@TheTheKRIT I jst read the whole series of comments you posted, I must say thank you, my father and I are going through a phase of talking about these mattters and this is going to be an awesome exercise in "Epistemic Rationality: Your doing it wrong"
@TheTheKRIT Figure out what you are talking about and then come back to me
Your argument seems to based on a lack of understanding of how biology works. I see what you are attempting to say but what you are doing is using simple intuitive reasoning and then extrapolating it out into areas where the same intuitive reasoning breaks down.
I tend to agree with the views of V.S Ramachandran and Sam Harris, both of whom are neuro scientists, maybe check them out bro, I found them interesting
She's already primed for disengaged behavior and is operating on a meta-cognitive level relative her intentions. It's an inside version of planning, no shit you're going to get these results. They're built into the experiment. There are other studies which are far more relevant, but still lack the rigor needed to wholeheartedly embrace these types of conclusions. All libets work tells us is that we have the capacity to step back as mere observers, leaving the planning work to the other parts.
Hell, I wish these things didn't degenerate into a moronic ideological conflict.
Here is a thought: If you think consciousness helps in survival, you are saying consciousness can influence your neurophysiology. If you are saying it doesn't, why did natural selection favor its development.
@faro0485 "Before I even type... the software chooses to chose which key for me" - You are not independant of your brain, its not like u push button and brain then goes and computes, your consciencouss is an emergent property of the brain.
"PZ Myers claims to know about embryology... " - He is an embroyologist?
"does freewill exist?" - Depends how you define it, people write books on this topic. Its much easier/faster to ask a difficult question than it is to answer it
@shandcunt Your consciousness is seperate from the brain. if your brain is making choices for you then that means your conscious mind is not controlling the brain meaning you are just along for the ride. Also another problem with these tests is this, how can we be sure we even have a brain? I know that sounds COMPLETELY insane and stupid but here me out. Quantum physics has been dwelling on the fact that every bit of matter is really just open space and energy, so the question now is
@TheTheKRIT If what there saying is true and there is no such thing as matter then how can we be sure we have a body or brain? An example is this you see a tree and feel a tree because your mind picks up on its frequencies, it senses the tree. But in reality that tree does not exist out there it exists inside your mind the reason i say this is because when you dwell down into matter everything is comprised of atoms which are really just made of empty space and energy this means
@TheTheKRIT there is no solid matter in reality, we are creating it. We know that our brain is made up of non "living" particles just like a rock so if the same basic energy has created a rock and your brain how are you conscious and the rock isnt? Lets keep in mind that in order to see a brain and how it works you have to erceive it with your own brain. So how do we actually know its there? We just have to assume but think about this way. Quantum physics
@TheTheKRIT is pointing in the direction that everything is created by consciousness and without it everything would be a superposition of endless possibilities. This is the same for your body. There is something perceiving your body and just like the problem of free will how do you know that the brain is actually exists if its just a perception of itself? If consciousness creates reality then the brain does not create consciousness. This is my example right here, our brain is like
@TheTheKRIT a radio its receiving all these waves and producing a sound right? thats exactly what our brain is doing, its creating sense out of frequencies of information. But when you smash the radio do you here any sound? No so you say oh my radio broke, in a sense its dead. but in reality the waves of information that were there for the radio to recieve are not destroyed there is just no way to transfer them into something WE can hear. when someones brain shuts down they are also
@TheTheKRIT broken, you see them as dead and you are unable to commnicate with them but its only because you are still stuck in your brain ( your radio) So you cant see the information that is coming into your mind you are seeing the bi product of what it creates. that is what death is.
@faro0485 Not only that but you are making the classic god of the gaps argument where you have found something that our species doesnt fully understand and inserting paranormal causation
Not only that but you seem to be using the old mussie trick of "(Insert sceintific Theory+Point to vague verse) Its all here in my book man" - see "hamza vs PZ Myers" if it was all in the book, why wasnt it mention until after it was discovered
Im not having a go, but what you are doing is very dishonest
@shandcunt Yet your species are temporal lobe insensitives who fail to understand anything. Yes I've seen that already, PZ Myers claims to know about embryology... but it's obvious he knows little and his irreligious bias forced him to say things that are false.
@faro0485 I think you got the wrong end of the stick their buddy.
What the video highlights is that there is brain activity around making a decision before we are consciencously aware of it.
So its still originating in the brain, its still brain activity.
Think of it like a computer, when you press the power button electricity starts running through various circuts and even running software before you see the screen change - Our senses drive it
People see free will v. determinism in a too all or nothing way. What about the nature of consciousness itself? It only exists because neurons connect in the right way. Doesn't it make sense then that we are not really individuals. We are collectives of neurons, and the neurons exercise their will, and the conscious has "free will" in the same way our government does.
Here's an analogy. An astute observer gathers up data about how people feel in society, about what lobbyists are going to Washington, about campaign contributions, and then predicts what bills Congress is going to pass for the next year.
Would that mean all government decisions we're fated to happen? Or would that be a confirmation that all government decisions are the result of combined human decisions?
1.Having free will is not being "totally free of physical reality." That is a straw man. 2.There is no contradiction in what we know. There is a contradiction between the naturalist faith and reality. 3.This experiment has the same problem noted in my video #27: It does not measure "a willed action." Free will entered earlier in the conscious decision to participate. Disposing our mind to participate is willing. Acting randomly is not willing. Both alternatives are unmotivated. Peace, DP
CCSVI Clinic Receives Joint IRB Approval for Aftercare Protocol Study.
The joint application between Noble Hospital and CCSVI Clinic has been approved through the IEC Institutional Review Board (IRB) that will allow researchers to use patient data to study their new extended and enhanced aftercare treatment protocol. Please Call 888-419-6855 to know more about participating in the study. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information. Email apply -at- ccsviclinic. ca
As far as I'm concerned this doesn't trouble me at all. I recognize that I am a physical being in this universe governed by the laws of it. My brain is essentially a complex organic computer. Most people wish to think they have some transcendental mind, but I prefer to define my identity by my personality and by the decisions I make given some circumstances.
@Setzer What you prefer has little to do with what the data show. The idea that mind is just a machine goes back at least to Thomas Hobbs, but no one has ever built a physical model of consciousness. So, it is a faith position. It is easy to show brain states signify by a 3 term relation, while ideas signify by a 2 term relation, so that ideas are not brain states. See my video # 25 Mind: Ideas vs. Brain States. The video should not trouble you as it does not deal with free will. Peace, DP
@dfpolis I watched your video, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment. I was merely trying to say that we think via our brain which is a physical substance subject to the laws of physics. A complex process involving chemistry and electrical impulses which we do not fully understand is responsible for producing all of our thoughts. Thus the idea of transcendental freedom is not only an illusion; it's an idea that doesn't even makes sense if you believe in reality.
@Setzer We know the brain is a data processing organ, but the mind does more. We understand what the output signifies, & brain states don't signify like thoughts. In fact, they can't actually signify at all absent thought. Brain activity supports the content of ideas, but ideas are awareness of content. #23 shows the method of physics abstracts from subjectivity, so physics has nothing to say on mind, the center of subjectivity. So, it can't tell us about being a willing subject. Peace, DP
@dfpolis I'm still not convinced that the brain is nothing more than an extremely advanced biological computer. I don't see it as a problem that computers have yet to replicate human thought because computers rely on humans to create them (a feat which we've been capable of doing for only the last few decades), while life has had billions of years to create a brain. I don't think that your classification of "signs" proves that the way computers process data is intrinsically different.
@Setzer The brain is a computer. It also has endocrine functions. AI is irrelevant. I think it can do much more. But, it isn't operating in the same theater as intentionality. Computer operations are exhaustively described by finite state machine theory. It says nothing on subjectivity. Emergent awareness is magical thinking. We KNOW current methodology abstracts away subjectivity. Subject data is abstracted away, so not there to model. We don't process differently. We signify differently.
@dfpolis Okay...I'm not sure if I'm just being dense or if you're not being clear, but I'm not really understanding what you mean. What do you mean by "signify" and how do we do it differently from computers? Photons from smoke hit eye, eye relays message to the brain, brain does calculation [if smoke, then fire]. Still very confused about the terminology and framework you've constructed for discussing consciousness.
@Setzer Computer and brain states signify because they mean things. States signify what they mean. For a computer or brain state actually signify requires a human interpreter. So, there are 3 terms: state, interpreter, what is meant. When ideas signify there are only 2 terms: Thinker and what is meant. I go over this in #24 and #25. So, brain and computer states don't work like ideas. Hence they are not ideas. The framework is contents are processed by the brain, but only known via awareness.
@dfpolis "We KNOW current methodology abstracts away subjectivity."
Argument by capitalization. Sweet. Just because you can't imagine how first person experience can arise doesn't mean other people don't. The virtual machine concept is more than sufficient to do this. Specifically, a virtual machine that processes beliefs. All this means is that subjective experience is not a "real" phenomena, but rather a construction. But we know that already from high level psychology, so it's no issue.
@Gnomefro Capitalization replaces italics. We know, not believe. You dispute it? You attack a straw man. I don't argue from imagining, but from the data available to natural science. Is the data abstracted away? It is not "real" that we are knowing subjects? If you know nothing, why should I take you seriously? To process propositions that express belief to humans, does not require a machine to be aware it is, or that the positions express anything to it. Peace, DP
@dfpolis "But, it isn't operating in the same theater as intentionality. Computer operations are exhaustively described by finite state machine theory. It says nothing on subjectivity."
That's begging the question. It's only true if in fact intentionality isn't reducible to finite state theory, which we in fact do not know is true at all. I know Searle's pet delusion is that his Chinese room fallacy shows this. You could fill football stadiums with researchers claiming he is wrong though.
@Gnomefro How do I beg the question? What does finite state machine theory say on subjectivity? Nada. Does it exhaustively describe computer processing? Yes. These are facts independent of assuming intentionality is separate. If you think not, give a counter example. You think magically, for no known reason, awareness will just happen. It is equally rational to think the right Tantric diagram will give me the power to teleport. Claims are cheap. Only facts count. You have no data on awareness.
@dfpolis A really simple argument from biology would seem to indicate that Searle simply must be mistaken, because the basic processing element, the neuron, performs a deterministic function and therefore is reducible to a DFA. Followed by no observations of the laws of physics being broken on a regular basis in brains due to some transcendental "intentionality processor" mucking about with matter to produce action, and you're left with a pretty clear research direction.
@Gnomefro Deal with what I say, not Searle. You ignore the fact that biology abstracts away data on being a subject. The data that is left says nothing on subjectivity. Why should it? If I look only at a wall's color, I have no data on its structure. Like you, I will argue that rigidity is an emergent property of color. If you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. Abstracting data away limits the scope of your model. Address this key point, not Searle. Peace, DP
@dfpolis If you were to claim that no such interaction would have to be measurable, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and useless. It goes further than that, however, as there would then be a real question if computers might be conscious, because brain processing most definitely is reducible to a DFA, so it's not at all clear why transcendental intentionality wouldn't be part of computers(and rocks) as well.
This is the problem with introducing religious ideas - they don't explain.
@Gnomefro You love red herring: religion, Searle. Deal with MY argument, which is based on experience & data. I haven't said intent has no measurable consequences, but we don't need them to know physics abstracts away the observing subject - an experiential fact, not a hypothesis. Is there a real question that the right Tantric diagram may let me teleport? Rigidity emerges from color? You throw out the relevant data, & say look, there is no data. Duh? Why is that? Peace, DP
free will is real folks we take it for granted will is a symphony of micro will's strung togather. this is a course focus view looking at mountains of decision that add up to actions of infitesimal variability any one of the thousands of micro wills change the whole process to a diffrent outcome procede or not porcede. life gives you plenty of chances. to say we don't know better is a lie. and you need to ask yourself why is my ass in the air and a blind fold over my eyes. We have a soul.
bad people and people of power want to make the general public think that we are not in control of anything so when they get caught doing evil they can use this as an excuse, this whole experiment and hypothesis is therefore jaded and wrong even speculate. Who ever is paying for this testing should be watched and scrutinized carefully. this is a back door attack on our freedom, duh. Smart people are becoming a minority and should be protected, we should not be subjected to idiot laws.
@1Ryon this is about understanding better why bad people do what they do. It is about banishing the ideas of individualistic choices that determine whether or not we are "bad" and are the result of something completely our own and recognizing that we are part of a great whole, that our decisions are part of a process which has been in the works for all of time. It is about empathizing with the fact that we are not committed to forever being our mistakes.
we are capable of much faster actions we choose not to because we are acting out a part in the world around us. if you notice most animals in our world respond that much faster than we do primarily because we already killed off the ones that were dumb and slow it was a need. Why, girls think its icky so bang just a whole bunch of me and you babe. we use our memory and knowledge for protection. We work off preknowledge most the time and that makes our reaction time for reality sloppy and slow.
The experiment sucks, science is clueless when it comes to the mind and the brain.If there is no freewill, then we are not guilty of anythng we do. The more science tries to convince ppl that they are machines, the more ppl will become aware of this and the more evil they will do. The whole judicial system would have to change if ppl start believing that they are machines.
@cmpresents no we're still guilty. It just isn't ONLY our fault.. An individual can still justly suffer consequences for their actions.. Picture 2 marbles.. If you were to flick one marble into another marble or a wall or whatever they would bounce off each other.. It's not themarblethatyouflicked's fault that it crashed into another marble but it still has to suffer the consequences of its action. So, even though we could say a person murders just because of their brain they still go to jail..
@DrLsw i wouldn't saw this experiment is flawed so much as that the conclusions he draws from it's findings don't eliminate all arguement from the other side.
@Avian98X That's not the correct way to look at it. You're seeing it very funny and you're question doesn't make sense. How would any action ever made by any human not their own decision irregardless of whether you control your brain or your brain controls you?? This video isn't saying that we don't make our own decisions, its just saying that the old fashioned idea of freewill isn't correct. You should look up Daniel Dennet on the compatability of freewill and determinism..
@SHIBBYiPANDA from your definitions, you could say that a computer should be responsible for its decisions....but we all know that the programmer is the one who is really responsible......no?
@dartplayer170 yes but that doesn't change the fact that you're going to beat the shit out of your computer for continuously giving you the blue screen of death.. If you try to beat up the programmer that won't go well for you..
or......... If you're more level headed you're going to take your computer in for maintenance.. and probably try to not the programmer.. although.......
@dartplayer170 haha i just realized u have some slideshows about freewill... I'll check em out, but feel free to get back to me before that cuz i have tests to prepare for.. R u already talking to a bunch of other people about this?
@SHIBBYiPANDA It's an interest subject. An important one also if we are ever to succeed in the field of artificial intelligence. I mean really, how can someone be considered intelligent if all they are is a better stimulus response machine?
@dartplayer170 ya, i don't know why u can't call something intelligent if all they are is a better stimulus response machine, that seems a little picky..
@SHIBBYiPANDA We currently can make stimulus response machines...robots. But we still don't know how to make them learn. This shows that we have a gap in our understanding of how the brain works. Yes, it is a stimulus response machine....but maybe its more.
@dartplayer170 actually there are definetely have robots that can learn. their limits of what they can learn about and do with that are very limited right now but we definetely have programs and robots that learn.
@SHIBBYiPANDA play on words my friend. If they can learn to solve puzzles without being programmed anything relevant o the solution then I'll accept that as learning, otherwise they are just mimicking. I've seen a video on the latest learning robot. I was not impressed really.
@SHIBBYiPANDA sure it is. But it also involves extrapolation beyond what yoiu were shown to something new but similar. Robots cannot extrpolate unless specifically programmed to do so.
@SHIBBYiPANDA if they could without being specifically programmed to do so, that would be truly impressive. I believe that some random element is necessary in order to achieve intelligent learning.
@dartplayer170 some random element? u mean like a trial and error type thing?
and "if they could without being specifically programmed to do so, that would be truly impressive." ur semi-sarcastic about that right? im not trying to be rude i'm just making sure i'm understanding you.. cuz even if they were able to do that it would only be because we've programmed them to be able to develop new interpretation or lines of programing to their existing programming.. possibly like humans?
@SHIBBYiPANDA exactly, you're re-iterating exactly what my point is. and yes trial and error like in mutations in evolution. Mostly errors that get ignored but sometimes stumble onto somethig better. I think that the way humans think and learn is analogous to the process of evolution.
@dartplayer170 ya id def agree to that. but doesn't that still make us like robots? do u believe in evolution? id say that if evolution is true than we are exactly like complex biological robots because if evolution is true then everything we do would be part of a mechanical process.
I guess my better question is just this; "Do you believe everything happens by a mechanical process"
That is a better question for what I'm wondering, if u reply at all please answer that question
@SHIBBYiPANDA No. I don't see that the evidence supports it. Only at the macroscopic level. At atomic level and smaller there is little evidence for mechanical universe. Physics models become increasing governed by stochaistic models as you go smaller. Yes, evolution is suported by a mountain of evidence. I don't see why you equate evolution with a mechanical world though. can you explain this?
@dartplayer170 i just asked if u believed in evolution because usually the people who are so insistant upon the existance of free will do so because of their religious background..
it just seems like its impossible for things to work not mechanically. Can give me an example? I guess I need to study my quantum mechanics to make sure.. I was pretty sure that things still worked mechanically at the atomic level but just worked in an order that couldn't be determined within a probability limit..
@SHIBBYiPANDA Free Will doesn't seem compatible with an all powerfull all knowing deity. There isn't even an agreed upon interpretation of QM. QM is merely a knowledge of how to apply a set of mathematical rules. The interpretation of a physical model is the mechanics. For example, F=-GMm/r^2 is just math to solve a gravitational calculation. The mecanism is the interpretation that each mass creates a field in 3 dimensional space and the field applies a force on any mass in the field.
@dartplayer170 I'm not sure why you are even asking for an example. You stated earlier your knowledge that Einstein debated with Bohr over the incompleteness of QM because God does not play dice. ie: QM does not contain any mechanisms. Bohr contended that mechanisms were not necesary. Science still records Bohr as the victor in this debate.
@dartplayer170 ya well i'm no expert on quantum mechanics or anything for that matter except maybe Christian Theology :) And I'm sorry my definitions might be a little off. I was thinking of mechanics as a causal sequence. I know Einstein debated Bohr about that but it seems like it could be said that even though a certain molecule behaved semi-random it behaved semi-random within a givin probability, so not completely randomly. & if thats the case i don't see where science has room for freewill
@SHIBBYiPANDA There's nothing wrong with your definition of mechanics but causality is a word which loses meaning in QM. I think we differ on our defiitions of determinism and randomness however. I do not understand the meaning of half deterministic or half random. I could understand an argument against the existance of true randomness but like I stated previously, if the brain has some random element then I can see how free will could exist. Free Will definitely cannot be purely random.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Science has room for free will if at the fundamental level there is a switch (electrical impulse) which tips the balance between two possible actions. QM would suggest there is a probability that either action would be the outcome. Of course decoherence on the macro scale will have its effect but at the extreme fundamental level QM might effect free will. If you accept current QM.
@Huttate1 of course i accept current QM but it has no implications for freewill. How is random probability comparable to a free choice?? Any philosophical advocate of "libertarian" free will is ignoring the causality necessary for any ordered sequence of events. If it isn't ordered, it's chaos. So you have to choose between this loosey goosey "Freewill" thing or Determinism.. Chaos or Order.. That's it.. If you're advocating compatibalism that's ok but it is really just determinism redefined..
@SHIBBYiPANDA Of course it has implications. If a decision comes down to an electrical impulse - the transfer or not of an electron - this IS determined by probability in the very widely accepted model of QM. There may be many millions of such transfers which result in a final decision or impulse but at some point in each transfer probability plays its part. If you do not accept that then you are ripping up the physics textbook.
@Huttate1 to figure it out you really have to ask yourself "what is a choice" and "how is a choice made" and "what is a mind"??
Your mind is your intellectual calculating mechanism, short and simple, and a choice is its reaction to the internal and external stimuli it receives..
You don't choose your mind, you don't choose the internal and external stimuli that it will react with. No libertarian freewill.
God is as much responsible for every action you've ever committed as you are.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Accept that there is no such thing as god outside superstition and mythology. Cogito ergo sum says that I exist in some real form. Nothing suggests there is a wizard in the clouds.
But really I think it comes down to just understanding that;
determinism = order
a precise, causal, formulaic like order..
If QM tells us anything it is that there is a bit of randomness to the universe at its base, or that the base condition of the universe is primarily chaotic which makes sense..
btw, although current QM has some interesting implications I don't think any of us should take them as set in stone.. It's a relatively new field..
@SHIBBYiPANDA I completely agree that QM is not the end of it. It is a conceit of scientists that the current received wisdom is always 'fact'. I have my own thoughts on quantum theory and they would remove the wishy washy aspects of theoretical physics. I do not have anything concrete but I suspect there is less complexity than we imagine and itis simply out inability to observe that leaves us looking at smoke and mirrors.
@Huttate1 i say God in the liberal spinoza sense, also applicable to a referral to the sum total natural forces in the universe.. Ok, I never said I didn't accept quantum randomness.. The Freewill that we are really arguing about here is the "Libertarian" style Freewill.. No one is contesting the simple idea that the will of the mind is free to potentially make any choice.. What is being discussed here is whether or not it is determined beforehand by preexisting conditions.. r u a combatibalist?
@SHIBBYiPANDA No I'm a capricorn! I prefer to believe in chaos theory. That the mind [brain] is totally free to make decisions is some what tested by such as alien hand syndrome. I would however suggest that - excluding 'abnormal' brains (and I include those that suffer chemical deficiency of some sort) - individuals can alter their perspective of reality and thus their default reactions to stimuli. I have worked with convicts who achieved complete about turns in their outlook.
@Huttate1 ya but all decisions are made as reactions to internal and external stimuli, which you do not choose, with a mind's intellect you also do not choose. Haha, I'm not talking about zodiac symbols unless u are joking with me I'm just completely dumbfounded by that response lol.. No one is arguing the brain is free to make decisions but what I'm talking about is the fact that all decisions are deterministic, causally inspired by prior events.. If anything AHS implies we don't have freewill
@Huttate1 I am extremely nice.. One of the nicest guys you'll probably talk to in your entire life so u won't get an insult out of me.. But I am being 100% honest when I say you deserve it at this point,, and say that u are kind of waaayyy out of the loop with the discussion and terminology in this discussion.. When one says that there is no Freewill, one is not saying that the brain or mind is limited or forced to make a decision.. We are saying those decisions are pre-determined thru causality
@SHIBBYiPANDA The zodiac is always a joke. I have only been seriously thinking about this for the last four years. You would need to explain pre-determination more carefully. A person can change their reaction to a recurring stimulus but a person can also react in ways that even they can find no explanation for. To convince me of causality [or absolute free will] you would have to explain to me aberrant behaviour in otherwise sane and level headed individuals.
@Huttate1 well.. It's quite simply really, the human race as a group has quite a degree of stupidity to itself.. Although we are very intelligent we don't have all knowledge of the universe so sometimes we do silly, crazy, and stupid things.. Sometimes they are more stupid than other times.. Sometimes we do things we've done before in different ways because of changing stimuli.. It happens.. I really don't know why this is even an issue..
@Huttate1 People's responses to reacurring external stimuli change because their internal stimuli is different. Sometimes people can't explain things they do because they act rashly or stupidly or they just are stupid..
The case is this;
Determinism = Order
Libertarian Freewill = Random Chaos (and not the kind of random chaos that builds things like in chaos theory, real no pattern chaos)
Libertarian Freewill is a shortsighted joke.. everything has a reason it happens..
@SHIBBYiPANDA 'Stupid' is not an answer. It implies a wrong choice not no choice. I think there is more to do with suppression of higher brain functions which then reduce adversity to risk and results in more animalistic / natural / unmediated action.
@Huttate1 but seriously tho u should realize libertarian freewill is nonsensical.. events have to follow and be based on prior events if any kind of sense is going to be made out of them
@SHIBBYiPANDA This is placing theory above data. We have experiences of freedom, which are not just feelings, but a well-defined class of event. To say on the basis of theory that data is unreal is counter to the scientific mind-set, which most always place data above our priori prejudices.. Peace, DP
@Huttate1 Haha good joke tho, I was like, seriously wtf..
A huge part of grasping the aspects of determinism is having a sense of humor towards your view of the universe.. You have to be willing to tolerate the ideas that humans are generally pretty stupid, all things considered.. Or at least acknowledge the fact that we have a HUGE capacity for stupidity..
To help you grasp the last concept, I would point out that determinism does not state that human reactions are not governed by external>>>
@Huttate1 also remember that determinism is NOT stating that our will is bound in any way from potentially choosing anything or forced to choose anything (actually you could say it is in a way but I hope you follow what I'm trying to convey), but is determined by prior events.
@Huttate1 I don't mean to be rude so I'm really sorry if I come off that way.. I've spent a little over a year researching and debating this topic and I got into it because I started formulating ideas on my own that inadvertently related deeply to this topic.. Plus, if your profile is correct, I am almost a decade older than you.. :)
I guess I should clarify that I am not suggesting we do not have Freewill of any kind.
@Huttate1 I guess I should clarify that I am not suggesting we do not have Freewill of any kind. But usually when people say "Freewill" they are referring to what is known as "Libertarian Freewill" which is not existent. What I am arguing, is that we have "Deterministic Freewill", which is basically the same thing as Compatibalism..
If you are unfamiliar with this topic and you find it intreging, research "Determinism" on google or look up a guy named Daniel Dennet on youtube.. He's the master
@dartplayer170 because that would mean things are still deterministic, just at the quantum level they are deterministic within a given probability..
Also, would you say that you can't make a mechanical model for freewill? because if you couldn't wouldn't that mean your freewill would be random? which would mean you would at chaotically all the time?
i know alot happens inbetween our minds receiving information, making a decision, and acting but it definetely seems to be formulaic like
@SHIBBYiPANDA like QM, free will would have elements that are deterministic and could be defined mechanically but it would also contain probabilistic elements that cannot be completely defined by mechanisms. I know the outcome would not be chaotic. A process would be 'chaotic' if the entire process is random but my argument is that free will contains only elements that are random. This is why my other post claims that free will cannot be totally random. es, I agree with the last statement.
@dartplayer170 i don't know everything so I'm not sure that it would do this but I can't understand any other way that it would work and I don't understand how a limited degree or even a complete degree of randomness in quantum mechanics allows for the existance of whatever it is that gives us the traditional idea of free will.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Hey I don't know the answer nor does anyone else. It's just my opinion of how free will could be explained. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't think it can be proven nor disproven. But I do think that philosophically it makes more sense to believe in free will than determinism.
@dartplayer170 but i have to say it seems to me right now that the traditional idea of freewill sounds chaotic at heart.. If I have any kind of free will I want the kind that does not decide to just up and murder someone for no reason.. It seems to me that the kind of freewill your talking about is someone that causes just absolute chaos, yes? how can something be ordered but not mechanical?
@dartplayer170 although....... if you complained enough the programmer probably would get sent back for maintenance.. back to school or whatever..
Also, if you want to get technical computers dont make decisions they make reactions.. And yes, by my definitions, everything a human does is as much a reaction as it is an action..
Also it might not be a fault with either the computer or the programmer if you computer acts up it could also be the environment you have it in.... Could be to hot.
@dartplayer170 also, I should add, so as to not be to defensive about my statements, that I am completely agnostic about what I'm saying right now.. It could be totally wrong..
But the fact is I can't think of any way that anything can work except by mechanically which is how I'm interpretting the human brain/mind/whatever to work, so thats what i'm talking to you about.. There could be another way but I can't imagine, currently, what that would be..
@SHIBBYiPANDA There is no known mechanism for atomic decay. Therefore, either this is an example of something that has no mechanism or the mechanism is beyond our current understanding of mechanics. Since we cannot find this mechanism, it is logical to accept the fact that possibly the universe is not governed completely by mechanics.
@dartplayer170 r u sure there isn't a known mechanism for atomic decay? I understand that at the quantum level there's talk about there being a degree of randomness to things but Eistein didn't think that and I've heard there are new theories trying to explain that..
and i do agree that it's logical to accept the that its POSSIBLE the universe is not governed by complete mechanics.. But that doesn't exactly make sense..
@SHIBBYiPANDA There are 'mechanisms' in QED but they're stochaistic and unobservable. FYI, Einstein debated for decades with Bohr about quantum randomness but failed to ever prove his point.
@dartplayer170 ya well can u give me any kind of idea of the mental process as you percieve it, acting without any influence on it besides the environment its in?
i cant imagine the mind working in any other way besides; 1. i see peanut 2. the eyes tell my brain i see peanut 3. the brain hearing from the eyes that theres a peanut nearby 4. the brains begins and performs a computating process of whether it wants the peanut of not 5. i eat the peanut or i do not eat the peanut
@SHIBBYiPANDA No I can't but your example is an oversimplification of reality. Not all decisions are clearly digital. Even your peanut example can depend on hundreds or thousands of variables such as 1. am I hungry? 2.how long was the peanut sitting there? 3.does the peanut belong to someone else? 4.could I find something better to eat? In the end, the person might sit there and ponder for several minutes over yes or no
@dartplayer170 I just dont understand how something can not work mechanically.. Even if its magic or something.. That magic STILL has to work mechanically.... Unless it's chaotic at heart...
It has to work causally.. Even if we run out of explanations and say "because it just is that way(like for the question why does God exist?)" that would have to become a law or constant from which we get truth
so r u saying it's possible that the universe could be unordered at its core? id understand that
@Avian98X and yes i do think it would be sad if every action taken by any human on this world wasn't his very own decision but the only way that could even be possible is if they were getting mind controlled by something else.. Which is obviously not the case..
@Avian98X the real issue here is whether you control your brain or your brain controls you.. In which case "you" would be your brain... I see no sadness or contradiction in this..
@SHIBBYiPANDA YOu are you, and you are the one responsible, whether you call it your brain or your mind, or whatever you want to call it, "YOU" are the one responsible. So what is your point. Are you saying that there is no "YOU" "I", what is it that you are saying. Please explain.
These 'decisions' are simple subconsciously motivated impulses based on nothing of importance to the decider. Dartplayer is right; the lack of simultaneity means nothing here. This is a typical example of the inadequacy of scientific approaches to metaphysical questions.
Our ape brains just aren't wired to see the world the way it really is, what use is the brain if it doesn't give us the illusion that we have an option or two?
That is true. That is one way to explain the increase of activity, though I'm curious what controls were set in place, if any, to make sure that they can rule out anything like that.
I think that free will goes in acordance to how much we can choose alone. Judged by the concious in all its levels. For example, we have no access to stop organ to work, and we will only have that access if we have full councious of what it can do to us, witch probally lead us do not stop it from working.
can somebody tell me if i have a freewill or not because i am kind of confused because i have a paper due in twoo monthes and i have no idea of freewill ,i believe that i have a freewill unless nothing makes sense because i cant hold anyone responsible for their action
Can free will include the will to act or not to act that is different than what you physically do? I have Tourettes syndrome and I try to will my self to stop moving or making the noises with tics, and even when I am successful my tics become worse later. Is the definition of free will the willingness or the ability to carry out you will freely? If I chose to be perfect and fail, do I still have the will to chose an impossible option, but not the ability to achieve perfection?
If you're really interested in this sort of thing, read Alan Watts (1915-1971). Or, check out his videos on Youtube. It all comes down to the question, does man have a permanent self, or ego? According to Buddah, the self consists of "aggregates of energy," nothing more.
what about inner monologue and self reflection, clearly this doesn't cover that. and theres a lot of holes in the logic here. of course its going to build before the action happens because you are consciously getting ready to perfornm the action. the clock was also spinning which meant that the person would be timing their action which would denote forthought, hence why the computer reads the activity before the action happens. this is someones agenda bullshit...
Say you are walking along the road and a thought just seems to pop into your head from nowhere.
I mean you don't go about thinking, what will I think about now, the thoughts are just there.
Say a van passes you in the street, you catch sight of the driver for a split second, and he reminds you of someone you knew 20 yrs ago. How can you NOT think about it. Then that thought will lead to another train of thought and so on. Are we in control here?
@alemappurple I was thinking about the same thing. What, to my understanding, seems to happen when you think, is that basic responses seem to be organizing into more complex pattersn. Let me explain. When you are born, you have a certain wiring in your brain, your programmed instincts. When you learn new info, it's about labeling and attaching a response to a stimulus. The more of these labels and attachments you have, the more complex your line of thought will be.
So, in terms of random thoughts popping into your head. There has to be some kind of stimulus to trigger the response of a specific thought that popped into your head, consciously or unconsciously. Eg. you are on a street, and you see someone wearing a yellow shirt, that you might dismiss consciously but subconsciously it might trigger a response tied to a lemon, and then to sour, and sugar, and all of a sudden you remember that time when you were a kid and learned how to make lemonade.
So, that's a basic example. Take that and put more complex stimuli (taste, smell, sensation, even other thoughts that you already have) and you can see how it could be possible that a complete random thought was just a response to some random stimulus that you encountered. Now this is my own theory, I haven't examined if this could be true, I'm not an expert on the brain, but I have a few years behind me studying the brain in university and med school.
What's curious about this video to me is that they didn't mention the pre-motor cortex, that starts to work before the motor cortex. It basically organizes the movements, in response to external and internal stimuli, that are then initiated by the motor cortex. So maybe that activity that preceeds the actual intention to move was the pre-motor cortex organizing the movement.
SHFUTS-- Whether we do or don't have such "mental reflexes," what is of interest is that the inhibition of the motor act follows a conscious decision to inhibit the act. Whether the mechanism of inhibition involves subconscious processes or not, it does not occur randomly but following a decision to cancel the act. That said, as I stated in a comment above, unequivocal interpretations of these experiments are problematic. IMO science cannot (at present) settle the free will debate.
BTW, How do you know that all unconscious processes ("the subconscious") are deterministic? Given our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, it is entirely conceivable that it is not quite so simple. Incidentally, Indeterminism would not in itself entail free will. Indeed, many argue that free will relies on deterministic processes inasmuch as goal-oriented acts require predictable sequences to be enacted.
Also, by pre-motor activity (above) I refer to the readiness potential.
The process of overriding was conscious. Subjects were asked to form the intention to push a button and then to quickly override the "choice." The pre-motor potential (RP) appeared, but the act was not carried out. Libet spoke of "veto powers."
No, the brain is not distinct from the person in my view. No dualism here. I only meant that after the pre-motor potential appeared in the brain, subjects were able to override the prompt.
Marsh8472-- One complication for your interpretation (no free will whatsoever) is the occurrence of "veto power" or "free won't" in Libet's experiments (and it's replications). Given certain time frames, the readiness potential could be suppressed by the subject. So even after the brain determines to push the button, the test subject can "override" the prompt/command. A strict determinist might not expect to see that. This finding seems to make unequivocal interpretations somewhat problematic.
But if the whole process of overriding a decision is made in the subconscious before we are consciously aware of it, it would not change anything. Given the subconscious being mechanical and deterministic, we would not be consciously aware of it since these are things in the subconscious.
Also you speak of the brain and the person as though they are two different things when you say "when the brain determines to push the button" when it's the brain that controls our consciousness, correct?
@philnoll Pretty much that the person still had the urge to do it, before they are aware of it. But if you do that without indicating anything, then you've just got data that someone can manipulate. That's a bad experiment.
I see no serious flaws in the experiments interpretation. The only flaw that can be obvious is a disagreement with the conclusion based on one's desire to have freewill. The conclusion is a reasonable one and the results of the experiment are exactly what you'd expect to see if freewill did not exist.
some great inforamtion here thanks
khijasmith 5 days ago
love the video man
willbirful 1 week ago
interesting video and very informative
shellybirdy 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
TheSpikeystuff 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT I jst read the whole series of comments you posted, I must say thank you, my father and I are going through a phase of talking about these mattters and this is going to be an awesome exercise in "Epistemic Rationality: Your doing it wrong"
shandcunt 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT Figure out what you are talking about and then come back to me
Your argument seems to based on a lack of understanding of how biology works. I see what you are attempting to say but what you are doing is using simple intuitive reasoning and then extrapolating it out into areas where the same intuitive reasoning breaks down.
I tend to agree with the views of V.S Ramachandran and Sam Harris, both of whom are neuro scientists, maybe check them out bro, I found them interesting
shandcunt 1 week ago
i enjoyed this vid
simysimss 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
thegeffc 1 week ago
She's already primed for disengaged behavior and is operating on a meta-cognitive level relative her intentions. It's an inside version of planning, no shit you're going to get these results. They're built into the experiment. There are other studies which are far more relevant, but still lack the rigor needed to wholeheartedly embrace these types of conclusions. All libets work tells us is that we have the capacity to step back as mere observers, leaving the planning work to the other parts.
MakeloBenning 3 weeks ago
Hell, I wish these things didn't degenerate into a moronic ideological conflict.
Here is a thought: If you think consciousness helps in survival, you are saying consciousness can influence your neurophysiology. If you are saying it doesn't, why did natural selection favor its development.
ThisOneIsTaken 3 months ago
@faro0485 "Before I even type... the software chooses to chose which key for me" - You are not independant of your brain, its not like u push button and brain then goes and computes, your consciencouss is an emergent property of the brain.
"PZ Myers claims to know about embryology... " - He is an embroyologist?
