27 of 36
27
A pragmatic discussion about free will
Posted: 20 October 2013 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 391 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
kkwan - 20 October 2013 07:39 AM
StephenLawrence - 20 October 2013 05:27 AM

And the problem with that for free will is it’s a matter of luck as far as we are concerned what past we have and therefore a matter of luck what we get to do as a result of that past.

Yes?

No. With determinism, luck plays no part. Everything is preordained.

No, because it doesn’t overcome the problem of luck. It’s as simple as that.

Not quite as simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

Luck or chance is an event which occurs beyond one’s control, without regard to one’s will, intention, or desired result. There are at least two senses people usually mean when they use the term, the prescriptive sense and the descriptive sense. In the prescriptive sense, luck is a supernatural and deterministic concept that there are forces (e.g. gods or spirits) which prescribe that certain events occur very much the way laws of physics will prescribe that certain events occur. It is the prescriptive sense that people mean when they say they “do not believe in luck”. In the descriptive sense, luck is a word people give after the occurrence of events which they find to be fortuitous or unfortuitous, and maybe improbable.

Do you mean luck in the prescriptive or descriptive sense?

As a fallacy?

Another view holds that “luck is probability taken personally.” A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck who asserts that something has influenced his or her luck commits the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy: that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well. In general:

  A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
  Therefore, A influenced B.

As a self-fulfilling prophesy?

According to this theory, one who ascribes their travails to “bad luck” will be found upon close examination to be living risky lifestyles. In personality psychology, people reliably differ from each other depending on four key aspects: beliefs in luck, rejection of luck, being lucky, and being unlucky. People who believe in good luck are more optimistic, more satisfied with their lives, and have better moods. If “good” and “bad” events occur at random to everyone, believers in good luck will experience a net gain in their fortunes, and vice versa for believers in bad luck. This is clearly likely to be self-reinforcing. Thus, a belief in good luck may actually be an adaptive meme.

In science:

Different thinkers like Thomas Kuhn have discussed the role of chance in scientific discoveries. Richard Wiseman did a ten-year scientific study into the nature of luck that has revealed that, to a large extent, people make their own good and bad fortune. His researched revealed that “Lucky people generate their own good fortune via four basic principles. They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prohesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.”

Luck or chance plays a role in change and the evolution of the universe and it is futile to try and overcome it. Any philosophy of reality that claims to be able to overcome luck or chance, is suspect.

In taoist philosophy, as exemplified in the Tao Te Ching:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching

Emptiness:


  We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
  But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.
  We turn clay to make a vessel;
  But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.
  We pierce doors and windows to make a house;
  And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.
  Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is          
  not. (chap. 11, tr. Waley)

Philosophical vacuity.

And the I Ching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

The hexagrams, though, are mere mnemonics for the philosophical concepts embodied in each one. The philosophy centres around the ideas of balance through opposites and acceptance of change.

Change is the only certainty in the universe and chance is crucial for ceaseless variable change. All we need to do is to accept chance and change.

It is that simple.  smile

Determinism doesn’t mean anything is preordained. Determinism means outcomes change with constant changes in the factors that drive actions and that conscious will cannot change which factors take precedence.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 392 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
kkwan - 20 October 2013 05:10 AM
StephenLawrence - 20 October 2013 01:04 AM

Adequate determinism is indeterminism.

Not so.

To reiterate, from:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html

Adequate Determinism is the kind of determinism we have in the world. It is a statistical determinism, where the statistics are near to certainty for large objects. Adequate Determinism also includes indeterminism, an irreducible property of the microscopic quantum world..

There is actually no strict determinism at any “level” of the physical world. Determinism is an abstract theoretical ideal that simplifies physical systems to allow the use of logical and mathematical methods. The macroscopic “determinism” we see is the consequence of averaging over extremely large numbers of microscopic particles.

Determinism is only “an abstract theoretical ideal”. It does not exist, in reality

OTOH, adequate determinism is “a statistical determinism” i.e. “the kind of determinism we have in the world”.

Adequate determinism includes indeterminism “an irreducible property of the microscopic quantum world” which is the underlying bedrock of the whole universe.

In that sense, indeterminism is fundamental in the universe.

What looks like inderterminism is only a flawed understanding of how things are determined. That flawed understanding does not mean anything is indeterminate. Determinism does not mean preordained.  In order for something to be preordained there has to be some entity doing the preordaining. Determinism is simply the idea that everything has an antecedent and conscious will does not affect anything, even if we think it does.

Brain scans done by respected scientists show that human minds make decisions before we are aware of them.

None of it has anything to do with preordination.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 393 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Lois - 20 October 2013 06:25 PM

Determinism is simply the idea that everything has an antecedent and conscious will does not affect anything, even if we think it does.

Determinism has nothing to say about “conscious will” .

It is this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

In other words one physically possible future we can get to from our actual pasts.

You’re right that it doesn’t mean anything is preordained, but predetermined yes since our present actions are necessitated by the past.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 394 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
LilySmith - 20 October 2013 01:13 PM

I don’t believe anyone is ascribing a “special value” to wishes and beliefs.  They are simply describing the causal chain that leads a person to act.

Yes. You’re doing it right here:

Lily Smith-I would say because DNA, the weather outside and contracting cholera may all have an effect on our wishes and beliefs-what we desire to do—but it is our desire that leads to action.

Lily Smith-I think it is simply a way to describe the culmination of past events and influences on the mind of the person which then determines what he does when unrestricted.

Out of the complete causal chain, every bit of the chain is definable, tangible.  The weather, DNA, cholera, other people, etc.
How are “wishes and beliefs” tangible?  How are they defined physically?  So it does sound like they get “special treatments” doesn’t it?

I don’t think anyone but kkwan is talking about libertarian free will.

I don’t know about all that. If I’m not mistaken, I think you said something about a god earlier in the thread. And there are plenty of grey areas
yet to be defined with all of this “compatibilism. 
I mean the word “compatible”,  it’s a sell-out right out of the gate.  It means defining determinism in a given ideology.
In other words, it can make determinism “compatible” with whatever one wishes.

Perhaps people like to believe they have more control over themselves and their actions than they actually have.  And since they think their way is the right way, they feel empowered to judge others who are different.  This seems to be part of the human condition.  Instead of everyone trying to understand these complex issues, it’s just simpler to teach people not to judge others since you don’t know what they’ve been through.

Well, yeah. It’s dualism and the illusion of free-will.  This is brought about by the TV Show of the Mind in which everyone is the leading character in their own
show,in their mind.
As has been alluded to, science may someday be able to ascribe physical attributes to this process. It will be the equivalent of discovering what
wishes and beliefs are.  Physically.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 11:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 395 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

No, VYAZMA, there is no ideology in it. Just the correct understanding of what is the basis of assigning free will and responsibility to people’s actions. It is, and never was, libertarian free will, even if many people think it is. You keep seeking for the physical basis of free will, and because you correctly see there is none, you conclude that free will is a nonsense concept. But you started with the nonsense concept of libertarian free will to begin with.

The reason thinking in terms of wishes, beliefs and actions is not redundant is because we experience them and see other people at this level. Persons do not exist at the physical level, so how on earth do you think you can say something about them from the physical level? Having free will just does not mean ‘being able to act against causality’. It means ‘being able to act according to your wishes and beliefs’. Nothing in a causal description of the universe contradicts this possibility. It is just your silent adding ‘but your wishes and beliefs are causally determined’, i.e. using the nonsense concept of libertarian free will again, that lets you protest against this simple definition of free will.

I cannot remember that any of you ever brought an argument that does not depend on assuming that free will means libertarian free will.

VYAZMA - 20 October 2013 11:18 AM

As said before, free will and responsibility have to do with a person’s capability to reflect on his motives, his possible actions and the consequences of it. The better he is in acting according to his wishes and beliefs, the freer he is. The better he can give an account of why he acts the way he does, the more responsible he is. And these capabilities are just as real when we are determined.

I guess that is what compatibilism is. I don’t know if Cartesian Theater is in play with this train of thought, but it comes close.

Not at all. Nobody denies we are conscious and have an inner life. The illusion of the Cartesian theatre is that there is a moment and place in the brain where all observations come together, are processed (e.g. by a soul), and then the decision for motoric movements are transported from there.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 396 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 20 October 2013 11:39 PM

No, VYAZMA, there is no ideology in it. Just the correct understanding of what is the basis of assigning free will and responsibility to people’s actions. It is, and never was, libertarian free will, even if many people think it is. You keep seeking for the physical basis of free will, and because you correctly see there is none, you conclude that free will is a nonsense concept. But you started with the nonsense concept of libertarian free will to begin with.

And I guess Libertarian Free-will is nonsense because it is not compatibile with your beliefs? No?
That’s why people have always been confused about the various definitions of free-will.  Recent inquiries about what is “Libertarian Free-Will”.
My protest about talking about free-will in the sense of “restricting another’s wishes”. Political Freedom?

For the purposes of this thread there is only the discussion of the Classical Argument Against Libertarian Free-will!
Everything else is just redefining the language to suit ideology.
Of course Libertarian Free-will is nonsense. But compatibilism is even more nonsensical.
That’s like deism compared with roman catholicism. (deism is the compatibilism in this analogy.)
The vast majority of people(including you and me)go through life thinking we are choosing and changing and believing.  That’s classic libertarian free-will.
Why wouldn’t I argue against that point?  And yes, I still see the classic concepts of libertarian free-will come shining through your’s and Lily’s
arguments. So compatibilism or whatever, does not do a good enough job of concealing the nature of dualism, theater, and special properties.

You said I, “started with the nonsense concept of libertarian free-will.”
I’m arguing against the concept!  You are saying you don’t believe in it.  What you mean is, it doesn’t suit you ideology.


Let’s explore your ideas.

Persons do not exist at the physical level, so how on earth do you think you can say something about them from the physical level?

Are you sure this is what you wanted to say?

Having free will just does not mean ‘being able to act against causality’.
It means ‘being able to act according to your wishes and beliefs’.

This is redundant.  You could simply say it means “being able to act”.  Why the wishes and beliefs part?  Especially “according to”.
“According to”?  We are all acting according to the Sun too correct?  We are all acting according to DNA right?

Just admit it GdB, you think there is a touch of soul in everyone.  You’ve mentioned buddhism before.  They speak of reincarnation and souls.
Having to say “act according to wishes and beliefs” is too far.  Everything else is tangible in the causal chain.  Wishes and beliefs is an unnecessary step in the causal chain.
Especially when you say “act according to them”.  Like I said, I am rightfully still arguing against Classic Libertarian Free-Will here.
Your warping of the concept into “compatibilism” is just a cover up for ideological roots.  I’m standing by this.
Once allowed to shake off pursuers like myself and others in this thread, where does your interests inevitably go to?
Discussions about justice.  Crimes.  Judging people. Time and time again, that’s where you lead this.

Nothing in a causal description of the universe contradicts this possibility. It is just your silent adding ‘but your wishes and beliefs are causally determined’, i.e. using the nonsense concept of libertarian free will again, that lets you protest against this simple definition of free will.

Like I said, take a closer look at who is using the nonsense terms.  I’m arguing against Libertarian Free-will for a reason.
That reason is because I can plainly see it being displayed.  The introduction of Lily a christian, who also is discussing her own blend of causal-“free-will”
does not help. Her special blend of “Libertarian Determinism”.
Especially when she can be quoted a few pages back as saying all directives ultimately come from god.
Yet she too claims she is not arguing from the Libertarian Free-will Perspective. 
The same free-will that god gave adam and eve with the funny snake in the garden.

I cannot remember that any of you ever brought an argument that does not depend on assuming that free will means libertarian free will.

Right!  Think about that. 
For hundreds of pages I knew you weren’t wasting your time simply arguing that someone tied to a chair cannot freely move.

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 10:20 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 397 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 21 October 2013 10:15 AM

The vast majority of people(including you and me)go through life thinking we are choosing and changing and believing.  That’s classic libertarian free-will.

No Vyazma, that’s just what we do.

Libertarian free will is the idea that we could make a different choice in the actual situation and that makes the choice entirely up to us since nothing else would have to be different in order for us to make a different choice.

And this is the trouble with simply saying we don’t have free will, people often get the wrong idea, as you have.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 398 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 21 October 2013 11:02 AM

No Vyazma, that’s just what we do.

I said as much-virtually.  Virtually being that new 21st century term meaning almost true.
There are scientists who are trying to figure out what “choosing” really is.  It’s a tough challenge.  Maybe an insurmountable challenge.
But. Just because science can’t find an explanation doesn’t mean the phenomena doesn’t exist.
However plenty of science agrees that “choosing” may be something completely different than how we view it in our consciousness.
It is my belief that if we could “float our consciousness” above the world, we would see a mass of humans bubbling about exactly like protozoa in a Petri dish.
Completely different than how our egos and “awareness” displays it for us.  Obvious this “display” is a part of evolutionary behavioral mechanics.
Specifically for the adaptation of social animals.
This is my stance. It is theory. But it is not unfounded.
There is no tangible record of wishes or beliefs. Only our consciousness tells us what choosing is so far.
Unlike our knowledge of color vision.  We know how that works.  And it turns out that in reality, there is no color.(certainly as we know it)

Now all that being said, I suppose if one wants to explore the mind using consciousness that’s fine.  But it is like a person grading themselves on
a driving exam.
You can’t see the forest for the trees.  Because you are a tree.

