Bucky and freewill
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2014, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2014 10:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 06:57 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(18-10-2014 06:29 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Turns out freewill is ours after all.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/neuroscienc...-free-will

I'm not seeing the connection between the claim that random fluctuations might imply that our decisions are not purely mechanistic and our having free will. The article even notes that "randomness is a far cry from making free and intentioned decisions". The random fluctuations wouldn't be under our control so they would not allow us to control the decision process any more than if they are purely mechanistic.

Dennett talks about the "type of free will worth having" and nothing he says requires anything more than the illusion of free will.

Quote:Bucky, were you one of the supporters of the research that said the subconscious chose for us before we could consciously make the choice?

I don't see how that affects whether we have free will or not. All that research indicated is that decisions are, at least sometimes, made in the subconcious. That is still a part of us, it would just specify where "free will" occurs (or doesn't as the case may be).

"Free will" implies *control*. No one is in control of their subconscious.
(And religious "free will" is *control and conscious of ALL the elements in a decision*).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2014, 09:48 PM
RE: Bucky and freewill
Would you agree the subconscious is a product of past experiences?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 09:48 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Would you agree the subconscious is a product of past experiences?

Don't really know. It doesn't help. If bad things happen to someone, over which they have no control, those elements could play into a decision (which Eagleman talks about).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2014, 10:00 PM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 09:48 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Would you agree the subconscious is a product of past experiences?

Memory is not like, open up the wallet and show peeps the kids, memory is like, open up the wallet and run a program that draws the kids, meaning every time you remember, the canvas is altered... You could believe me, or you could do some research.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-10-2014, 10:04 PM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 10:00 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(18-10-2014 09:48 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Would you agree the subconscious is a product of past experiences?

Memory is not like, open up the wallet and show peeps the kids, memory is like, open up the wallet and run a program that draws the kids, meaning every time you remember, the canvas is altered... You could believe me, or you could do some research.

Or just tell himself he remembers doing the research. Close enough!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-10-2014, 04:57 AM
RE: Bucky and freewill
For someone to state that free-will exists they first have to tell us what free will is. That article does not even allude to the existence of any definition.

The article does get one thing right though. It says:

"randomness is a far cry from making free and intentioned decisions"

Free will is a meaningless concept unless it references an entity external to the brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2014, 05:03 AM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 10:00 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Memory is not like, open up the wallet and show peeps the kids, memory is like, open up the wallet and run a program that draws the kids, meaning every time you remember, the canvas is altered... You could believe me, or you could do some research.

Heart

Missed you!!!!

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2014, 05:25 AM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 06:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(18-10-2014 06:29 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Turns out freewill is ours after all.

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/neuroscienc...-free-will

Bucky, were you one of the supporters of the research that said the subconscious chose for us before we could consciously make the choice? I think Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss were behind that way of thinking, too.

Just curious if this will change anything in your freewill discussions. I always disagreed with that research, but didn't really care enough to get a degree and start my own research. Dodgy

I'm going to steal one of the comments because I agree with it:

Quote:His argument is nothing new. I think that mr. Dennett is confused about what free will means. It seems like he thinks free will is, will that is not a product of nature or nurture. Of course our brain was a will in fact our brain has many competing functions (wills) that are sorted out by our pre frontal cortex to settle on a action or lack thereof. But that is not free will. Free will is when our mind transends the physical prosseses in our brain and can control our behaviour by altering the phisics. Essentially it assumes that our mind controls our brain and therefore our behaviour. But the reality is that the mind is what the brain does and is a product of the very complex physical interations that occur in the brain. Therefore you have no trancendant control over the cause and effect and probabilistic forces that create your will. So yes you have a will but you didnt choose or create your own will thus it is not free. And for those who may bring up the observer effect in quantum mechanics. Bare in mind that you can't assume we have the free will in advance to choose what we observe, that may effect the manifestation of quantum properties that would then lead to some sort of free will.

And I utterly deny this quote because his definition of free will is absurd. Dennett would also deny that definition of free will as well, and did so in that talk.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2014, 05:39 AM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 07:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it doesn't change anything.
He's offered nothing in the way of experimentation to refute the centers of research which have proven decisions are made before we are fully aware of them.
(Like the work of (Dr.) David Eagleman in Texas.)
He never really defines what he's actually talking about. He says that we are special because we can represent to ourselves the "reasons" we've done something.
a. It have been proven those reasons are a "subconscious war", the players in which we are not even fully aware of,
It has been shown that some reasons of some actions at some levels behave that way.
Quote:b. the choice is made before we are conscious of the choice
For some choices in some situations.
Quote:c. I'm sure many people can and do lie to themselves, (or have no idea) why they do certain things.
We observe that here at TTA all the bleeding time. Big Grin
Quote:d. the quote in the article refutes him. IF you have to *learn* something, then you were not originally "free" to do it, now were you ?

That does not logically follow. I have learned to play golf. I chose not to play golf today.

This whole discussion requires a definition of free will - there isn't one that is commonly agreed upon. Dennett alludes to that.

This reminds me of the whole S-R mania in the mid-twentieth century with Skinner and Hebb et al. claiming that everything is explained by stimulus-response implying there really isn't any thinking or intentionality or even consciousness.

While S-R explains some things at some level, it ignores emergent properties as does the current extrapolation of the results of a simple neuroscience experiments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: Bucky and freewill
(18-10-2014 09:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2014 06:57 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm not seeing the connection between the claim that random fluctuations might imply that our decisions are not purely mechanistic and our having free will. The article even notes that "randomness is a far cry from making free and intentioned decisions". The random fluctuations wouldn't be under our control so they would not allow us to control the decision process any more than if they are purely mechanistic.

Dennett talks about the "type of free will worth having" and nothing he says requires anything more than the illusion of free will.


I don't see how that affects whether we have free will or not. All that research indicated is that decisions are, at least sometimes, made in the subconcious. That is still a part of us, it would just specify where "free will" occurs (or doesn't as the case may be).

"Free will" implies *control*. No one is in control of their subconscious.
(And religious "free will" is *control and conscious of ALL the elements in a decision*).

Define 'free will'. And describe how the subconscious is involved in long-range planning.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: