't make it wrong.
@sftw007 Still waiting for peer-reviewed sources reporting empirical evidence that back up your two claims. If you cannot find any try three other claims: "„A photon reflecting involves superposition with the electron field. So these field are coherent. The brain is a product of processes like this.” So QM (as we know it) does automatically equal the loss of determinism." "But i don't consider neurons firing and the synthesis of proteins as large scale processes....." Good hunting.
@sftw007 Hm, definitions do not equal empirical evidence. Still waiting for references to peer-reviewed work reporting empirical evidence. Seems to be hard. Oh, and BTW, in the meantime I own this discussion. Oh, ans since you say not much: how much is that? Please state typical de-coherence time scales for room-temperature tissue (feel free to use values derived from other living organisms).
@sftw007 Yes, I know that, but I asked for empirical evidence for your bold claims (I listed two examples yesterday). Choose whatever you like and provide a reference. As simple as that.
@sftw007 O.k. I went through all your comments still up. Besides the two bald claims I quoted yesterday there are 6 more (list available on request). So, the ball is officially on your side: educate me! Provide peer-reviewed articles or references of similar respectability that report EMPIRICAL evidence for any of your claims. Since they are, according to you, so commonsensical this should be a piece of cake.
@sftw007 Hm, in that kind you have an entangled twin (pun intended): "It stands for Coherent Wave Function Superposition. This happens (in the brain) all the time." "It is you that has to prove that the quantum behaviour of the building blocks do not effect the brain on a large scale. For example in making split second unconscious decisions." Still waiting for a peer-reviewed reference for your bold claims or at least one of them.
@sftw007 Well yes you are making pretty daunting claims that run contrary to what we know about dissipative quantum systems and quantum thermodynamics. Also, emergent properties are right even if the only are 100% - 10^-23 true. But let's just outsource this: you claim that neurological systems show non-deterministic behaviour due to quantum effects. So convince me, reference at least one peer-reviewed paper (or review paper) supporting your claim with empirical evidence.
@sftw007 O.k., here my summary of my arguments made (before I move on to less futile exchanges): (1) Provide peer-reviewed references for your unorthodox claims. They might be right, but you need to proof them since they run counter to the established on the thermodynamics of quantum systems. (2) Explain why quantities you call approximations (that actually are emergent properties) do not explain collective behaviour. (3) False analogies (what you have delivered so far) ARE NOT explanations.
@sftw007 (1) Well, they can if they ad up coherently. Bose-Einstein condensates are just one example. Superconductivity another one. (2) Exactly, and for predicting the processes within a tree we do not rely on coherent quantum states. Electron field: why does this imply that any of them are coherent???????? (3) Exactly, but a terrific one. Determinism can be derived from incoherent quantum states (-> emergent properties).
@sftw007 (1) Yes, but do the manifest? Usually not (see my argument about de-coherence). (2) You could make the same argument about a tree (complex chemical reactions). The important point though is whether these processes are sensitive to the the wave function or its absolute value. Also, most fields we are interacting with a not coherent (your photon example).
(3) Well, again, if our total wave function is the incoherent sum of the wave functions of all parts we behave very much deterministic.
@sftw007 Of course do wave functions always ad up, but for macroscopic quantum effects to occur they need to ad up coherently, while they almost always ad up de-coherently in a moderate-temperature bath. That's an established fact. So, why would I need to proof anything? Since you are arguing against established knowledge (about de-coherence in open systems) I do not understand why I need to prove anything. You make a rather daunting claim, and such claims need to be bolstered with evidence.
@sftw007 Well, again, you have not provided ANY evidence for coherent wave function superposition in the brain. Just because things are small DOES NOT automatically imply that their wave function add up coherently. Rather the opposite: at the high temperature we are living at marcroscopic objects like the cell have so far only expressed decoherence. So, if you make the bold claim of coherent superposition in "hot" brains you have to provide evidence for this claim.
@sftw007 Again, my argument is that the real "quantum nature" of nature hardly reveals itself even on the cellular level due to strong de-coherence. So, unless someone proofs that room-temperature entanglement or non-locality establishes itself in the brain (which would be very much unexpected) it is, due to the large number of involved entities (and thus the efficiency of de-coherence) pretty much inconsequential whether the building blocks of the brain are, in essence, wave functions.
@sftw007 Well, we are talking about brains here, and due to the strong decoherence at high temperatures chances are that brains do not show any "weird" quantum effects, but can be described as fairly deterministic. So I am not really agonising about large- and small-scale quantum effects.
@sftw007 Well, why is a good approximation not good enough for determinism? Most concepts we use are good approximations, and even rather fuzzy concepts (like "bald") are useful. If you take my body, e.g., and slam it into a wall you would not detect any wave matter interference between me an the wall even if both would consist of bosons. So even if you describe this process with QM the outcome is determinism. Deterministic theory of QM: Hm, I thought the EPR correlation had set an end to this.
@sftw007 Quantum mechanics does not automatically equal the loss of determinism on the macroscopic scale. In our world (pretty hot) it actually does not do so at all.
A 'law of physics' is a supernatural concept just as well. A law of physics spookily acts on nature as if outside of it. The laws of physics are not physical entities themselves. Determinism? It's like saying "I believe in determinism because my brain cells just happen to be arranged that way by cause and effect and the laws of physics and whatnot." Nonsense!
@sftw007 I liked what Isaac Bashevis Singer said when he was asked, "Do you believe in free-will?" He replied, "I believe in free will; I have no choice."
How about a survey. I am interested in knowing how many of you believe in absolute free will vs how many believe in absolute determinism. So I guess thumbs up for free will and thumbs down for determinism. And I only want to deal in absolutes here. I myself believe in absolute determinism. Also responses and explanations of why you hold your belief would be very interesting. Hope you guys think this would be as interesting as I think it will be.
All that activity in your brain IS you, most of which you have control over. The parts you have control over are your muscles, and from that, your actions. Fight or flight is instinct, the creature who is the brain, makes the decision, with its free will. Free will is a product of many deterministic options being chosen by YOU. Making you able to determine your path.
@tempemonkey2323 Since I've posted this, I've begun to rethink things. I'm inclined to believe that I have free will, ironically since I have no choice but to think I do. My position has been rethought, and I really don't know. I'm not certain, determinism or free will.
Luck is the fundamental principle of our lives. I dont want to sound arrogant, but about a year ago I proved it. SO far, nobody has beaten me. No brag, just fact.
@trakkaton Everyone uses fallacies especially when discussing serious topics. Telling someone else that they're being fallacious and that you never are by implication is a fallacy. Unless you provided everything you've ever said or written in your life time and no fallacies could be found then you're making an ambiguous assertion to say the least.
Tell someone they're making an argument by pigheadedness (doggedness) or an argument to the beard. That at least sounds delightful.
@trakkaton Objection, argumentative. You're also assuming facts not in evidence. Asked and answered. Calls for speculation. It's just your view when a fallacy is used by someone else. I proved that an argument not presented doesn't mean one doesn't exists. You obviously do have "tons" of argumentative arguments but you're not proving anything. Study the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing you or lookatme has is admissible because you're both prejudiced to your own "horsecrap". Peace.
I didn't start a discussion. Nor did I want to. When will that enter your head?
This guy is a complete waste of time. He isn't even worth a debunking. That's why I don't debunk him.
Am I - solely because I exist - damned to debunk every idiot on this planet that managed to get in front of a cam to babble about things he doesn't even vaguely understand?
NO!
So - PLEASE - let go of me, as my time is precious, and this BULLCRAP is exactely what I wanted to avoid.
@trakkaton Actually 131 people like what he's saying compared to 16 who don't. I didn't see that comment with the 5 thumbs up until just now. I come from 750 years of Jewish Bankers and that put us into the Law and Religion. My time is worth more than a thousand of yours, but whatever blows your hair back.
btw & fyi Fora t.v. is pretty non-prejudicial in their presentations and this guy Tallis has a litany of degrees behind his name!
@trakkaton How is what you're saying anything other than verbal abuse? Is reality created at your behest? Because you say something is true that makes it true? Then everyone could just be right all the time by saying they were. That doesn't even fly here on youtube. All your comments now are just self deprecating.
The only way I wouldn't know everything about you is if you were lying intentionally. What difference would that make?
@trakkaton You were right @lookatmepleasesir made a horrible fallacy, "you don't have an argument because you're not sharing it' is affirming the consequent, argument by dismissal, pigheadedness and argument to the beard. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. ( ;8~D)
I think this spurious form of argumentation is begging the question and stolen concept but I doubt you can pin me down on the validity of those. Confusing correlation and causation, who knows for sure?
Tune into nature~EARTH under a deep consciousness with a clear mind and unfold the layers that make up the modern human being. Acceptance will lead to understanding. The core is source.
Free Will is a load of nonsense. Cause and effect applies to everything, even us. Nothing happens without a cause. The only good point this guy makes is that determinism and cause and effect applies to both the criminal and the judge.
@johndoe43210 Free will has nothing to do with cause and effect. Free will is not a binary, all-or-nothing issue. It involves factors like consciousness, intention, choice, intelligence, self-control, and a host of others. Do some more reading on it.
@versus79 So what causes factors like consciousness, intention, choice, intelligence, self-control, and those other things, hmm? Let me give you a hint: Leptons, quarks, and the 4 fundamental forces of nature. If you claim otherwise, you are claiming that free will exists outside the laws of physics, which is a pretty outrageous claim (unless of course you subscribe to pseudoscience and superstition). Humans are made of the same materials as the non-living, so why should our atoms be special?
@johndoe43210 Why is the claim that free will exists outside the laws of physics an outrageous one? consiousness, intention etc. are not "factors" that are "caused", they are infinitely varied and deeply mysterious phenomena that Physics (a man made construct) manfully tries - but ultimately fails - to explain. To believe otherwise strikes me as presumptious and complacent. These mysteries are hinted at by great art. Knowing they can NOT be "solved" is one of the best things about being alive.
@johndoe43210 The claim otherwise is not in the least outrageous to anyone who has reflected on the methodological limitations of physics. One can only be an adherent of the naturalist faith by closing the mind to such reflection. By fixing on the known object in the subject-object relation of knowing, physics removes all data on subjectivity, and to know is to be a subject. Thus, physics has absolutely nothing to say on questions related to our being subjects and agents. Peace, DP
@dfpolis "Thus, physics has absolutely nothing to say on questions related to our being subjects and agents. Peace, DP"
Just FYI, it's not physics that answers these questions, it's information theory and information theory has absolutely none of the restrictions you're talking about. Not that they matter in the sense you're talking about either. Particles do not know things. Information is an emergent property of systems of particles when they form symbolic representations of parts of nature.
@Gnomefro I know information theory. What do you think it says about the mind being physical? I did not claim particles know anything. I said humans are knowing subjects. No, information is not an emergent property. That is magical thinking naturalists use when they have no case. Information theory says Information is the reduction of logical possibility. Physics assumes logic, so logic is prior to physics & physics is not about information per se. Representations don't work without minds.
@dfpolis Knowledge, in turn, essentially means that the symbolic representations are ordered in useful ways. Subjective experience is the same thing. Although the entirety of human consciousness is in no way understood we know perfectly well what kind of mechanisms the brain uses to accomplish what it does and many brain structures are understood on the circuit level. This includes such things as *knowledge* about position of an organism etc.
@Gnomefro A textbook is a symbolic representation ordered in a useful way. It is not actual knowledge, it is a source of knowledge. It is only actual knowledge when a person reads and understands it. Yes, we know a lot about how the brain processes data. We have no theory for the brain generating awareness. That it can is a 400 year old naturalist faith statement. I prefer experiential data to your dogmas. Behavioral response does not imply awareness. So, stick to the facts, but your faith.
@dfpolis It is stored in similar ways as all other kinds of information humans deal with - arrangements of matter. Appealing to magic, in addition to this explanation, like you want to do. Is like insisting a spoon needs additional explanation for its ability to "feed" people, because there is no inherent "feeding" property in molecules.
So your bs about there being some naturalist faith involved here is simply that - bs. Fact is you have to reject Occam's razor, and therefore science.
@Gnomefro I reject your appeal to emergent magic. Stick to facts. Awareness is an experiential fact. That it is abstracted away when natural science fixes on the object to the exclusion of the subject is a fact. Feeding is not in the power of a spoon alone. It requires a person using it. So, very bad analogy. Similarly, data in the brain is intelligible, but not understood without an additional factor. Beliefs without proof, such as you have, qualify as faith statements. Peace, DP
This guy is an idiot. I assume he knows lots about these tools that measure the brain, and says that they don't make the case. Which is fine, you don't need the tools, you just need to know how atoms work. We do, they behave virtually deterministically as far as is known, and what is not known is probably deterministic as well.
While this guy has some empiricist toys, he just makes the same appeals to mystery and free will of the gaps nonsense.
@johndoe43210 I agree with you 90% although I can't bring myself to call it complete nonsense. I think we do have an element of 'free will' (far less then we would like to think) but even if we didn't, free will is such a socially useful construct that we would be unwise to cast it off entirely.
@1883ross he's not saying there is free will, he's saying that it's pointless to approach justice through a "neuro-deterministic" perspective because then nothing is anyones fault but destiny's. These are hard questions but to say that nothing is anyones fault because we are chemistry is stupid. Then the victim isn't dead, he's just chemistry, and his family isn't sad, that's just chemistry.
We label certain things wrong, but if you do them anyway, then you go to jail.
@johndoe43210 So are you for this "neuro-determinism"? What does the greater philosophical scheme of things have to do with a criminal. Everything is indeed an indirect product of the big bang. But we are small humans of the planet earth. Our justice is the concern of our own society.
I think every point he has is good, he's showing that it's pointless to approach this from that philosophical perspective. "Don't kill", our brains can understand that command. If it fails it has failed.
@johndoe43210 everything happens by a cauce? so..if we follow laws of determinism to big bang what happens with that theory? before big bang there was a small . and what is the cauce of this little . there is no cauce for this small . that means dterminism is false.
@johndoe43210 Yes cause and effect applies to everything. The problem is that as Hume showed, prior events have no necessary relation to later events, and so deterministic causality does not apply to everything. What applies throughout the cosmos is the concurrent causality of laws of nature, and the experimental data shows human intention can modify those laws. Peace, DP
@dfpolis "and the experimental data shows human intention can modify those laws. Peace, DP"
Puhlease. That statement is like simply stating that "prayer works". There's zero scientific support for such claims. if you want to put your faith in new age bullshit, that's your problem of course, but don't pretend you can actually back up such claims.
@Gnomefro You equate experimental data with your naturalist faith? There is a difference. Experiments can be & have been replicated. Statistical analysis shows an 18 standard deviation effect for intentions modifying physical processes. Google "meta-analysis of psychokinesis" or write me for refs. The studies have been done and reviewed by hard scientists including statistics and engineering professors at the University of California and Princeton. So cut the BS & look at the data. Peace, DP
yeah after we get the tards into the mechanical era we can break it to them that the magic and miracle of this life is that it is mechanical and at some point will stop making sense to us upon inspection.
this is all mechanistic... truth of the matter is, we ARE responsible for the choices we make, we are accountable for the decisions we elect.The rest is all academic nonsense to feed PHDS.
I earn a million dollars a year managing a business that could have failed a dozen times BUT I chose to make it happen and it did... Stop wasting your time on the big picture cause you will never know. In the interim work on success cause THAT is tangible. You either eat spam of tender loin...
@Godless1859 it implies either determinism or some form of chance. if an atheist would advocate, in the light of current science, that there is free will, he would just be intelectually dishonest (or insufficiently smart). There is no more proof of ree will than there is for the existance of God
An atheist does not belive that gods exists. It has nothing to do with determinism. I don't belive that any god exist because the versions I've been aquainted to are too stupid. And this has naothing to do with determinism.
accepting science or not has nothing to do with atheism. Most buddhits are atheists. And when you speak about accepting science you must know that we all do accept science, but not all of science. It is true that most atheists are naturalistic determinists, as myself, but, again, if free will exists, you cans still be an atheist, and if not you can stil be a theist.
@Godless1859 i thought that it is science that proved God doesnt exist? or at least isnt able to prove one, so therefor there can not be one.. Maintaining that there is a free will, however, contradicts pretty much all of todays science.. I do realize that to understand this concept one needs considerable mental faculties, and am therefor not surprised by you mindless comments, but really have no interest in your education, so ypu will have to continue on your own.
accepting science or not has nothing to do with atheism. Most buddhits are atheists. And when you speak about accepting science you must know that we all do accept science, but not all of science. It is true that most atheists are naturalistic determinists, as myself, but, again, if free will exists, you cans still be an atheist, and if not you can stil be a theist.
Explain how H2O is a completely separate and incompatible molecule depending which 6 billion+ 'puddles" it happens to be tested in.
1st "SELF" needs solidification ie. WHAT is really pulling the levers of the force pulling the levers of the force pulling the levers. (we need pre-BB data to reightfully discuss the idea of "self".
2nd Choice is next.
3rd Freewill. NOW we can begin into so-called "freewill".
@D33veeoss What does free will look like? One can only experience it as the actor, but its effects can be observed from the outside. So what does free will look like from the outside? Unpredictability. If something is undetermined then predicting its future state should be difficult in degree proportional to its indeterminency. A great coincidence then that people are the most unpredictable of animals and that the electricity that powers brains is the most unpredictable of physical phenomena
That's the very question we haven't determined. It's 2 fold.
a) what would we define free will as if we wasnted to come up with a definition that suits the word, the idea and the reality of the situation? (Reality of Situation is the missing link here and the reason I prosecute the affirmative
b) is the answer to "a" feesible, or even a peripheral/parallel idea/model within rational, logical reach?
I very much liked your response by the way madscirat, I'm just not sure if the razor sharp double-edgedness was intentional or not... ? It seems you argue both sides.
Also, that's only assuming your argument of what "free-will" would "look like".
(A speculation upon a speculation)
Which is myabe all we can hope for.
Maybe that's as close as we'll get.
I'm not convinced of that yet.
I'm not even convinced that science can pin down a "you".
There might not even be a vessel there to effect "freewill". CERTAINLY not "choice", as is common theorem, and DEFINITELY not "responsibility" as is common theorem.
Often in science we assume the existence of something we are unsure of. Then we set out to prove this assumption wrong.
Since we see unpredictability in exactly the areas predicted by the assumption of free will (ie. mammals and birds as well as the physical constituents of their nervous systems) this sways me toward thinking FW exists
Science can't prove free will of course. I think it hints at it and nothing more. Using science to prove or disprove such things absolutely is a fallacy
In science, I do not assume something. I postulate a model of a reality of "if". Then I begin to weed out where the "if-then" process does and does not have integrity, and wherein peripherals and paralells are predicted. Then I test for them. Yay or nay decides whether I submit for peer review and from there it is or is not published.
We do not assume, no. Unclear, apparently, possibbly, plausible, in concert, has precedent, has ingredients to remain likely, likely, etc.
"...Since we see unpredictability in exactly the areas predicted by the assumption of free will..."
You haven't defined freewill yet.
General populace neither.
Choice is the litmus paper to freewill.
Choice is still up for grabs.
I can argue both with verocity. I understand both sides with passion.
Both angles are valid in and of their own merit whilst dependent upon external impact and influence. ie. the drive/information causing laws of physics/space/time etc to be as they are.
The other portal into progressing our models of so-called 'freewill' are mechanical. EEG/MRI and so on, just mapping what your brain doesn when why where and how when what stimulation is applied when where and how.
THIS is the area where in "choice" becomes fickle.
The simple argument asserting that choice is not really being determined by so-called"us", but rather it is a mechanical process no different than the consequence of putting water in the freezer.
Wel, the people arguing this angle realize that "whoa, although the conscious is definately immune to prosecution of responsibility, "YOU" the so-called "individiual" are NOT.
They've, you've, postulated that H2O's molecular disposition is different as in:
(A vs1) (Z vs 24) (Apple vs Worm)
depending upon which 6 billion+ puddles you test.
Furthermore, that these molecules are rearrage in and of their own merit.
so-called 'self' to be defined in a way as is conducive to:
a) our coming into
b) current state
c) practical application
d) practical functions
e) the extent of 'where mechnical reflex stops and "we" begin.'
e) in specific, a-d mainly to qualify 'e' against prosecution; therein, solidifying a concrete, ample, rationally practical coherence between actual fact, idea and understanding of the word.
I think I really wrapped it up the best I've ever heard in my last tell:
"Show me when the mechanical cause and consequeunce. Action and reflex stopped. Show me with an EEG or MRI or with anything, metaphysical model or demonstration, whatever, just show me when and where in your psyche meachincal reaction stopped."
This POTENT "illusion?" is all you have isn't it?
Know what? I'm convinced by it too.
So the best place to counter that battery is here:
Matter + Change = Sentient Life **Coincedentally** a vessel for this exact mandate of psyche and experience...
... So on the practical level, choice is a non starter frankly, but within the metaphysical, within the sum of the factors, ALL factors, history, physics, you name it, when you get the sum of this metaphysical gigabit of INFORMATION, THEN, yes, "choice" my be plausible. But STILL "self" is elusive, so it's NOT CLEAR.
Knowing roughly, and knowing exactly are failry big differences.
As apparent as the outline of this pattern is, if it can't be SHOWN, or at least further evidenced with successful prediction, then, truly......We have NO precedent to think that "we" have "choice". From what "we" know, it's not mechanically plausible. The pieces aren't there. They lie within LOP etc. Laws of universe, it's fabric basically. (Information?)
You're as natural as a rock rolling downhill, only different, not better.
Our minds and psyches, the supposed "choice makers" would have to be the first and only thing that we can name that can defeat the laws of physics, fate, and happenstance. aka time and space.
Furthermore, this would be evident within the bioloigal progression of rock to sunflower face, to skin, to healing sking to eyeballs apparently all to better serve progressing efficient means of survival
If it's all practical and all being driven by this survival mechanism (or whatever)...
..then...BEAUTY IN NATURE makes no sense.
There is no practical function to predict this within evolution. You pretty much can't name me anything about human behavior/mind that I can't trace you back to a rock from
But to look into a nice scenery of trees and calm water, babbluing brook, sound, etc, THAT SOULDNT BE THERE
For a professed "polymath" with a supposed profound understanding of neuroscience, Tallis is arguing from a very limited and I might say dated perspective. He's not saying much, but he rambles for 7 minutes - it's almost as if he's trying to obfuscate the argument to confound people. Check out Dr. Daniel G. Amen, a true authority on the brain and brain imaging. Brain scans can tell a great deal about a person's behavioural patterns and can inform proper prophylactic treatment regimens.
I think free will, understood as a process of the mind, is not something supernatural but It's a product of the complexity of our brains and bodies. So, it follows from thermodynamic and biological laws, as everything in nature, therefore it does have it's own rules and responds to internal mechanics that at least to some degree are somewhat "rigid" (in the sense of predictable). I see nothing strange about finding out it is not exactly what the classical idea behind the term denotes.
This is a very primitive discussion, aboute free will but without an exact definition of free will. A robot with computer may have a free will too - i labyrint he may select way using generator of random numbers. No determinismus, sorry.
Existence of animal feelings is more mysterious that free will, because i cant imagine that in computer, they are more than only informations from receptors (pain, taste, etc..)
freewill might be an illusion, but no more than the grass outside appearing to be green. The fact that everything is made of the same thing(Atoms) disproves freewill. i.e; Will i have an apple or an orange for breakfast today?? NEITHER! you will have ATOMS! electrical impulses give us this illusion of choice.
atoms works accidental, there is no reason if is an electron right or left, there are only probabilities
so if is the brain able to "throw cubes" you have free will
for example you are in labyrint and you must make a decision of you go right or left, so you are able to make 50/50 decision in this moment. If you return the situation back in time 100x, you would choose 50x the right way and 50x left way. Random number generator is a free will.
choice is caused by external influences,but those are just electrical impulses; for every action there is an equal reaction, but if human consciousness can chose the time and space in which we react (indeed we must at the very least breath) then how is freewill not existent (however limited)?????
I will have to take it that you think of yourself as quite academic and logical with your electrical impulses theory,lol. So then I just have to sit here in utter amazement when guys like you come out with ludicrous, 1st grader, oxymoronical statements, such as, "How is freewill not in existance (however limited)?????
Pray tell me how a freewill can be LIMITED!? I mean the mind just bobbles at the utter foolishness of this false doctrine and the crap people come up with to try and justify it
First I don't consider myself a logical academic, because logical thinking sometimes just has its limits,and I don't have a Masters degree in every subject my views touch on
Freewill isn't free at all; it comes at the cost of being trapped in the 3rd dimension.
Calling wisdom foolish is just like being anti-intellectual, and attempting to smear logic to make it unuseful - all are cult tactics designed not as information sharing or gathering techniques, but as deliberate attempts to undermine the clear thinking and logic that is toxic to argments like yours which rely on muddling ideas, mixing them with emotion, then coming out with a conclusion that has no basis - hence, it has to be finally defended as being right in God's mind. All fake approaches.
This has been flagged as spam show
I have come to believe that holy boredom is good and sufficient reason for the invention of free will.
AtticusAmericanus 1 month ago
I have come to believe that holy boredom is good and sufficient reason for the invention of free will.
AtticusAmericanus 1 month ago
this man is one of the most honest scientists I have ever seen, too many scientists today act like journalists, they take a few meaningless facts and create a whole story from it. Science is wandering dangerously into fiction, let's stick to the facts and to hell with public opinion.
servant714 1 month ago 2
Free will means that you can make a choice without a cause. And if something is caused by something else, it's not free will. Everything works on the principle of cause and effect.
This guy is just rushing to the conclusion that he wishes to be true. He said: "science doesn't tell us much about our behavior"! That is just ridiculous.
erasmusso 7 months ago
@erasmusso Causality breaks down because it only describes temporal effects. The Universe itself has no cause. In other words, our notions of causality are based upon intuitions that before/after are "things".
Barklord 2 months ago
@Barklord
Well put, -but- though you have a point I believe you miss the target when moving to the specifics. Our brain is ruled by causality and we are ultimately determined to do what we in the end will end up doing, this is simply because we are not the universe, but a part of it. This is not an assumption, this is a logical implication of what we can see in the natural world and what we can test at a smaller scale (smaller than the whole of the universe that is...)
DrErkencho 1 month ago
Yeah, so conclusions are premature, but he himself was willing to declare that "neurolaw is neuromyth" or something like that. He gave us no reason to be anything other than agnostics about free will vs. determinism, but still he seems to be saying that we should prefer the traditional way of viewing ourselves (i.e. rational agents possessing free will) on the grounds that this is more convenient if it is true.
gluemoae 7 months ago
I did not clap. This guy is dismissing the free will argument far too hastily.
We can still have names, we can still blame one another, or more accurately, the events that made someone behave in such a way, or the events leading to other events (conditioning, traumatic events, mental illness as a parallel to physical illness, etc.) As a specie can't avoid it forever; at some point we must begin to realize that what we think we are is different from what we really are.
james1carmichael 7 months ago
1: 58 "How much can science tell us about our behavior? The answer is, not much"
- That's when I realized this guy was full of shit.
rockos414 7 months ago 2
@rockos414 Right, if I worshiped science I wouldn't want anybody to question its supreme authority either.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
@AegeanKing You can question or deny it all you want. It's like saying using Logic is horrible means of solving a problem. Name another source that has a higher authority than Science in any academic setting.
Hmmm...Psychology, Sociology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, and Anthropology tell us very little about behavior. Now that's fucking hilarious.
rockos414 7 months ago
@rockos414
You are damn right.
DrErkencho 6 months ago
He talks about some experimentation as the ONLY experiments ever done for all science. This is Wrong. Science IS broader than Neuroscience. All that Sciece tells us is that Determinism is a fact. Free will is a Haux, an illusion.
DrErkencho 6 months ago
@DrErkencho
No, it doesn't. I wouldn't even consider determinism a scientific theory. Firstly, it's unfalsifiable. I mean, could you design me an experiment which proved that we live in a determinist universe? To predict such a future, you'd have to know an inconceivable amount of information about the past and present - and you'd have to have ways of quantifying it. As optimistic as I am, I don't see this as ever being a possibility.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
Secondly, the world of quantum mechanics has, so far, shown us that sub-atomic particles have a random, indetermined nature. Scientists can never precisely calculate the position and momentum of such particles, which should be more than possible if they behaved deterministically. Thus, determinism is not a fact.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
Not quite- Your statement above is flawed. Talk about "The world" of Quantum Mechs? There's no such thing. Quantum mechs is a human construction to understand a series of phenomena that can -yet- not be explained any other way AND is largely based on statistics and probability, some say even more than in solid observable facts. The randomness might very well be an illusion, but we just can't do any better at this point than Quantum physics.
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho
Oh, come on. I didn’t mean “the world of quantum mechanics” like Narnia or Middle Earth. It was a figure of speech. I actually acknowledged the theoretical, man-made aspect of QM with “so far”, implying that theories may change. The fact is, if you’re going with the scientific mainstream, sub-atomic particles do move in a somewhat random manner. So your statement about determinism is false.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
... determinism still rules the macro Cosmos and that is a demonstrable fact. The fact is we simply cannot tell what 'will be' based on the billions of posible outcomes. It's simply not possible to do with the entire universe as a probe, but CAN and has been done thousands of times at smaller scales. And even more, to your surprise Quantum physics enables determinism more than it ever denies it, determinism is routed at the core of reason for starters...
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
Figure speech or not, people think this two are separate and almost not related or part of the same reality. AND IT IS OK FOR THEM TO SEE THAT WAY. The big time fail of modern physics is we haven't been able to cope with this reality and so find ways to better explain it than -well- Quantum physics. Science is NOT a complete omniscient discipline. It is also a common misconcept to think subatomic particles "come in and out of existence" just because we have limited...
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho ...means to meassure and track their position or mommentum and their energy given the queer *world* they thrive in.Where queer is NOT random. Quantum Physics DOES NOT show any evidence in favor of randomness in the universe, even more it supports the idea of a basic state of matter where uncaused events are Impossible... Vg; a subatomic particle CANNOT and will not turn into a Giraff, nor do anything any more "random" than -well- vanish from our sight...
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho .. and that again is given our understanding and how far we san SEE today. If you think about it, it is even as it almost had to be that way AT THIS scale, in order for IT to have a total and absolute start point, where randomness is at best obsolete to put the bigger machine at work. You cannot -with todays technology- predict exactly where every little spark of lit fuel will go when you turn the key on your car, but it is a fact everything that happens from there on is
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho .. set to happen and it will in very specific ways. That's determinism. and more important, THE LOGIC behind EVERYTHING we ever discover is deterministic, even if the whole world was not we could do nothing better but to live in a deterministic scene, or resign to reason.
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho
Does that not strike you as something of a double standard? On one hand, you’re asserting that free will is an illusion because our intuition of it is contradicted by the logic – but, on the other, you’re asserting that randomness may be an illusion because the logic of it is contradicted by our intuition. To quote Prof. Brian Cox, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is “one of the most famously misunderstood and misrepresented parts of quantum theory.” [cont'd]
JustMereArt 1 month ago
The principle is derived from a fundamental equation; it is not the consequence of practical matters.
Furthermore, the laws of QM apply to everything. Theoretically, a planet could vanish in the same way that electrons do. But its mass makes this so incredibly unlikely that we don’t even consider it a possibility. So, even the macroscopic fails to be deterministic.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
Also, are you getting your definition of “random” from the Mighty Boosh? An electron doesn’t have to be able to “turn into a Giraff” to qualify as acting randomly. It just has to have more than one possible future available to it at some point. I'm simply defining "random" as "not completely determined."
JustMereArt 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
No double standard at all!! - ok let's pin it one by one -BTW nice debate ;)- Free will is an illussion because as far as we can understand it we have to come to this conclussion or resign to Physics as we know it and, well- we do not have an alternative model -for starters-, also the idea of free will being something of that nature is perfectly compatible with Occam's Razor and DOES NOT entail we cease to act as we do and will, it is a delussion that we CANNOT escape.
DrErkencho 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
About our intuition, IT is part of a Physical process as well, it is NOT a bi-product of reality that sits on any higher level. Point made, it is our intuition -thru our reasoning- that needs to shift to the correct, more complete, and more representative scheme of what's attempting to mirror. Our "intuition" is a product of evolution, and we did not evolve looking at quantum fluctuations and the sub-atomic mayhem, so it is of little use *at that level*, right now.
DrErkencho 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
Finally, you are placing the carriage before the horses. Intuition likely came first, before, logic; just as a natural evolutionary advantage, but as soon as the structures of logic took place in our brains and proved further more effective than intuition, they expanded and "took over". Most animals live by intuitive thinking, we humans DON'T, we are logical, and logic is obviously superior to basic intuition, it enables us to perceive our "fabric" and that of nature.
DrErkencho 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
No, I'm not. I know intuition came first. Actually, this is one of Tallis's arguments against the mind being a computer. The human mind judges most activity by qualia; its logical faculties are pretty small. However, a computer masters mathematics long before it 'feels' anything (if they're even able to.)
JustMereArt 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
Yeah, I know all this. We probably agree on a lot more things than you realise. I'm an atheist, determinist, UCL student - I'm just applying my empiricism very rigorously. Your arguments would be improved if you assumed more from your opponent.
Don't take any of my disagreement personally btw. It's great to be debating with somebody who clearly has a real passion for it. It's just that these conversations tend to be fuelled by a kind of academic pugnacity...
JustMereArt 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
But I was accusing you of a double standard because, in some cases, you placed logic over intuition - in others, you did the opposite.
You suggest "resigning to physics as we know it" but, to do that 100 years ago would be to disregard all of quantum mechanics as illusory. And, yeah, but Occam's Razor is starting to look more like a chainsaw. Rolling a dice twice, getting two 6s and declaring that the dice is loaded is compatible with (and favoured by) Occam's Razor.
JustMereArt 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
That's true. I rather like Sam Harris's quote that "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion." It's like being told you're in a dream; you can contemplate it and accept it - but then a freight train comes crashing through the walls and the illusion becomes true again.
I wouldn't call it a "delusion" though. "Delusion" implies something that has negative consequences.
JustMereArt 3 weeks ago
@JustMereArt ... just a piece of advice... "never" state things such as your quote "Scientist can NEVER precisely calculate... yada yada.." Science is an ongoing thing, it might very well be they ALREADY are able to do this and you don't even know about it. It seems people put their empathy in this subject and rush to conclussions, is almost as if they felt betrayed by their brains telling them "yeap, you are me, nothing more" "yeap I am matter, nothing more".
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
Experiments as such have been conceived already. At a neuroscientific level, we take a region of a brain numb it and see the results in the individual. We ARE our brains. Remove a piece of grey matter, and you might loose coordination, speech, sight, even alter your conduct, turn agressive, etc. Damage the WHOLE of the brain and you are dead. What makes people think that one is something more but just unable to express 'itself' if the brain is damaged is beyond me.
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho
But you could make the same argument for a house and its foundations. Remove some of its foundations and you’ll lose some of the house; remove all of them and the house ceases to exist. However, neither of us would for a moment argue that the house IS its foundations. I do feel that physicalism is likely to be true – but I’m still yet to see it properly explain consciousness. And until it does, I’m not going to call it a fact.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
The only reason that people DO NOT argue "the house is ITS foundations" is because People are NOT Houses. Everything else just follows.
I know you'll argue "houses don't have conciousness", "houses do not have a soul" but then consider a person in deep vegetative coma, then tell me why should we think he will regain all his faculties and knowledge intact in his *soul* when he dies? People think about their thoughts, that's the concious "illusion".
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@DrErkencho
What? No. Why would you even expect me to argue that?
My point is that, just because the functioning brain is a necessary condition for the mind, doesn't mean that it is the mind. Agreed, I think it probably is - but we need to understand how consciousness can exist before we make this conclusion.
This doesn't entail me suggesting a "soul with knowledge" or anything like that, just an un-physical aspect of a human being.
JustMereArt 1 month ago
@JustMereArt
Well.. yeah... just as "un-physical" (whatever that *really* means) as the *mind* of my laptop right now.
The fact we are far more complex and capable of "perceiving" the thinking process as it unfolds from within ourselves thru different stages DOES NOT imply an "un-physical" --- anything. As said before, it's been researched, and tested, so far all we can say is consciousness is just a *trick* of a region of our brain thinking -about- our thoughts, all the time.
DrErkencho 3 weeks ago
@DrErkencho
Well, okay, consciousness is a trick. But who is it tricking? There has to be a 'self', which is the subject of the illusion. To say otherwise is to disagree with 'Cogito Ergo Sum.'
I simply meant "un-physical" as in "unable to be explained by physics." You make a good point though; something could be un-physical by this definition because it's unable to be explained by physics yet.
JustMereArt 3 weeks ago
"I" made me do it is perfectly plausible. The brain acts independant many times, where different regions elaborate separate instructions and interpret the world or memories in well distinct AND SEPARATE regions. While one region might be well aware of what's going on , another region might be "aslept" or out, just to come concious at a later time in which it's use is more practical. The speaker seems to know better, is just so nice to keep the illusion going.
DrErkencho 6 months ago
Its a difference when you use the "words" BRAIN and MIND just like hardware and software, and just as the software in your computer ,your mind does.nt belong to you, someone designed it .and owns it !!
mate6mty 7 months ago
if "my brain made me do it " is not a reasonable argument then how is it reasonable to accept that my brain cant grasp certain concepts, or understand certain values, or cooperate on higher principles and functions? How come try as I might I can not play the dam piano? My brain won't make me do it!
Crazy80563 8 months ago
@Crazy80563 MOVIES are showing in asimple way life,s riddles watch "REVOLVER"
mate6mty 7 months ago
I would like to suggest everyone this video. He takes the scientific discoveries (that there's no free will for example) and implements them for social concern:
watch?v=nYg7oUdKtYE
imslicc 8 months ago
is the voice dubbed?
raisa714114 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genius 'schemer' Shakespeare showed us that '(free) willing' is complicated. He scanned man with poetic intuitions. Jago advocates for reason and control, but when Roderigo is away, Jago's free? will is out of control for hate of Othello. Did Shakespeare know how neurons in the brain functioned? Of course not. He had a fine 'nose' for human motives. Reading old latin literature, history of royal man and living his (unsafe) life made him word smart: HIs free will embedded commands in personae.
Contextcatcher 10 months ago
Brain: memory is crucial. Without good hardware software (sounds, language, images) is useless. Good software (a fine vision on world and self) makes hardware more effective. Nowadays we discover a lot of images about the brain: but those images can be misleading. Reaction brain of an invidual in a crowded surrounding isn't easy to scan. Fast interactions between man are decisive. It's gradual: choises are social embeded, brain quality, self consciouness and personal motives determine decisions.
Contextcatcher 10 months ago
Even if we are entirely determined by our biology or surroundings or both does innocence (no incarceration) logically follow? Shouldn't we incarcerate criminals on the premise that they are dangerous and liable to re-offend? Whether they themselves are (entirely) responsible or not, they are incremental.
Howieeeeex 10 months ago
"my brain made me do it" isn't implying that you're not one with your brain, it's saying that you cannot control your brain and thus activity or thought. People who are convinced free will is an illusion aren't condoning criminal behaviour or the release of such criminals, they're just stating a fact that our genetics predispose us to much of our behaviour- it still doesn't make it right. just cus it itsn't what we like to hear (that we are not in control) doesn't make it wrong.
mserenaful 1 year ago
Keep worming Asian girls # lushfmlk.info #
NickolasDarling 1 year ago
LOL the big bang made me do it! Good one!
chun8848 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this holidays with a Latino women rockmycity.info
kauuasdd 1 year ago
@sftw007 Still waiting for peer-reviewed sources reporting empirical evidence that back up your two claims. If you cannot find any try three other claims: "„A photon reflecting involves superposition with the electron field. So these field are coherent. The brain is a product of processes like this.” So QM (as we know it) does automatically equal the loss of determinism." "But i don't consider neurons firing and the synthesis of proteins as large scale processes....." Good hunting.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Hm, definitions do not equal empirical evidence. Still waiting for references to peer-reviewed work reporting empirical evidence. Seems to be hard. Oh, and BTW, in the meantime I own this discussion. Oh, ans since you say not much: how much is that? Please state typical de-coherence time scales for room-temperature tissue (feel free to use values derived from other living organisms).
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Yes, I know that, but I asked for empirical evidence for your bold claims (I listed two examples yesterday). Choose whatever you like and provide a reference. As simple as that.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 O.k. I went through all your comments still up. Besides the two bald claims I quoted yesterday there are 6 more (list available on request). So, the ball is officially on your side: educate me! Provide peer-reviewed articles or references of similar respectability that report EMPIRICAL evidence for any of your claims. Since they are, according to you, so commonsensical this should be a piece of cake.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Hm, in that kind you have an entangled twin (pun intended): "It stands for Coherent Wave Function Superposition. This happens (in the brain) all the time." "It is you that has to prove that the quantum behaviour of the building blocks do not effect the brain on a large scale. For example in making split second unconscious decisions." Still waiting for a peer-reviewed reference for your bold claims or at least one of them.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@timeofwonder2009 I meant "case", not "kind"
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 BTW, what do you mean by CWFS (it's not a common abbreviation)?
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Well yes you are making pretty daunting claims that run contrary to what we know about dissipative quantum systems and quantum thermodynamics. Also, emergent properties are right even if the only are 100% - 10^-23 true. But let's just outsource this: you claim that neurological systems show non-deterministic behaviour due to quantum effects. So convince me, reference at least one peer-reviewed paper (or review paper) supporting your claim with empirical evidence.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 BTW, is not a commonly used abbreviation. What does it stand for?
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 O.k., here my summary of my arguments made (before I move on to less futile exchanges): (1) Provide peer-reviewed references for your unorthodox claims. They might be right, but you need to proof them since they run counter to the established on the thermodynamics of quantum systems. (2) Explain why quantities you call approximations (that actually are emergent properties) do not explain collective behaviour. (3) False analogies (what you have delivered so far) ARE NOT explanations.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 (1) Well, they can if they ad up coherently. Bose-Einstein condensates are just one example. Superconductivity another one. (2) Exactly, and for predicting the processes within a tree we do not rely on coherent quantum states. Electron field: why does this imply that any of them are coherent???????? (3) Exactly, but a terrific one. Determinism can be derived from incoherent quantum states (-> emergent properties).
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 (1) Yes, but do the manifest? Usually not (see my argument about de-coherence). (2) You could make the same argument about a tree (complex chemical reactions). The important point though is whether these processes are sensitive to the the wave function or its absolute value. Also, most fields we are interacting with a not coherent (your photon example).
(3) Well, again, if our total wave function is the incoherent sum of the wave functions of all parts we behave very much deterministic.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 The claim I responded to was "We are statistical quantum fields moving through space."
Also, what do you mean by "sensitive to QM"?
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Of course do wave functions always ad up, but for macroscopic quantum effects to occur they need to ad up coherently, while they almost always ad up de-coherently in a moderate-temperature bath. That's an established fact. So, why would I need to proof anything? Since you are arguing against established knowledge (about de-coherence in open systems) I do not understand why I need to prove anything. You make a rather daunting claim, and such claims need to be bolstered with evidence.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Well, again, you have not provided ANY evidence for coherent wave function superposition in the brain. Just because things are small DOES NOT automatically imply that their wave function add up coherently. Rather the opposite: at the high temperature we are living at marcroscopic objects like the cell have so far only expressed decoherence. So, if you make the bold claim of coherent superposition in "hot" brains you have to provide evidence for this claim.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Again, my argument is that the real "quantum nature" of nature hardly reveals itself even on the cellular level due to strong de-coherence. So, unless someone proofs that room-temperature entanglement or non-locality establishes itself in the brain (which would be very much unexpected) it is, due to the large number of involved entities (and thus the efficiency of de-coherence) pretty much inconsequential whether the building blocks of the brain are, in essence, wave functions.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Well, we are talking about brains here, and due to the strong decoherence at high temperatures chances are that brains do not show any "weird" quantum effects, but can be described as fairly deterministic. So I am not really agonising about large- and small-scale quantum effects.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Well, why is a good approximation not good enough for determinism? Most concepts we use are good approximations, and even rather fuzzy concepts (like "bald") are useful. If you take my body, e.g., and slam it into a wall you would not detect any wave matter interference between me an the wall even if both would consist of bosons. So even if you describe this process with QM the outcome is determinism. Deterministic theory of QM: Hm, I thought the EPR correlation had set an end to this.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
@sftw007 Quantum mechanics does not automatically equal the loss of determinism on the macroscopic scale. In our world (pretty hot) it actually does not do so at all.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
A 'law of physics' is a supernatural concept just as well. A law of physics spookily acts on nature as if outside of it. The laws of physics are not physical entities themselves. Determinism? It's like saying "I believe in determinism because my brain cells just happen to be arranged that way by cause and effect and the laws of physics and whatnot." Nonsense!
whitemanmuchfoolish 1 year ago
@sftw007 I liked what Isaac Bashevis Singer said when he was asked, "Do you believe in free-will?" He replied, "I believe in free will; I have no choice."
digetic 1 year ago
@sftw007
But space is also a load of nonsense!