Libertarian free will is the idea that we could make a different choice in the actual situation and that makes the choice entirely up to us since nothing else would have to be different in order for us to make a different choice.

Yeah.  That’s how we all think and believe.

And this is the trouble with simply saying we don’t have free will, people often get the wrong idea, as you have.

No, I don’t think anybody has the wrong idea about free-will here.  I think some of us have the wrong idea about what each other is saying.
And I’m still quite certain about my stance on ideological poisoning of this topic.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 399 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29

VYAZMA, you are wasting your time. You can’t disprove a deepity.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 400 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
VYAZMA - 21 October 2013 10:15 AM

I’m arguing against Libertarian Free-will for a reason.
That reason is because I can plainly see it being displayed.  The introduction of Lily a christian, who also is discussing her own blend of causal-“free-will”
does not help. Her special blend of “Libertarian Determinism”.
Especially when she can be quoted a few pages back as saying all directives ultimately come from god.
Yet she too claims she is not arguing from the Libertarian Free-will Perspective. 
The same free-will that god gave adam and eve with the funny snake in the garden.

I believe there is a sentient being that is the cause of this universe and all that exists within it rather than simply mindless forces and luck.  But that does not put to rest the libertarian free will/determinism debate.  For centuries Christians have been debating this topic.  You seem to assume that all Christians must believe in libertarian free will, but that’s false.  Calvinism is the theological form of determinism.  Adam and Eve could make no other choice than the one they made, and that by God’s design.

I have often spoken of man having a will of his own, but rarely used the term “free” will for the reason that the understanding on this topic is far from settled.  GdB spoke of having free will as a result of determinism and I didn’t understand that, so I asked.  I understand his explanation and have been using his terms for convenience sake.  For me, however, “wishes and beliefs” is a way of saying man’s “nature.”  In my view, man cannot change his own nature—his fundamental qualities, identity or essential character . He will always act according to it.  Outside influences may change his behavior, but when those influences are lifted his nature will be the same and his actions will revert to what it dictates.  Man is a complex creature and there are many facets to his existence.  There are good arguments for the idea that we are not mere robots.  I’m simply interested in hearing some of those thoughts from other people.  That’s all.  I’m not here to sneak in some subtle Christian dogma and turn Stephen and GdB into Christians through subterfuge.  If only it were that easy. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 401 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 20 October 2013 10:03 AM

It is necessarily luck. Luck in this context is that what brings about your wants and beliefs is out of your control. So it’s luck, in that sense, which beliefs and desires you get.

It is not just luck or chance per se, although it is one of many factors. Your wants and beliefs are largely formed from your upbringing, the people who influenced you, your education, the books you read, the media you see and hear, the social, economic and political circumstances etc.

You do have control over your wants and beliefs by practicing critical thinking.

The indeterminism in the two stage model is there, in part to make it possible for you to have different beliefs and desires.

If that were all it was supposed to do it could just be placed at the beginning of time as in my two stage model.

I would consider your two stage model as contrived and not representative of reality.

In reality, indeterminism is primal in the universe at all times, determinism does not exist and only adequate determinism exist at the macro level.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 402 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 20 October 2013 06:05 PM

Descriptive looks closest.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

In the descriptive sense, luck is a word people give after the occurrence of events which they find to be fortuitous or unfortuitous, and maybe improbable.

As lack of control:

Luck refers to that which happens to a person beyond that person’s control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person’s place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:

  1. Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
  2. Circumstantial luck—with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
  3. Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

1 cannot be changed, but it is possible to ameliorate the circumstances thereafter.

2 can be preventable.

3 can be controlled in the future, by educating oneself.

Kkwan this is a simple subject contrary to popular opinion. There is only disagreement over libertarian free will because people won’t accept the obvious.

It is not that simple and obvious.

Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

Criticism:

The British philosopher and historian Bertrand Russell deemed Schopenhauer’s doctrine insincere, because judging by his life:

‘He habitually dined well, at a good restaurant; he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate; he was exceedingly quarrelsome and unusually avaricious. ... It is hard to find in his life evidences of any virtue except kindness to animals ... In all other respects he was completely selfish. It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice.

That should tell us something?  cheese

The point is what causes the want is beyond your control and so it is a matter of fortune good or bad what want you get.

Please refer to my post 401

Indeterminism doesn’t help because it’s placed before the want and so still must be beyond your control and so luck.

Indeterminism is primal in the universe at all times.

http://www.naturalism.org/strawson.htm

Apparently, he has an undue influence on you.

OTOH, from http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kane/

Kane argues that the alternative possibilities (AP) generated in two-stage models of free will are not enough to make the case for incompatibilism. It is ultimate responsibility (UR) that he says is required for free will. Ultimate responsibility requires that some of our actions are self-forming actions (SFAs). In turn, our self-forming actions require plural rational control in our decisions. And it is the plural rational control that requires alternative possibilities (AP). UR is fundamentally prior to AP.

And:

Kane argues that the alternative possibilities (AP) generated in two-stage models of free will are not enough to make the case for incompatibilism. It is ultimate responsibility (UR) that he says is required for free will. Ultimate responsibility requires that some of our actions are self-forming actions (SFAs). In turn, our self-forming actions require plural rational control in our decisions. And it is the plural rational control that requires alternative possibilities (AP). UR is fundamentally prior to AP.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 403 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
Lois - 20 October 2013 06:12 PM

Determinism doesn’t mean anything is preordained. Determinism means outcomes change with constant changes in the factors that drive actions and that conscious will cannot change which factors take precedence.

Must you quote my post in total to make the above comment?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preordain

Definition of PREORDAIN

:  to decree or ordain in advance

Synonyms:
 

doom, fate, foredoom, foreordain, ordain, predestine, predetermine, destine

With determinism, given an initial starting condition, the consequences will follow inevitably.

Is that not preordained?

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 404 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
Lois - 20 October 2013 06:25 PM

What looks like inderterminism is only a flawed understanding of how things are determined. That flawed understanding does not mean anything is indeterminate. Determinism does not mean preordained.  In order for something to be preordained there has to be some entity doing the preordaining. Determinism is simply the idea that everything has an antecedent and conscious will does not affect anything, even if we think it does.

Please refer to my post 403.

Brain scans done by respected scientists show that human minds make decisions before we are aware of them.

Not quite simply so.

From http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/libet/

Thus, although all Libet experiments ended with the wrist flicking, we are not justified in assuming that the rise of the RP (well before the moment of conscious will) is a cause of the wrist flicking. Libet knew that there were very likely other times when the RP rose, but which did not lead to a flick of the wrist.

Thinkers (e.g., Daniel Wegner, Patrick Haggard) who claim that the Libet experiments prove that our conscious will and subsequent actions are caused by prior neural activity - the popular view that “my neurons made me do it” - are simply wrong.

More from: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/free-will-volition-conscious-choice-and-the-changing-brain

There are major problems with all of these studies that are prominently touted as proof of no free will.  First of all, in all the studies the decision-making was unrealistic and not related to the real ways people make decisions.  What about long term planning?  The second and bigger problem is that there is no way to know what they were measuring.  There is no current proof of a way to measure the decision making process in the brain.  There is, therefore, no way to see an image of the decision making process in the brain.

No proof:

Unfortunately, these do not prove that that is how human beings make decisions.  Also, there are probably other areas that are involved in translating other data into “wanting to move”.

None of these studies prove in any way that we know how humans use their brains to make decisions, or what parts of the brain actually make decisions in life.

Please read the whole article to get the full picture.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 405 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
LilySmith - 21 October 2013 04:29 PM

..... that the understanding on this topic is far from settled.  GdB spoke of having free will as a result of determinism and I didn’t understand that, so I asked.  I understand his explanation and have been using his terms for convenience sake.  For me, however, “wishes and beliefs” is a way of saying man’s “nature.”  In my view, man cannot change….... for the idea that we are not mere robots.  I’m simply interested in hearing some of those thoughts from other people.  That’s all.  I’m not here to sneak in some subtle Christian dogma and turn Stephen and GdB into Christians through subterfuge.  If only it were that easy. wink

I know you’re not.  I’m glad you’re here. 
Only a small percentage of the theists who visit here are engaging.  And a smaller percentage stick around.
As you will see, if you haven’t already, this topic goes round and round and round.  It’s kind of like a gymnasium for typing practice and
English Composition 101.
Most of us are strongly biased, but I recognize that no definitive answer will come from this topic.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
27 of 36
27