"does freewill exist?" - Depends how you define it, people write books on this topic. Its much easier/faster to ask a difficult question than it is to answer it
shandcunt 3 months ago
@shandcunt Your consciousness is seperate from the brain. if your brain is making choices for you then that means your conscious mind is not controlling the brain meaning you are just along for the ride. Also another problem with these tests is this, how can we be sure we even have a brain? I know that sounds COMPLETELY insane and stupid but here me out. Quantum physics has been dwelling on the fact that every bit of matter is really just open space and energy, so the question now is
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT If what there saying is true and there is no such thing as matter then how can we be sure we have a body or brain? An example is this you see a tree and feel a tree because your mind picks up on its frequencies, it senses the tree. But in reality that tree does not exist out there it exists inside your mind the reason i say this is because when you dwell down into matter everything is comprised of atoms which are really just made of empty space and energy this means
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT there is no solid matter in reality, we are creating it. We know that our brain is made up of non "living" particles just like a rock so if the same basic energy has created a rock and your brain how are you conscious and the rock isnt? Lets keep in mind that in order to see a brain and how it works you have to erceive it with your own brain. So how do we actually know its there? We just have to assume but think about this way. Quantum physics
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT is pointing in the direction that everything is created by consciousness and without it everything would be a superposition of endless possibilities. This is the same for your body. There is something perceiving your body and just like the problem of free will how do you know that the brain is actually exists if its just a perception of itself? If consciousness creates reality then the brain does not create consciousness. This is my example right here, our brain is like
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT a radio its receiving all these waves and producing a sound right? thats exactly what our brain is doing, its creating sense out of frequencies of information. But when you smash the radio do you here any sound? No so you say oh my radio broke, in a sense its dead. but in reality the waves of information that were there for the radio to recieve are not destroyed there is just no way to transfer them into something WE can hear. when someones brain shuts down they are also
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@TheTheKRIT broken, you see them as dead and you are unable to commnicate with them but its only because you are still stuck in your brain ( your radio) So you cant see the information that is coming into your mind you are seeing the bi product of what it creates. that is what death is.
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
@faro0485 Not only that but you are making the classic god of the gaps argument where you have found something that our species doesnt fully understand and inserting paranormal causation
Not only that but you seem to be using the old mussie trick of "(Insert sceintific Theory+Point to vague verse) Its all here in my book man" - see "hamza vs PZ Myers" if it was all in the book, why wasnt it mention until after it was discovered
Im not having a go, but what you are doing is very dishonest
shandcunt 4 months ago
@shandcunt Yet your species are temporal lobe insensitives who fail to understand anything. Yes I've seen that already, PZ Myers claims to know about embryology... but it's obvious he knows little and his irreligious bias forced him to say things that are false.
Question, does freewill exist?
faro0485 3 months ago
@faro0485 I think you got the wrong end of the stick their buddy.
What the video highlights is that there is brain activity around making a decision before we are consciencously aware of it.
So its still originating in the brain, its still brain activity.
Think of it like a computer, when you press the power button electricity starts running through various circuts and even running software before you see the screen change - Our senses drive it
shandcunt 4 months ago
@shandcunt And I look at your user name and note that you're an atheist. How predictable.
Let me give you a more appropriate computer example. Before I even type... the software chooses to chose which key for me.
This is why we refer to electromagnetic theories of consciousness and lay the smack down on the beliefs of materialists.
faro0485 3 months ago
but she was waiting for an 'urge' we have a choice to resist these 'urges'
cyncharity 5 months ago
Lol.. Yeah.. Because decisions are always made instantly and no thinking happens beforehand.. xD
/sarcasm
Such a retarded conclusion..
Antilli 5 months ago
@Antilli Actually it suggests that the origin of decisions are not the brain, perhaps something else.
Quran 54:49.
faro0485 4 months ago
People see free will v. determinism in a too all or nothing way. What about the nature of consciousness itself? It only exists because neurons connect in the right way. Doesn't it make sense then that we are not really individuals. We are collectives of neurons, and the neurons exercise their will, and the conscious has "free will" in the same way our government does.
sicktoaster 9 months ago
@sicktoaster Well said.
henryporter101 5 months ago
Here's an analogy. An astute observer gathers up data about how people feel in society, about what lobbyists are going to Washington, about campaign contributions, and then predicts what bills Congress is going to pass for the next year.
Would that mean all government decisions we're fated to happen? Or would that be a confirmation that all government decisions are the result of combined human decisions?
sicktoaster 9 months ago
1.Having free will is not being "totally free of physical reality." That is a straw man. 2.There is no contradiction in what we know. There is a contradiction between the naturalist faith and reality. 3.This experiment has the same problem noted in my video #27: It does not measure "a willed action." Free will entered earlier in the conscious decision to participate. Disposing our mind to participate is willing. Acting randomly is not willing. Both alternatives are unmotivated. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CCSVI Clinic Receives Joint IRB Approval for Aftercare Protocol Study.
The joint application between Noble Hospital and CCSVI Clinic has been approved through the IEC Institutional Review Board (IRB) that will allow researchers to use patient data to study their new extended and enhanced aftercare treatment protocol. Please Call 888-419-6855 to know more about participating in the study. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information. Email apply -at- ccsviclinic. ca
Gregmills007 10 months ago
As far as I'm concerned this doesn't trouble me at all. I recognize that I am a physical being in this universe governed by the laws of it. My brain is essentially a complex organic computer. Most people wish to think they have some transcendental mind, but I prefer to define my identity by my personality and by the decisions I make given some circumstances.
Setzer 11 months ago
@Setzer What you prefer has little to do with what the data show. The idea that mind is just a machine goes back at least to Thomas Hobbs, but no one has ever built a physical model of consciousness. So, it is a faith position. It is easy to show brain states signify by a 3 term relation, while ideas signify by a 2 term relation, so that ideas are not brain states. See my video # 25 Mind: Ideas vs. Brain States. The video should not trouble you as it does not deal with free will. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis I watched your video, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment. I was merely trying to say that we think via our brain which is a physical substance subject to the laws of physics. A complex process involving chemistry and electrical impulses which we do not fully understand is responsible for producing all of our thoughts. Thus the idea of transcendental freedom is not only an illusion; it's an idea that doesn't even makes sense if you believe in reality.
Setzer 10 months ago
@Setzer We know the brain is a data processing organ, but the mind does more. We understand what the output signifies, & brain states don't signify like thoughts. In fact, they can't actually signify at all absent thought. Brain activity supports the content of ideas, but ideas are awareness of content. #23 shows the method of physics abstracts from subjectivity, so physics has nothing to say on mind, the center of subjectivity. So, it can't tell us about being a willing subject. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis I'm still not convinced that the brain is nothing more than an extremely advanced biological computer. I don't see it as a problem that computers have yet to replicate human thought because computers rely on humans to create them (a feat which we've been capable of doing for only the last few decades), while life has had billions of years to create a brain. I don't think that your classification of "signs" proves that the way computers process data is intrinsically different.
Setzer 10 months ago
@Setzer The brain is a computer. It also has endocrine functions. AI is irrelevant. I think it can do much more. But, it isn't operating in the same theater as intentionality. Computer operations are exhaustively described by finite state machine theory. It says nothing on subjectivity. Emergent awareness is magical thinking. We KNOW current methodology abstracts away subjectivity. Subject data is abstracted away, so not there to model. We don't process differently. We signify differently.
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis Okay...I'm not sure if I'm just being dense or if you're not being clear, but I'm not really understanding what you mean. What do you mean by "signify" and how do we do it differently from computers? Photons from smoke hit eye, eye relays message to the brain, brain does calculation [if smoke, then fire]. Still very confused about the terminology and framework you've constructed for discussing consciousness.
Setzer 10 months ago
@Setzer Computer and brain states signify because they mean things. States signify what they mean. For a computer or brain state actually signify requires a human interpreter. So, there are 3 terms: state, interpreter, what is meant. When ideas signify there are only 2 terms: Thinker and what is meant. I go over this in #24 and #25. So, brain and computer states don't work like ideas. Hence they are not ideas. The framework is contents are processed by the brain, but only known via awareness.
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis "We KNOW current methodology abstracts away subjectivity."
Argument by capitalization. Sweet. Just because you can't imagine how first person experience can arise doesn't mean other people don't. The virtual machine concept is more than sufficient to do this. Specifically, a virtual machine that processes beliefs. All this means is that subjective experience is not a "real" phenomena, but rather a construction. But we know that already from high level psychology, so it's no issue.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Capitalization replaces italics. We know, not believe. You dispute it? You attack a straw man. I don't argue from imagining, but from the data available to natural science. Is the data abstracted away? It is not "real" that we are knowing subjects? If you know nothing, why should I take you seriously? To process propositions that express belief to humans, does not require a machine to be aware it is, or that the positions express anything to it. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis "But, it isn't operating in the same theater as intentionality. Computer operations are exhaustively described by finite state machine theory. It says nothing on subjectivity."
That's begging the question. It's only true if in fact intentionality isn't reducible to finite state theory, which we in fact do not know is true at all. I know Searle's pet delusion is that his Chinese room fallacy shows this. You could fill football stadiums with researchers claiming he is wrong though.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro How do I beg the question? What does finite state machine theory say on subjectivity? Nada. Does it exhaustively describe computer processing? Yes. These are facts independent of assuming intentionality is separate. If you think not, give a counter example. You think magically, for no known reason, awareness will just happen. It is equally rational to think the right Tantric diagram will give me the power to teleport. Claims are cheap. Only facts count. You have no data on awareness.
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis A really simple argument from biology would seem to indicate that Searle simply must be mistaken, because the basic processing element, the neuron, performs a deterministic function and therefore is reducible to a DFA. Followed by no observations of the laws of physics being broken on a regular basis in brains due to some transcendental "intentionality processor" mucking about with matter to produce action, and you're left with a pretty clear research direction.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Deal with what I say, not Searle. You ignore the fact that biology abstracts away data on being a subject. The data that is left says nothing on subjectivity. Why should it? If I look only at a wall's color, I have no data on its structure. Like you, I will argue that rigidity is an emergent property of color. If you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. Abstracting data away limits the scope of your model. Address this key point, not Searle. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis If you were to claim that no such interaction would have to be measurable, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and useless. It goes further than that, however, as there would then be a real question if computers might be conscious, because brain processing most definitely is reducible to a DFA, so it's not at all clear why transcendental intentionality wouldn't be part of computers(and rocks) as well.
This is the problem with introducing religious ideas - they don't explain.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro You love red herring: religion, Searle. Deal with MY argument, which is based on experience & data. I haven't said intent has no measurable consequences, but we don't need them to know physics abstracts away the observing subject - an experiential fact, not a hypothesis. Is there a real question that the right Tantric diagram may let me teleport? Rigidity emerges from color? You throw out the relevant data, & say look, there is no data. Duh? Why is that? Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
free will is real folks we take it for granted will is a symphony of micro will's strung togather. this is a course focus view looking at mountains of decision that add up to actions of infitesimal variability any one of the thousands of micro wills change the whole process to a diffrent outcome procede or not porcede. life gives you plenty of chances. to say we don't know better is a lie. and you need to ask yourself why is my ass in the air and a blind fold over my eyes. We have a soul.
1Ryon 1 year ago
bad people and people of power want to make the general public think that we are not in control of anything so when they get caught doing evil they can use this as an excuse, this whole experiment and hypothesis is therefore jaded and wrong even speculate. Who ever is paying for this testing should be watched and scrutinized carefully. this is a back door attack on our freedom, duh. Smart people are becoming a minority and should be protected, we should not be subjected to idiot laws.
1Ryon 1 year ago
@1Ryon no, that's not what this is about..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@1Ryon this is about understanding better why bad people do what they do. It is about banishing the ideas of individualistic choices that determine whether or not we are "bad" and are the result of something completely our own and recognizing that we are part of a great whole, that our decisions are part of a process which has been in the works for all of time. It is about empathizing with the fact that we are not committed to forever being our mistakes.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
we are capable of much faster actions we choose not to because we are acting out a part in the world around us. if you notice most animals in our world respond that much faster than we do primarily because we already killed off the ones that were dumb and slow it was a need. Why, girls think its icky so bang just a whole bunch of me and you babe. we use our memory and knowledge for protection. We work off preknowledge most the time and that makes our reaction time for reality sloppy and slow.
1Ryon 1 year ago
its a fucking stupid experiment by dumbass scientists who think they're on to something
Da1337ed 1 year ago
The experiment sucks, science is clueless when it comes to the mind and the brain.If there is no freewill, then we are not guilty of anythng we do. The more science tries to convince ppl that they are machines, the more ppl will become aware of this and the more evil they will do. The whole judicial system would have to change if ppl start believing that they are machines.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents no we're still guilty. It just isn't ONLY our fault.. An individual can still justly suffer consequences for their actions.. Picture 2 marbles.. If you were to flick one marble into another marble or a wall or whatever they would bounce off each other.. It's not themarblethatyouflicked's fault that it crashed into another marble but it still has to suffer the consequences of its action. So, even though we could say a person murders just because of their brain they still go to jail..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Free will is exactly what it is, it's free of blame, you can't blame it on something else. We are responsible for what we think.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents how can we be responsible for what we think? Isn't that like saying "A banana is a banana because it is a banana"?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
this experiment is flawed.
DrLsw 1 year ago
@DrLsw it seems like it proved what it was intending to prove.. What did it fail at?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@DrLsw i wouldn't saw this experiment is flawed so much as that the conclusions he draws from it's findings don't eliminate all arguement from the other side.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
I swear this is so fucking sad.
Avian98X 1 year ago
@Avian98X whats so sad about it?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
So you wouldn't find it sad if every action ever taken by any human on this world wasn't his very own decision..?
Avian98X 1 year ago
@Avian98X That's not the correct way to look at it. You're seeing it very funny and you're question doesn't make sense. How would any action ever made by any human not their own decision irregardless of whether you control your brain or your brain controls you?? This video isn't saying that we don't make our own decisions, its just saying that the old fashioned idea of freewill isn't correct. You should look up Daniel Dennet on the compatability of freewill and determinism..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
Actually you could also see it like every action ever taken was supposed to happen.
For example, i tell you to pick either 'A' or 'B'.
If you'd pick 'B' now, it would mean that it was impossible for you to pick 'A', and vice versa, which kinda makes us a little like robots.
Avian98X 1 year ago
@Avian98X yes, it makes us exactly like robots.. I dont see this as a potentially sad thing though.. How is it sad?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA from your definitions, you could say that a computer should be responsible for its decisions....but we all know that the programmer is the one who is really responsible......no?
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 yes but that doesn't change the fact that you're going to beat the shit out of your computer for continuously giving you the blue screen of death.. If you try to beat up the programmer that won't go well for you..
or......... If you're more level headed you're going to take your computer in for maintenance.. and probably try to not the programmer.. although.......
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I generally blame Microsoft
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 haha i just realized u have some slideshows about freewill... I'll check em out, but feel free to get back to me before that cuz i have tests to prepare for.. R u already talking to a bunch of other people about this?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA It's an interest subject. An important one also if we are ever to succeed in the field of artificial intelligence. I mean really, how can someone be considered intelligent if all they are is a better stimulus response machine?
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 ya, i don't know why u can't call something intelligent if all they are is a better stimulus response machine, that seems a little picky..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA We currently can make stimulus response machines...robots. But we still don't know how to make them learn. This shows that we have a gap in our understanding of how the brain works. Yes, it is a stimulus response machine....but maybe its more.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 actually there are definetely have robots that can learn. their limits of what they can learn about and do with that are very limited right now but we definetely have programs and robots that learn.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA play on words my friend. If they can learn to solve puzzles without being programmed anything relevant o the solution then I'll accept that as learning, otherwise they are just mimicking. I've seen a video on the latest learning robot. I was not impressed really.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 isn't learning and executing what your learning mimicking?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA sure it is. But it also involves extrapolation beyond what yoiu were shown to something new but similar. Robots cannot extrpolate unless specifically programmed to do so.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 o i c so ur saying that they can't figure out an original idea after they've been shown something
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA if they could without being specifically programmed to do so, that would be truly impressive. I believe that some random element is necessary in order to achieve intelligent learning.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 some random element? u mean like a trial and error type thing?
and "if they could without being specifically programmed to do so, that would be truly impressive." ur semi-sarcastic about that right? im not trying to be rude i'm just making sure i'm understanding you.. cuz even if they were able to do that it would only be because we've programmed them to be able to develop new interpretation or lines of programing to their existing programming.. possibly like humans?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA exactly, you're re-iterating exactly what my point is. and yes trial and error like in mutations in evolution. Mostly errors that get ignored but sometimes stumble onto somethig better. I think that the way humans think and learn is analogous to the process of evolution.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 ya id def agree to that. but doesn't that still make us like robots? do u believe in evolution? id say that if evolution is true than we are exactly like complex biological robots because if evolution is true then everything we do would be part of a mechanical process.
I guess my better question is just this; "Do you believe everything happens by a mechanical process"
That is a better question for what I'm wondering, if u reply at all please answer that question
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA No. I don't see that the evidence supports it. Only at the macroscopic level. At atomic level and smaller there is little evidence for mechanical universe. Physics models become increasing governed by stochaistic models as you go smaller. Yes, evolution is suported by a mountain of evidence. I don't see why you equate evolution with a mechanical world though. can you explain this?
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 i just asked if u believed in evolution because usually the people who are so insistant upon the existance of free will do so because of their religious background..
it just seems like its impossible for things to work not mechanically. Can give me an example? I guess I need to study my quantum mechanics to make sure.. I was pretty sure that things still worked mechanically at the atomic level but just worked in an order that couldn't be determined within a probability limit..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Free Will doesn't seem compatible with an all powerfull all knowing deity. There isn't even an agreed upon interpretation of QM. QM is merely a knowledge of how to apply a set of mathematical rules. The interpretation of a physical model is the mechanics. For example, F=-GMm/r^2 is just math to solve a gravitational calculation. The mecanism is the interpretation that each mass creates a field in 3 dimensional space and the field applies a force on any mass in the field.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 I'm not sure why you are even asking for an example. You stated earlier your knowledge that Einstein debated with Bohr over the incompleteness of QM because God does not play dice. ie: QM does not contain any mechanisms. Bohr contended that mechanisms were not necesary. Science still records Bohr as the victor in this debate.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 ya well i'm no expert on quantum mechanics or anything for that matter except maybe Christian Theology :) And I'm sorry my definitions might be a little off. I was thinking of mechanics as a causal sequence. I know Einstein debated Bohr about that but it seems like it could be said that even though a certain molecule behaved semi-random it behaved semi-random within a givin probability, so not completely randomly. & if thats the case i don't see where science has room for freewill
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA There's nothing wrong with your definition of mechanics but causality is a word which loses meaning in QM. I think we differ on our defiitions of determinism and randomness however. I do not understand the meaning of half deterministic or half random. I could understand an argument against the existance of true randomness but like I stated previously, if the brain has some random element then I can see how free will could exist. Free Will definitely cannot be purely random.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Science has room for free will if at the fundamental level there is a switch (electrical impulse) which tips the balance between two possible actions. QM would suggest there is a probability that either action would be the outcome. Of course decoherence on the macro scale will have its effect but at the extreme fundamental level QM might effect free will. If you accept current QM.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 of course i accept current QM but it has no implications for freewill. How is random probability comparable to a free choice?? Any philosophical advocate of "libertarian" free will is ignoring the causality necessary for any ordered sequence of events. If it isn't ordered, it's chaos. So you have to choose between this loosey goosey "Freewill" thing or Determinism.. Chaos or Order.. That's it.. If you're advocating compatibalism that's ok but it is really just determinism redefined..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Of course it has implications. If a decision comes down to an electrical impulse - the transfer or not of an electron - this IS determined by probability in the very widely accepted model of QM. There may be many millions of such transfers which result in a final decision or impulse but at some point in each transfer probability plays its part. If you do not accept that then you are ripping up the physics textbook.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 to figure it out you really have to ask yourself "what is a choice" and "how is a choice made" and "what is a mind"??