Ontologistics 1 year ago
How about a survey. I am interested in knowing how many of you believe in absolute free will vs how many believe in absolute determinism. So I guess thumbs up for free will and thumbs down for determinism. And I only want to deal in absolutes here. I myself believe in absolute determinism. Also responses and explanations of why you hold your belief would be very interesting. Hope you guys think this would be as interesting as I think it will be.
peace love and drugs!
TheWillIamLee87 1 year ago
All that activity in your brain IS you, most of which you have control over. The parts you have control over are your muscles, and from that, your actions. Fight or flight is instinct, the creature who is the brain, makes the decision, with its free will. Free will is a product of many deterministic options being chosen by YOU. Making you able to determine your path.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Are you a deluded compatibalist?
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
@tempemonkey2323 Since I've posted this, I've begun to rethink things. I'm inclined to believe that I have free will, ironically since I have no choice but to think I do. My position has been rethought, and I really don't know. I'm not certain, determinism or free will.
spartacandream 1 year ago
If you are not your brain, then what are you? Where is your personality stored...your kneecap?
Is it the Big Bangs FAULT? Fault is a moral judgment, causality is objective.
chefshitpiece 1 year ago
Luck is the fundamental principle of our lives. I dont want to sound arrogant, but about a year ago I proved it. SO far, nobody has beaten me. No brag, just fact.
NBTY4ever 1 year ago
@NBTY4ever I read your book! Most brilliant thing I ever heard!!!
chefshitpiece 1 year ago
This guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
trakkaton 1 year ago 5
@trakkaton do you have an argument?
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir
Tons of - but what a waste of time would that be?
trakkaton 7 months ago
@trakkaton if you don't share your argument you don't have one.
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir
That's a fallacy and I don't discuss serious topics with people that use fallacies.
trakkaton 6 months ago
@trakkaton Everyone uses fallacies especially when discussing serious topics. Telling someone else that they're being fallacious and that you never are by implication is a fallacy. Unless you provided everything you've ever said or written in your life time and no fallacies could be found then you're making an ambiguous assertion to say the least.
Tell someone they're making an argument by pigheadedness (doggedness) or an argument to the beard. That at least sounds delightful.
shizzleman8 4 months ago
@shizzleman8
What a pile of horsecrap.
1. When fallacies are used, it's not even a discussion that is going on. Fallacies define when a discussion ands and the arbitrary babble begins.
2. Your second claim is just arbitrary babble. I can't even recognize any hint of a logical structure.
3. All-or-nothing fallacy.
trakkaton 4 months ago
@trakkaton Objection, argumentative. You're also assuming facts not in evidence. Asked and answered. Calls for speculation. It's just your view when a fallacy is used by someone else. I proved that an argument not presented doesn't mean one doesn't exists. You obviously do have "tons" of argumentative arguments but you're not proving anything. Study the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing you or lookatme has is admissible because you're both prejudiced to your own "horsecrap". Peace.
shizzleman8 4 months ago
@shizzleman8
I didn't start a discussion. Nor did I want to. When will that enter your head?
This guy is a complete waste of time. He isn't even worth a debunking. That's why I don't debunk him.
Am I - solely because I exist - damned to debunk every idiot on this planet that managed to get in front of a cam to babble about things he doesn't even vaguely understand?
NO!
So - PLEASE - let go of me, as my time is precious, and this BULLCRAP is exactely what I wanted to avoid.
And 5 people agree.
trakkaton 4 months ago
@trakkaton Actually 131 people like what he's saying compared to 16 who don't. I didn't see that comment with the 5 thumbs up until just now. I come from 750 years of Jewish Bankers and that put us into the Law and Religion. My time is worth more than a thousand of yours, but whatever blows your hair back.
btw & fyi Fora t.v. is pretty non-prejudicial in their presentations and this guy Tallis has a litany of degrees behind his name!
shizzleman8 4 months ago
@shizzleman8
You're still not paying attention.
Those 131 are as unworthy to consume my time as the one idiot in front of the cam.
And no, I'm not in a popularity contest. I merely talked about the 5 people.
And no, you don't know shit about me, so stop making comparisons.
750 years of Jewish Bankers is a fucking disgusting backround. Nauseating.
And no, a litany of degrees don't mean anything, academia is a mafia gang just like any other one.
And that's IT!
trakkaton 4 months ago
@trakkaton How is what you're saying anything other than verbal abuse? Is reality created at your behest? Because you say something is true that makes it true? Then everyone could just be right all the time by saying they were. That doesn't even fly here on youtube. All your comments now are just self deprecating.
The only way I wouldn't know everything about you is if you were lying intentionally. What difference would that make?
shizzleman8 4 months ago
@trakkaton You were right @lookatmepleasesir made a horrible fallacy, "you don't have an argument because you're not sharing it' is affirming the consequent, argument by dismissal, pigheadedness and argument to the beard. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. ( ;8~D)
I think this spurious form of argumentation is begging the question and stolen concept but I doubt you can pin me down on the validity of those. Confusing correlation and causation, who knows for sure?
shizzleman8 4 months ago
lol first 2 minutes: allmost every question is stupid/nonesense xD
DerEchteSenf 1 year ago
Tune into nature~EARTH under a deep consciousness with a clear mind and unfold the layers that make up the modern human being. Acceptance will lead to understanding. The core is source.
Famoussas1 1 year ago
Free Will is a load of nonsense. Cause and effect applies to everything, even us. Nothing happens without a cause. The only good point this guy makes is that determinism and cause and effect applies to both the criminal and the judge.
johndoe43210 1 year ago 14
@johndoe43210 Free will has nothing to do with cause and effect. Free will is not a binary, all-or-nothing issue. It involves factors like consciousness, intention, choice, intelligence, self-control, and a host of others. Do some more reading on it.
versus79 1 year ago
@versus79 So what causes factors like consciousness, intention, choice, intelligence, self-control, and those other things, hmm? Let me give you a hint: Leptons, quarks, and the 4 fundamental forces of nature. If you claim otherwise, you are claiming that free will exists outside the laws of physics, which is a pretty outrageous claim (unless of course you subscribe to pseudoscience and superstition). Humans are made of the same materials as the non-living, so why should our atoms be special?
johndoe43210 1 year ago 18
@johndoe43210 Sounds like you might have a good theory, where's your evidence?
spartacandream 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrJackonion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johndoe43210 Why is the claim that free will exists outside the laws of physics an outrageous one? consiousness, intention etc. are not "factors" that are "caused", they are infinitely varied and deeply mysterious phenomena that Physics (a man made construct) manfully tries - but ultimately fails - to explain. To believe otherwise strikes me as presumptious and complacent. These mysteries are hinted at by great art. Knowing they can NOT be "solved" is one of the best things about being alive.
MrJackonion 11 months ago
@johndoe43210 The claim otherwise is not in the least outrageous to anyone who has reflected on the methodological limitations of physics. One can only be an adherent of the naturalist faith by closing the mind to such reflection. By fixing on the known object in the subject-object relation of knowing, physics removes all data on subjectivity, and to know is to be a subject. Thus, physics has absolutely nothing to say on questions related to our being subjects and agents. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis "Thus, physics has absolutely nothing to say on questions related to our being subjects and agents. Peace, DP"
Just FYI, it's not physics that answers these questions, it's information theory and information theory has absolutely none of the restrictions you're talking about. Not that they matter in the sense you're talking about either. Particles do not know things. Information is an emergent property of systems of particles when they form symbolic representations of parts of nature.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro I know information theory. What do you think it says about the mind being physical? I did not claim particles know anything. I said humans are knowing subjects. No, information is not an emergent property. That is magical thinking naturalists use when they have no case. Information theory says Information is the reduction of logical possibility. Physics assumes logic, so logic is prior to physics & physics is not about information per se. Representations don't work without minds.
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis Knowledge, in turn, essentially means that the symbolic representations are ordered in useful ways. Subjective experience is the same thing. Although the entirety of human consciousness is in no way understood we know perfectly well what kind of mechanisms the brain uses to accomplish what it does and many brain structures are understood on the circuit level. This includes such things as *knowledge* about position of an organism etc.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro A textbook is a symbolic representation ordered in a useful way. It is not actual knowledge, it is a source of knowledge. It is only actual knowledge when a person reads and understands it. Yes, we know a lot about how the brain processes data. We have no theory for the brain generating awareness. That it can is a 400 year old naturalist faith statement. I prefer experiential data to your dogmas. Behavioral response does not imply awareness. So, stick to the facts, but your faith.
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis It is stored in similar ways as all other kinds of information humans deal with - arrangements of matter. Appealing to magic, in addition to this explanation, like you want to do. Is like insisting a spoon needs additional explanation for its ability to "feed" people, because there is no inherent "feeding" property in molecules.
So your bs about there being some naturalist faith involved here is simply that - bs. Fact is you have to reject Occam's razor, and therefore science.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro I reject your appeal to emergent magic. Stick to facts. Awareness is an experiential fact. That it is abstracted away when natural science fixes on the object to the exclusion of the subject is a fact. Feeding is not in the power of a spoon alone. It requires a person using it. So, very bad analogy. Similarly, data in the brain is intelligible, but not understood without an additional factor. Beliefs without proof, such as you have, qualify as faith statements. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@Gnomefro a spoon needs a person to use it in order to feed
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@johndoe43210 whats your point?
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@johndoe43210 somehow I think he would know more about this topic than you.
leigh2490 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot. I assume he knows lots about these tools that measure the brain, and says that they don't make the case. Which is fine, you don't need the tools, you just need to know how atoms work. We do, they behave virtually deterministically as far as is known, and what is not known is probably deterministic as well.
While this guy has some empiricist toys, he just makes the same appeals to mystery and free will of the gaps nonsense.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@johndoe43210
How can you prove that, as you write, 'Nothing happens without a cause'?
Hume pointed out that such proof is impossible; Kant, that it is a condition for experience.
But how do you prove this?
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@johndoe43210 I agree with you 90% although I can't bring myself to call it complete nonsense. I think we do have an element of 'free will' (far less then we would like to think) but even if we didn't, free will is such a socially useful construct that we would be unwise to cast it off entirely.
1883ross 1 year ago
@1883ross he's not saying there is free will, he's saying that it's pointless to approach justice through a "neuro-deterministic" perspective because then nothing is anyones fault but destiny's. These are hard questions but to say that nothing is anyones fault because we are chemistry is stupid. Then the victim isn't dead, he's just chemistry, and his family isn't sad, that's just chemistry.
We label certain things wrong, but if you do them anyway, then you go to jail.
Happypast 1 year ago
@johndoe43210 So are you for this "neuro-determinism"? What does the greater philosophical scheme of things have to do with a criminal. Everything is indeed an indirect product of the big bang. But we are small humans of the planet earth. Our justice is the concern of our own society.
I think every point he has is good, he's showing that it's pointless to approach this from that philosophical perspective. "Don't kill", our brains can understand that command. If it fails it has failed.
Happypast 1 year ago
@johndoe43210 everything happens by a cauce? so..if we follow laws of determinism to big bang what happens with that theory? before big bang there was a small . and what is the cauce of this little . there is no cauce for this small . that means dterminism is false.
TheFightingflash 11 months ago
@johndoe43210 Yes cause and effect applies to everything. The problem is that as Hume showed, prior events have no necessary relation to later events, and so deterministic causality does not apply to everything. What applies throughout the cosmos is the concurrent causality of laws of nature, and the experimental data shows human intention can modify those laws. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis "and the experimental data shows human intention can modify those laws. Peace, DP"
Puhlease. That statement is like simply stating that "prayer works". There's zero scientific support for such claims. if you want to put your faith in new age bullshit, that's your problem of course, but don't pretend you can actually back up such claims.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro You equate experimental data with your naturalist faith? There is a difference. Experiments can be & have been replicated. Statistical analysis shows an 18 standard deviation effect for intentions modifying physical processes. Google "meta-analysis of psychokinesis" or write me for refs. The studies have been done and reviewed by hard scientists including statistics and engineering professors at the University of California and Princeton. So cut the BS & look at the data. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
yeah after we get the tards into the mechanical era we can break it to them that the magic and miracle of this life is that it is mechanical and at some point will stop making sense to us upon inspection.
I rap about this stuff
R0CKFACE 1 year ago
this is all mechanistic... truth of the matter is, we ARE responsible for the choices we make, we are accountable for the decisions we elect.The rest is all academic nonsense to feed PHDS.
I earn a million dollars a year managing a business that could have failed a dozen times BUT I chose to make it happen and it did... Stop wasting your time on the big picture cause you will never know. In the interim work on success cause THAT is tangible. You either eat spam of tender loin...
uqutaq 1 year ago
the question of free will is really a question of whether God exists.. atheist can by no rational means claim that he has free will
dinkolino2 1 year ago
@dinkolino2
Atheists may claim they have free will or they may not.
Deterministic materialism implies atheism but atheism does not imply deterministic materialism.
Godless1859 1 year ago
@Godless1859 it implies either determinism or some form of chance. if an atheist would advocate, in the light of current science, that there is free will, he would just be intelectually dishonest (or insufficiently smart). There is no more proof of ree will than there is for the existance of God
dinkolino2 1 year ago
An atheist does not belive that gods exists. It has nothing to do with determinism. I don't belive that any god exist because the versions I've been aquainted to are too stupid. And this has naothing to do with determinism.
Godless1859 1 year ago
@Godless1859 so you dont except science?
dinkolino2 1 year ago
@dinkolino2
accepting science or not has nothing to do with atheism. Most buddhits are atheists. And when you speak about accepting science you must know that we all do accept science, but not all of science. It is true that most atheists are naturalistic determinists, as myself, but, again, if free will exists, you cans still be an atheist, and if not you can stil be a theist.
Godless1859 1 year ago
@Godless1859 i thought that it is science that proved God doesnt exist? or at least isnt able to prove one, so therefor there can not be one.. Maintaining that there is a free will, however, contradicts pretty much all of todays science.. I do realize that to understand this concept one needs considerable mental faculties, and am therefor not surprised by you mindless comments, but really have no interest in your education, so ypu will have to continue on your own.
dinkolino2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dinkolino2
accepting science or not has nothing to do with atheism. Most buddhits are atheists. And when you speak about accepting science you must know that we all do accept science, but not all of science. It is true that most atheists are naturalistic determinists, as myself, but, again, if free will exists, you cans still be an atheist, and if not you can stil be a theist.
Godless1859 1 year ago
First.
Explain how H2O is a completely separate and incompatible molecule depending which 6 billion+ 'puddles" it happens to be tested in.
1st "SELF" needs solidification ie. WHAT is really pulling the levers of the force pulling the levers of the force pulling the levers. (we need pre-BB data to reightfully discuss the idea of "self".
2nd Choice is next.
3rd Freewill. NOW we can begin into so-called "freewill".
Conclusion.
"Freewill" is 3/7ths of an inclusive machine.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
3:20 WHAT"S A SO-CALLED "ME" ???
We need this answer first.
And the answer implies us as mechanical entities.
Yet this possible, possibly not, "illusion of choice and freewill are BLOODY powerful.
I have multiple theses for BOTH sides.
Freewill? Unclear!
Not even as a question of extent. No.
It's not even on the freeken radar one way or the other.
Let me know if you guys can name anything else that didn't take form until Sapien sentience within anything anywhere.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss What does free will look like? One can only experience it as the actor, but its effects can be observed from the outside. So what does free will look like from the outside? Unpredictability. If something is undetermined then predicting its future state should be difficult in degree proportional to its indeterminency. A great coincidence then that people are the most unpredictable of animals and that the electricity that powers brains is the most unpredictable of physical phenomena
madscirat 1 year ago
Questioning "what does free will look like"
assumes that free will is already factual
That's the very question we haven't determined. It's 2 fold.
a) what would we define free will as if we wasnted to come up with a definition that suits the word, the idea and the reality of the situation? (Reality of Situation is the missing link here and the reason I prosecute the affirmative
b) is the answer to "a" feesible, or even a peripheral/parallel idea/model within rational, logical reach?
D33veeoss 1 year ago
I very much liked your response by the way madscirat, I'm just not sure if the razor sharp double-edgedness was intentional or not... ? It seems you argue both sides.
Also, that's only assuming your argument of what "free-will" would "look like".
(A speculation upon a speculation)
Which is myabe all we can hope for.
Maybe that's as close as we'll get.
I'm not convinced of that yet.
I'm not even convinced that science can pin down a "you".
H2O in 2 separate puddles is still H2O
D33veeoss 1 year ago
There might not even be a vessel there to effect "freewill". CERTAINLY not "choice", as is common theorem, and DEFINITELY not "responsibility" as is common theorem.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Often in science we assume the existence of something we are unsure of. Then we set out to prove this assumption wrong.
Since we see unpredictability in exactly the areas predicted by the assumption of free will (ie. mammals and birds as well as the physical constituents of their nervous systems) this sways me toward thinking FW exists
Science can't prove free will of course. I think it hints at it and nothing more. Using science to prove or disprove such things absolutely is a fallacy
madscirat 1 year ago
In science, I do not assume something. I postulate a model of a reality of "if". Then I begin to weed out where the "if-then" process does and does not have integrity, and wherein peripherals and paralells are predicted. Then I test for them. Yay or nay decides whether I submit for peer review and from there it is or is not published.
We do not assume, no. Unclear, apparently, possibbly, plausible, in concert, has precedent, has ingredients to remain likely, likely, etc.
Assume? No.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
"...Since we see unpredictability in exactly the areas predicted by the assumption of free will..."
You haven't defined freewill yet.
General populace neither.
Choice is the litmus paper to freewill.
Choice is still up for grabs.
I can argue both with verocity. I understand both sides with passion.
Both angles are valid in and of their own merit whilst dependent upon external impact and influence. ie. the drive/information causing laws of physics/space/time etc to be as they are.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
The other portal into progressing our models of so-called 'freewill' are mechanical. EEG/MRI and so on, just mapping what your brain doesn when why where and how when what stimulation is applied when where and how.
THIS is the area where in "choice" becomes fickle.
The simple argument asserting that choice is not really being determined by so-called"us", but rather it is a mechanical process no different than the consequence of putting water in the freezer.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Wel, the people arguing this angle realize that "whoa, although the conscious is definately immune to prosecution of responsibility, "YOU" the so-called "individiual" are NOT.
They've, you've, postulated that H2O's molecular disposition is different as in:
(A vs1) (Z vs 24) (Apple vs Worm)
depending upon which 6 billion+ puddles you test.
Furthermore, that these molecules are rearrage in and of their own merit.
Hmmmm.
All that for choice.
Then we'll answer freewill.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
What I'm saying simply:
To dissect freewill we need:
so-called 'self' to be defined in a way as is conducive to:
a) our coming into
b) current state
c) practical application
d) practical functions
e) the extent of 'where mechnical reflex stops and "we" begin.'
e) in specific, a-d mainly to qualify 'e' against prosecution; therein, solidifying a concrete, ample, rationally practical coherence between actual fact, idea and understanding of the word.
That's "you".
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Now choice.
I think I really wrapped it up the best I've ever heard in my last tell:
"Show me when the mechanical cause and consequeunce. Action and reflex stopped. Show me with an EEG or MRI or with anything, metaphysical model or demonstration, whatever, just show me when and where in your psyche meachincal reaction stopped."
This POTENT "illusion?" is all you have isn't it?
Know what? I'm convinced by it too.
So the best place to counter that battery is here:
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Mechanicall, practically, so-called "CHOICE" is perhaps of little significance to material observation.
However, it cannot go without citin the caterpillar, cacoon and butterfly as an example.
Consider the caterpillar as simple matter and energy in this enviroment of space and time etc.
Consider 14 billion years as the cacoon.
Consider the human mind, the psyche ****MECHANICAL OR NOT!!!****
When you mix this together...information within LOP etc. you get BOTH in effect!
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Matter + Change = Sentient Life **Coincedentally** a vessel for this exact mandate of psyche and experience...
... So on the practical level, choice is a non starter frankly, but within the metaphysical, within the sum of the factors, ALL factors, history, physics, you name it, when you get the sum of this metaphysical gigabit of INFORMATION, THEN, yes, "choice" my be plausible. But STILL "self" is elusive, so it's NOT CLEAR.
Knowing roughly, and knowing exactly are failry big differences.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
As apparent as the outline of this pattern is, if it can't be SHOWN, or at least further evidenced with successful prediction, then, truly......We have NO precedent to think that "we" have "choice". From what "we" know, it's not mechanically plausible. The pieces aren't there. They lie within LOP etc. Laws of universe, it's fabric basically. (Information?)
You're as natural as a rock rolling downhill, only different, not better.
It takes blind assumption to claim otherwise.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Research is lacking.
But there are absolutes we can pounce on.
Our minds and psyches, the supposed "choice makers" would have to be the first and only thing that we can name that can defeat the laws of physics, fate, and happenstance. aka time and space.
Furthermore, this would be evident within the bioloigal progression of rock to sunflower face, to skin, to healing sking to eyeballs apparently all to better serve progressing efficient means of survival
D33veeoss 1 year ago
Here is the monkey wrench.
If it's all practical and all being driven by this survival mechanism (or whatever)...
..then...BEAUTY IN NATURE makes no sense.
There is no practical function to predict this within evolution. You pretty much can't name me anything about human behavior/mind that I can't trace you back to a rock from
But to look into a nice scenery of trees and calm water, babbluing brook, sound, etc, THAT SOULDNT BE THERE
Everything else, fine, but not beauty in nature
D33veeoss 1 year ago
For a professed "polymath" with a supposed profound understanding of neuroscience, Tallis is arguing from a very limited and I might say dated perspective. He's not saying much, but he rambles for 7 minutes - it's almost as if he's trying to obfuscate the argument to confound people. Check out Dr. Daniel G. Amen, a true authority on the brain and brain imaging. Brain scans can tell a great deal about a person's behavioural patterns and can inform proper prophylactic treatment regimens.
bobolith 1 year ago
I think free will, understood as a process of the mind, is not something supernatural but It's a product of the complexity of our brains and bodies. So, it follows from thermodynamic and biological laws, as everything in nature, therefore it does have it's own rules and responds to internal mechanics that at least to some degree are somewhat "rigid" (in the sense of predictable). I see nothing strange about finding out it is not exactly what the classical idea behind the term denotes.
tuktukpsh 1 year ago
Don't trust anyone who tries to talk you out of free will. They're obviously not well intended. That is all.
sphericalpyramid 1 year ago
This is a very primitive discussion, aboute free will but without an exact definition of free will. A robot with computer may have a free will too - i labyrint he may select way using generator of random numbers. No determinismus, sorry.
Existence of animal feelings is more mysterious that free will, because i cant imagine that in computer, they are more than only informations from receptors (pain, taste, etc..)
JJaroslavv 2 years ago
We neither have free choice nor free will,. We may have free thought which for some people is debatable and can easily be reduced to just focus
wordauras 2 years ago
wheres youre evidence for that ?
JJaroslavv 2 years ago
and i can choose to be the uk king rite now, rite????
coz my free will decide to choose that, think again.....
joyah999 2 years ago
"blind to this truth"
is it not a choice to recognize that choice is an illusion?
citricsystemz 2 years ago
freewill might be an illusion, but no more than the grass outside appearing to be green. The fact that everything is made of the same thing(Atoms) disproves freewill. i.e; Will i have an apple or an orange for breakfast today?? NEITHER! you will have ATOMS! electrical impulses give us this illusion of choice.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
atoms works accidental, there is no reason if is an electron right or left, there are only probabilities
so if is the brain able to "throw cubes" you have free will
for example you are in labyrint and you must make a decision of you go right or left, so you are able to make 50/50 decision in this moment. If you return the situation back in time 100x, you would choose 50x the right way and 50x left way. Random number generator is a free will.
JJaroslavv 2 years ago
@JJaroslavv
"Random number generator is a free will. "
I like that.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
choice is caused by external influences,but those are just electrical impulses; for every action there is an equal reaction, but if human consciousness can chose the time and space in which we react (indeed we must at the very least breath) then how is freewill not existent (however limited)?????
citricsystemz 2 years ago
I will have to take it that you think of yourself as quite academic and logical with your electrical impulses theory,lol. So then I just have to sit here in utter amazement when guys like you come out with ludicrous, 1st grader, oxymoronical statements, such as, "How is freewill not in existance (however limited)?????
Pray tell me how a freewill can be LIMITED!? I mean the mind just bobbles at the utter foolishness of this false doctrine and the crap people come up with to try and justify it
penguinlover51 2 years ago
@penguinlover51
First I don't consider myself a logical academic, because logical thinking sometimes just has its limits,and I don't have a Masters degree in every subject my views touch on
Freewill isn't free at all; it comes at the cost of being trapped in the 3rd dimension.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
@theawakener7 i don't drive, why do you ask?
citricsystemz 2 years ago
the choices we make influence how we die. How does choice not equate to free will?
Probability is not free will, but the choice to interpret it is. Unless one relies solely on instinct in which case there is no choices
riddle me this.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
Calling wisdom foolish is just like being anti-intellectual, and attempting to smear logic to make it unuseful - all are cult tactics designed not as information sharing or gathering techniques, but as deliberate attempts to undermine the clear thinking and logic that is toxic to argments like yours which rely on muddling ideas, mixing them with emotion, then coming out with a conclusion that has no basis - hence, it has to be finally defended as being right in God's mind. All fake approaches.
Cactusroute 2 years ago