2 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassNo. You got that back-to-front.
Ok, sure. It's an possibility which cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, kinda like a religion.
Acknowledging we cannot prove or disprove something is not religion. That acknowledgment makes it more like science and less like religion.
Believing it must be true when it could be false is more like religion.
That belief makes it more like religion and less like science.
1 edit
Originally posted by wildgrassnothing you said there even begins to address the contradiction with your definition which completely invalidates it.
It appears that you have identified a linguistic technicality that is bothering you, but other than that I don't know what you're trying to argue. I have admitted that the terminology can be problematic (Based on the "free will" wikipedia article, it's been thoroughly debated for centuries), but "the ability to make decisions" appears to be an appropriate ...[text shortened]... dy the underlying mechanisms. Use apathists word "volition" if the other definition bothers you.
Originally posted by humyHow many times do you want me to say it? I admit it's a contradiction. You have created a computer algorithm that can mimic the ability to make decisions and raises questions as to the nature of free will. Are we good?
nothing you said there even begins to address the contradiction with your definition which completely invalidates it.
My point, however, is that this definition and terminology is currently used in the biological sciences to ask questions regarding the nature of free will. It's an active area of legitimate research. I am not a neuroscientist by training, but if you go to google scholar and type in "free will" or "volition", hundreds of articles come up in the realm of neuroscience. To me, this validates its use as a definition. It's not pseudoscience.
14 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassthen how can it possibly be a valid let alone an adequate and reasonable definition?
I admit it's a contradiction.
Far better and more logical and scientific just to admit you don't have an adequate definition; just as I admit I don't have an adequate definition of "consciousness" or "mind" etc.
if you go to google scholar and type in "free will" or "volition", hundreds of articles come up in the realm of neuroscience.
Yes, if you google ANY common vague and/or unscientific term, you always DO get many pseudo-scientific links (I will give examples for you to try out on request). In case you haven't already notices, the internet is absolutely stuffed FULL of millions of such pseudo-scientific links and of a great variety of many different kinds of pseudosciences. Sorry! To show that something isn't pseudoscience, or at least merely probably not, you most definitely have to do something more than show its widespread on the internet! Since pseudosciences are widespread on the net, that isn't 'evidence' that its a valid science.
Originally posted by humyI don't want to keep going down this road. Are you trying to invalidate scientific concepts based on the fact that their definitions differ depending on the context of a given discussion, and/or the field of science in which they are being studied? This could go on for months. Let's try the definition of "cell" next. Maybe that doesn't exist either.
then how can it possibly be a valid let alone an adequate and reasonable definition?
Far better and more logical and scientific just to admit you don't have an adequate definition; just as I admit I don't have an adequate definition of "consciousness" or "mind" etc.
[quote] if you go to google scholar and type in "free will" or "volition", hundreds of article ...[text shortened]... Since pseudosciences are widespread on the net, that isn't 'evidence' that its a valid science.
But I think you actually do understand this terminology in the context of what we're talking about. I'll be ready to talk about the science when you are, starting with the article I posted in response to twhitehead's comment. I have not and will not post anything about pseudoscience, only hypothesis-driven questions and results from people trying to move the field forward. Google scholar is an excellent resource if you want to search peer-reviewed research articles on a whole host of topics. You should know about it.
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassNo. And "free will" isn't a scientific concept.
Are you trying to invalidate scientific concepts ...
Let's try the definition of "cell" next.
OK;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)
"...A cell is the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, ..."
Seems good-enough although I think I can come up with a slightly better one to take into account a few complicating factors. What about it? It is vastly less vague than any definition I have seen of "free will".
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh man, sorry. I can't stand when federally-funded research gets stuck behind a pay wall. It should all be public knowledge.
I have to point out that there is no mention of 'free will' in the summary at your link, and to read the full article costs money.
The quote I wanted to highlight was their final conclusion, but I can post additional quotes as well.
...integration-to-bound theory may help to resolve the contradiction between the subjective report of free will and the requirement for causal antecedents to non-capricious, willed actions. ... our results provide a starting point for investigating mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will and intention to act, which might be conserved among mammalian species
Originally posted by wildgrassSo:
Oh man, sorry. I can't stand when federally-funded research gets stuck behind a pay wall. It should all be public knowledge.
The quote I wanted to highlight was their final conclusion, but I can post additional quotes as well....integration-to-bound theory may help to resolve the contradiction between the subjective report of free will and the r ...[text shortened]... ch as self, will and intention to act, which might be conserved among mammalian species
1. They note that 'free will' is subjective and not a known fact - contrary to your definition which assumes it is a fact.
2. They are, as I suggested earlier, investigating the mechanisms behind higher order concepts such as self, will, intention etc. There is nothing whatsoever stopping us from discussing higher order concepts without knowing the mechanisms behind them.
3. I find the restriction to 'mammalian species' somewhat arbitrary.
4. If we were to break down what they are actually saying in that conclusion, I think we would find that they are investigating whether or not conscious thought leads directly to the outcome of a decision. That is certainly an interesting topic and is relevant to the question of free will, but it is hardly the only question.
So:
If it turns out that decisions are made in the unconscious what implications does that have?
If it turns out that decisions are made by the conscious (some of the time) what implications does that have?
I still think you need to explain in full why you object to the claim that computers can make decisions. It would help to clarify your definition if you gave that explanation.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou sound like kellyanne. My comment wasn't about my view, but about yours. Asked for clarification, you call strawman. That is pretty funny!
It is not worth restating to you. You wouldn't read it anyway. You would make up what you thought my position is then attack that strawman.
1 edit
When it comes to computers and decision-making, I tend to think of them as glorified stoplights or thermostats. But I know about genetic algorithms, and about how circuitry can evolve - and not just computer simulations of them. The physical embodiment of circuitry can behave in ways different from the simulations, and that defy reductionist explanations.
I'm currently enjoying whatever cohen and stewart feel it is worth talking about. Broad strokes of thought brought to careful fine points.