Your mind is your intellectual calculating mechanism, short and simple, and a choice is its reaction to the internal and external stimuli it receives..
You don't choose your mind, you don't choose the internal and external stimuli that it will react with. No libertarian freewill.
God is as much responsible for every action you've ever committed as you are.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Accept that there is no such thing as god outside superstition and mythology. Cogito ergo sum says that I exist in some real form. Nothing suggests there is a wizard in the clouds.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 I say God in the most liberal way :)
But really I think it comes down to just understanding that;
determinism = order
a precise, causal, formulaic like order..
If QM tells us anything it is that there is a bit of randomness to the universe at its base, or that the base condition of the universe is primarily chaotic which makes sense..
btw, although current QM has some interesting implications I don't think any of us should take them as set in stone.. It's a relatively new field..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I completely agree that QM is not the end of it. It is a conceit of scientists that the current received wisdom is always 'fact'. I have my own thoughts on quantum theory and they would remove the wishy washy aspects of theoretical physics. I do not have anything concrete but I suspect there is less complexity than we imagine and itis simply out inability to observe that leaves us looking at smoke and mirrors.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 i say God in the liberal spinoza sense, also applicable to a referral to the sum total natural forces in the universe.. Ok, I never said I didn't accept quantum randomness.. The Freewill that we are really arguing about here is the "Libertarian" style Freewill.. No one is contesting the simple idea that the will of the mind is free to potentially make any choice.. What is being discussed here is whether or not it is determined beforehand by preexisting conditions.. r u a combatibalist?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 i mean compatibalist
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA No I'm a capricorn! I prefer to believe in chaos theory. That the mind [brain] is totally free to make decisions is some what tested by such as alien hand syndrome. I would however suggest that - excluding 'abnormal' brains (and I include those that suffer chemical deficiency of some sort) - individuals can alter their perspective of reality and thus their default reactions to stimuli. I have worked with convicts who achieved complete about turns in their outlook.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 ya but all decisions are made as reactions to internal and external stimuli, which you do not choose, with a mind's intellect you also do not choose. Haha, I'm not talking about zodiac symbols unless u are joking with me I'm just completely dumbfounded by that response lol.. No one is arguing the brain is free to make decisions but what I'm talking about is the fact that all decisions are deterministic, causally inspired by prior events.. If anything AHS implies we don't have freewill
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 I am extremely nice.. One of the nicest guys you'll probably talk to in your entire life so u won't get an insult out of me.. But I am being 100% honest when I say you deserve it at this point,, and say that u are kind of waaayyy out of the loop with the discussion and terminology in this discussion.. When one says that there is no Freewill, one is not saying that the brain or mind is limited or forced to make a decision.. We are saying those decisions are pre-determined thru causality
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The zodiac is always a joke. I have only been seriously thinking about this for the last four years. You would need to explain pre-determination more carefully. A person can change their reaction to a recurring stimulus but a person can also react in ways that even they can find no explanation for. To convince me of causality [or absolute free will] you would have to explain to me aberrant behaviour in otherwise sane and level headed individuals.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 well.. It's quite simply really, the human race as a group has quite a degree of stupidity to itself.. Although we are very intelligent we don't have all knowledge of the universe so sometimes we do silly, crazy, and stupid things.. Sometimes they are more stupid than other times.. Sometimes we do things we've done before in different ways because of changing stimuli.. It happens.. I really don't know why this is even an issue..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 People's responses to reacurring external stimuli change because their internal stimuli is different. Sometimes people can't explain things they do because they act rashly or stupidly or they just are stupid..
The case is this;
Determinism = Order
Libertarian Freewill = Random Chaos (and not the kind of random chaos that builds things like in chaos theory, real no pattern chaos)
Libertarian Freewill is a shortsighted joke.. everything has a reason it happens..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA 'Stupid' is not an answer. It implies a wrong choice not no choice. I think there is more to do with suppression of higher brain functions which then reduce adversity to risk and results in more animalistic / natural / unmediated action.
Huttate1 1 year ago
@Huttate1 Hahaha I'd prefer to just say we're pretty stupid.. But I guess that is definitely a good way to phrase what I am trying to say LOL
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 but seriously tho u should realize libertarian freewill is nonsensical.. events have to follow and be based on prior events if any kind of sense is going to be made out of them
Determinism = Nice, Mathematical, Order
Libertarian Freewill = kau uad u l t u t tadpole
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago 2
@SHIBBYiPANDA This is placing theory above data. We have experiences of freedom, which are not just feelings, but a well-defined class of event. To say on the basis of theory that data is unreal is counter to the scientific mind-set, which most always place data above our priori prejudices.. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
@Huttate1 everything has a reason it happens.. at least above the quantum level which our decisions are measurable on..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 Haha good joke tho, I was like, seriously wtf..
A huge part of grasping the aspects of determinism is having a sense of humor towards your view of the universe.. You have to be willing to tolerate the ideas that humans are generally pretty stupid, all things considered.. Or at least acknowledge the fact that we have a HUGE capacity for stupidity..
To help you grasp the last concept, I would point out that determinism does not state that human reactions are not governed by external>>>
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 stimuli alone, but both internal and external stimuli, working in concert with whatever your view of the mind is..
There isn't really any other way to explain it than that..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 also remember that determinism is NOT stating that our will is bound in any way from potentially choosing anything or forced to choose anything (actually you could say it is in a way but I hope you follow what I'm trying to convey), but is determined by prior events.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 I don't mean to be rude so I'm really sorry if I come off that way.. I've spent a little over a year researching and debating this topic and I got into it because I started formulating ideas on my own that inadvertently related deeply to this topic.. Plus, if your profile is correct, I am almost a decade older than you.. :)
I guess I should clarify that I am not suggesting we do not have Freewill of any kind.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Huttate1 I guess I should clarify that I am not suggesting we do not have Freewill of any kind. But usually when people say "Freewill" they are referring to what is known as "Libertarian Freewill" which is not existent. What I am arguing, is that we have "Deterministic Freewill", which is basically the same thing as Compatibalism..
If you are unfamiliar with this topic and you find it intreging, research "Determinism" on google or look up a guy named Daniel Dennet on youtube.. He's the master
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 because that would mean things are still deterministic, just at the quantum level they are deterministic within a given probability..
Also, would you say that you can't make a mechanical model for freewill? because if you couldn't wouldn't that mean your freewill would be random? which would mean you would at chaotically all the time?
i know alot happens inbetween our minds receiving information, making a decision, and acting but it definetely seems to be formulaic like
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA like QM, free will would have elements that are deterministic and could be defined mechanically but it would also contain probabilistic elements that cannot be completely defined by mechanisms. I know the outcome would not be chaotic. A process would be 'chaotic' if the entire process is random but my argument is that free will contains only elements that are random. This is why my other post claims that free will cannot be totally random. es, I agree with the last statement.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 i don't know everything so I'm not sure that it would do this but I can't understand any other way that it would work and I don't understand how a limited degree or even a complete degree of randomness in quantum mechanics allows for the existance of whatever it is that gives us the traditional idea of free will.
if I'm way off just tell me man
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Hey I don't know the answer nor does anyone else. It's just my opinion of how free will could be explained. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't think it can be proven nor disproven. But I do think that philosophically it makes more sense to believe in free will than determinism.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 o i c so ur saying that they can't figure out an original idea after they've been shown something
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 but i have to say it seems to me right now that the traditional idea of freewill sounds chaotic at heart.. If I have any kind of free will I want the kind that does not decide to just up and murder someone for no reason.. It seems to me that the kind of freewill your talking about is someone that causes just absolute chaos, yes? how can something be ordered but not mechanical?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 although....... if you complained enough the programmer probably would get sent back for maintenance.. back to school or whatever..
Also, if you want to get technical computers dont make decisions they make reactions.. And yes, by my definitions, everything a human does is as much a reaction as it is an action..
Also it might not be a fault with either the computer or the programmer if you computer acts up it could also be the environment you have it in.... Could be to hot.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 also, I should add, so as to not be to defensive about my statements, that I am completely agnostic about what I'm saying right now.. It could be totally wrong..
But the fact is I can't think of any way that anything can work except by mechanically which is how I'm interpretting the human brain/mind/whatever to work, so thats what i'm talking to you about.. There could be another way but I can't imagine, currently, what that would be..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA There is no known mechanism for atomic decay. Therefore, either this is an example of something that has no mechanism or the mechanism is beyond our current understanding of mechanics. Since we cannot find this mechanism, it is logical to accept the fact that possibly the universe is not governed completely by mechanics.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 r u sure there isn't a known mechanism for atomic decay? I understand that at the quantum level there's talk about there being a degree of randomness to things but Eistein didn't think that and I've heard there are new theories trying to explain that..
and i do agree that it's logical to accept the that its POSSIBLE the universe is not governed by complete mechanics.. But that doesn't exactly make sense..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA There are 'mechanisms' in QED but they're stochaistic and unobservable. FYI, Einstein debated for decades with Bohr about quantum randomness but failed to ever prove his point.
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 ya well can u give me any kind of idea of the mental process as you percieve it, acting without any influence on it besides the environment its in?
i cant imagine the mind working in any other way besides; 1. i see peanut 2. the eyes tell my brain i see peanut 3. the brain hearing from the eyes that theres a peanut nearby 4. the brains begins and performs a computating process of whether it wants the peanut of not 5. i eat the peanut or i do not eat the peanut
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA No I can't but your example is an oversimplification of reality. Not all decisions are clearly digital. Even your peanut example can depend on hundreds or thousands of variables such as 1. am I hungry? 2.how long was the peanut sitting there? 3.does the peanut belong to someone else? 4.could I find something better to eat? In the end, the person might sit there and ponder for several minutes over yes or no
dartplayer170 1 year ago
@dartplayer170 I just dont understand how something can not work mechanically.. Even if its magic or something.. That magic STILL has to work mechanically.... Unless it's chaotic at heart...
It has to work causally.. Even if we run out of explanations and say "because it just is that way(like for the question why does God exist?)" that would have to become a law or constant from which we get truth
so r u saying it's possible that the universe could be unordered at its core? id understand that
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Avian98X and yes i do think it would be sad if every action taken by any human on this world wasn't his very own decision but the only way that could even be possible is if they were getting mind controlled by something else.. Which is obviously not the case..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Avian98X the real issue here is whether you control your brain or your brain controls you.. In which case "you" would be your brain... I see no sadness or contradiction in this..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA YOu are you, and you are the one responsible, whether you call it your brain or your mind, or whatever you want to call it, "YOU" are the one responsible. So what is your point. Are you saying that there is no "YOU" "I", what is it that you are saying. Please explain.
cmpresents 1 year ago
These 'decisions' are simple subconsciously motivated impulses based on nothing of importance to the decider. Dartplayer is right; the lack of simultaneity means nothing here. This is a typical example of the inadequacy of scientific approaches to metaphysical questions.
bleed4freedom 1 year ago 5
Our ape brains just aren't wired to see the world the way it really is, what use is the brain if it doesn't give us the illusion that we have an option or two?
spartacandream 1 year ago
Free will answers the metaphysical requirement for consciousness and decision-making
Determinism answers the epistemological question of where our decisions come from.
They are not contradictory, as they are separate magisteria.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
She choosed to participate in the test, so the brain started to prepare itself.
rickyale 1 year ago
@rickyale
That is true. That is one way to explain the increase of activity, though I'm curious what controls were set in place, if any, to make sure that they can rule out anything like that.
spartacandream 1 year ago
I think that free will goes in acordance to how much we can choose alone. Judged by the concious in all its levels. For example, we have no access to stop organ to work, and we will only have that access if we have full councious of what it can do to us, witch probally lead us do not stop it from working.
rickyale 1 year ago
can somebody tell me if i have a freewill or not because i am kind of confused because i have a paper due in twoo monthes and i have no idea of freewill ,i believe that i have a freewill unless nothing makes sense because i cant hold anyone responsible for their action
abroish 1 year ago
@abroish you have no freewill, but act like you do!
spiritualquestioner 1 year ago
can somebody tell me if i have a freewill or not
abroish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most fundamental, useful, profitable and encouraging question of all time: What is The underlying law of nature.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Can free will include the will to act or not to act that is different than what you physically do? I have Tourettes syndrome and I try to will my self to stop moving or making the noises with tics, and even when I am successful my tics become worse later. Is the definition of free will the willingness or the ability to carry out you will freely? If I chose to be perfect and fail, do I still have the will to chose an impossible option, but not the ability to achieve perfection?
JonahTorn 1 year ago
I just felt like saying it...
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
2+2=4 (except in large values of 2) then 2+2 can = 5
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
@The0Burger0King
The number "2" is the expression of a value. 2 can't be a 2.5 whilst remaining a 2.....or a "big 2" as you put it.
"large Values of 2" is the precise jargon that (a)theists engage themselves with.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@D33veeoss
8========================D~~~~~~~~~
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
Only due to massive rounding errors.
Randomq1 1 year ago
If you're really interested in this sort of thing, read Alan Watts (1915-1971). Or, check out his videos on Youtube. It all comes down to the question, does man have a permanent self, or ego? According to Buddah, the self consists of "aggregates of energy," nothing more.
imjustpassinthru 1 year ago
what about inner monologue and self reflection, clearly this doesn't cover that. and theres a lot of holes in the logic here. of course its going to build before the action happens because you are consciously getting ready to perfornm the action. the clock was also spinning which meant that the person would be timing their action which would denote forthought, hence why the computer reads the activity before the action happens. this is someones agenda bullshit...
lamasu 2 years ago
dont kno about you, but i dont want to be an organic robot! humans are special
Orangetree991 2 years ago
You really want to be the type of person who shies away from reality because it doesn't sync up with the way he wishes the world to be?
Yikes. Grow a pair.
linksysrouted 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My brain made me do it!
exclamation3mark 2 years ago
Your brain might not be just grey matter. Refer to plasma physics. Google: dapla.
faro0485 2 years ago
What about free will over your own thoughts.
Say you are walking along the road and a thought just seems to pop into your head from nowhere.
I mean you don't go about thinking, what will I think about now, the thoughts are just there.
Say a van passes you in the street, you catch sight of the driver for a split second, and he reminds you of someone you knew 20 yrs ago. How can you NOT think about it. Then that thought will lead to another train of thought and so on. Are we in control here?
alemappurple 2 years ago
@alemappurple There are arguments about this...google mental processes and free will...
plummad 2 years ago
@alemappurple I was thinking about the same thing. What, to my understanding, seems to happen when you think, is that basic responses seem to be organizing into more complex pattersn. Let me explain. When you are born, you have a certain wiring in your brain, your programmed instincts. When you learn new info, it's about labeling and attaching a response to a stimulus. The more of these labels and attachments you have, the more complex your line of thought will be.
Spetsop 2 years ago
So, in terms of random thoughts popping into your head. There has to be some kind of stimulus to trigger the response of a specific thought that popped into your head, consciously or unconsciously. Eg. you are on a street, and you see someone wearing a yellow shirt, that you might dismiss consciously but subconsciously it might trigger a response tied to a lemon, and then to sour, and sugar, and all of a sudden you remember that time when you were a kid and learned how to make lemonade.
Spetsop 2 years ago
So, that's a basic example. Take that and put more complex stimuli (taste, smell, sensation, even other thoughts that you already have) and you can see how it could be possible that a complete random thought was just a response to some random stimulus that you encountered. Now this is my own theory, I haven't examined if this could be true, I'm not an expert on the brain, but I have a few years behind me studying the brain in university and med school.
Spetsop 2 years ago
What's curious about this video to me is that they didn't mention the pre-motor cortex, that starts to work before the motor cortex. It basically organizes the movements, in response to external and internal stimuli, that are then initiated by the motor cortex. So maybe that activity that preceeds the actual intention to move was the pre-motor cortex organizing the movement.
Interesting video none the less.
Spetsop 2 years ago
SHFUTS-- Whether we do or don't have such "mental reflexes," what is of interest is that the inhibition of the motor act follows a conscious decision to inhibit the act. Whether the mechanism of inhibition involves subconscious processes or not, it does not occur randomly but following a decision to cancel the act. That said, as I stated in a comment above, unequivocal interpretations of these experiments are problematic. IMO science cannot (at present) settle the free will debate.
silverskid 2 years ago
BTW, How do you know that all unconscious processes ("the subconscious") are deterministic? Given our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, it is entirely conceivable that it is not quite so simple. Incidentally, Indeterminism would not in itself entail free will. Indeed, many argue that free will relies on deterministic processes inasmuch as goal-oriented acts require predictable sequences to be enacted.
Also, by pre-motor activity (above) I refer to the readiness potential.
silverskid 2 years ago
The process of overriding was conscious. Subjects were asked to form the intention to push a button and then to quickly override the "choice." The pre-motor potential (RP) appeared, but the act was not carried out. Libet spoke of "veto powers."
No, the brain is not distinct from the person in my view. No dualism here. I only meant that after the pre-motor potential appeared in the brain, subjects were able to override the prompt.
silverskid 2 years ago
Marsh8472-- One complication for your interpretation (no free will whatsoever) is the occurrence of "veto power" or "free won't" in Libet's experiments (and it's replications). Given certain time frames, the readiness potential could be suppressed by the subject. So even after the brain determines to push the button, the test subject can "override" the prompt/command. A strict determinist might not expect to see that. This finding seems to make unequivocal interpretations somewhat problematic.
silverskid 2 years ago
But if the whole process of overriding a decision is made in the subconscious before we are consciously aware of it, it would not change anything. Given the subconscious being mechanical and deterministic, we would not be consciously aware of it since these are things in the subconscious.
Also you speak of the brain and the person as though they are two different things when you say "when the brain determines to push the button" when it's the brain that controls our consciousness, correct?
marsh8472 2 years ago
could we not just have mental reflexes to abort decisions? that could be dependant on subconciouse processes that are much faster
SHFUTS 2 years ago
Yes, what would the experiment conclude if the subject had sat there without pressing any buttons at all?
philnoll 2 years ago
@philnoll Pretty much that the person still had the urge to do it, before they are aware of it. But if you do that without indicating anything, then you've just got data that someone can manipulate. That's a bad experiment.
plummad 2 years ago
The experiment shown in the video is a bad experiment?
I thought so.
I think free will is more philosophical than scientific. Because scientifically speaking, we're just survival machines.
If I'm offered an unethical proposition, I might take it and I might not. It all depends how many times I've been slapped/slapped myself in the wrist.
Perhaps it is as the bible says, that free will (sporadic urges) can only be subdued through submission to a higher authority
philnoll 2 years ago
Maybe the brain is just getting ready, such as when you have your car in ignition but only move when needed?
faro0485 2 years ago
I see no serious flaws in the experiments interpretation. The only flaw that can be obvious is a disagreement with the conclusion based on one's desire to have freewill. The conclusion is a reasonable one and the results of the experiment are exactly what you'd expect to see if freewill did not exist.
marsh8472 2 years ago