1 edit
Originally posted by apathistThat would mean average must be absolutely unimaginably terrible.
I have higher education in computers, so maybe I process the popular science articles on the subject better than average.
we don't need college degrees to share knowledge and understanding.
Apparently nobody got around to sharing this knowledge and understanding with you.
Originally posted by humyFine, I'm stupid. But that doesn't make me wrong, or didn't you know that?
That would mean average must be absolutely unimaginably terrible.we don't need college degrees to share knowledge and understanding.
Apparently nobody got around to sharing this knowledge and understanding with you.
Originally posted by wildgrassThe deniers don't introspect. Their opinions come from ideology. I don't understand that view.
...
It just doesn't make sense that a group of neuroscientists would seek to test whether or not free will exists. It's too speculative. Would a meteorologist check to make sure the wind exists before he measures its speed? No. You can feel the wind. You can see the trees moving. You can measure its speed. That it doesn't exist is still formally possible from a philosophical standpoint, but it's functionally useless if you want to study it....
If computers can ride their console like riding a horse, then we have some new friends. Or enemies.
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistYou don't understand that view because it doesn't exist.
The deniers don't introspect. Their opinions come from ideology. I don't understand that view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Oh; and now you are being dishonest ...as well as wrong and stupid.
Originally posted by wildgrassPoint me to any science paper that isn't behind a paywall and lets look at the conclusions. There is a very good chance we will find philosophical speculations in the conclusion.
Most of the biologists I know are equally anathema to philosophy, especially when writing up their work.
Some geezer long ago decided that free will doesn't exist without any evidence,
No. Some very wise people long ago realised that some definitions of 'free will' are incoherent and therefore cannot exist. No evidence is required to show that something illogical is not so.
and now we all have to constantly question it? Does this keyboard I'm typing on even exist? I dunno. Pssh.
What a terrible analogy. A basic philosophy course would do you a lot of good. Basic logical reasoning should be a prerequisite for doing science.
Discussion points in manuscripts tend to focus on the implications, limitations and caveats of the findings, and broadening the scope to relevant fields, but without over interpreting or speculating on any of your actual data.
And you will find that in the article you cited, they do not actually say that they have made any findings with regards to free will. In fact they seem to suggest that people subjectively think they experience free will but that cannot easily be studied and may not exist.
This is really really important if you know what you're doing, because you do not want a reviewer rejecting your paper after years of work and months of revisions because of a wildly speculative over interpretation of your data at the very end of your manuscript.
And I do not think that they did over interpret their data. That didn't stop them from wild speculations, nor does it stop most scientists. Again, logical thinking would help you here to understand what I am saying.
It just doesn't make sense that a group of neuroscientists would seek to test whether or not free will exists. It's too speculative.
But you claimed that it exists by definition. Now you seem to be completely contradicting yourself (as you have many times with regards to what 'free will' actually is).
If you could bring yourself to give a meaningful definition for 'free will' then I am willing to bet it could be reasonably tested for scientifically, no speculation required.
Would a meteorologist check to make sure the wind exists before he measures its speed? No. You can feel the wind. You can see the trees moving. You can measure its speed. That it doesn't exist is still formally possible from a philosophical standpoint, but it's functionally useless if you want to study it.
So you are claiming the wind might not exist? And you call yourself a scientist? Seriously, take a few basic philosophy courses on the internet. They are free. They'll either improve your logical thinking or make you go mad.
The terminology isn't vague. it isn't religious either. You've applied your own interpretation of what free will is and have asserted that it's vague,
I have asserted that as you have defined it, 'free will' is extremely vague. That you seem totally unable to answer basic questions about it confirms my claim.
Before we go further please answer these questions:
1. Do all animals have free will. If not, which do and which don't?
2. Could a computer be built with free will. If not, why not?
If you cannot answer them state clearly that you cannot, rather than avoiding them like the plague as you have been doing until now.
Originally posted by humyI did. And people where making volitional decisions long before your ideology said they couldn't. There is an interesting and useful issue here, gotta wonder why you hide from it so violently. It's important for you to not bear responsibility for your decisions? Wasn't your fault, just another stoplight clicking switches.
Actually I was deliberately implying you were wrong as well as stupid. You can be both wrong and stupid, or didn't you know that?
Originally posted by twhitehead...Does science know how to determine which systems produce consciousness? I just addressed both of your questions.
1. Do all animals have free will. If not, which do and which don't?
2. Could a computer be built with free will. If not, why not?...
Not to say that if something causes subjective experience then it must have volitional capability, but to point out that science doesn't have much of a clue yet. But you oppose trying to understand it, which is weird.
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistSince I have no idea what you mean by this vague "volitional decisions", and since you have no idea what you mean either as clearly shown by your inability to adequately define any of these vague terms, I have no such ideology.
And people where making volitional decisions long before your ideology said they couldn't.
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistThat question is scientifically meaningless until if and when you or someone gives an adequate definition of the vague word "consciousness".
Does science know how to determine which systems produce consciousness? .
Any question that uses very vague undefinable terms is not a scientific one and cannot be properly scientifically explored until if or when there is clarity made of the meaning.
Originally posted by apathistYou 'addressed' my questions by not answering them? Ha ha. You clearly didn't understand why they were asked. Wildgrass claims to have a definition for 'free will' and I am seeking clarification on what his definition is. Your counter question does nothing to aid this.
Does science know how to determine which systems produce consciousness? I just addressed both of your questions.
Not to say that if something causes subjective experience then it must have volitional capability, but to point out that science doesn't have much of a clue yet. But you oppose trying to understand it, which is weird.
And there you go again, falsely attributing to me views I don't hold.
What if anything have I ever said that lead you to believe that I oppose trying to understand how the brain works?
Nothing.
You made that up.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou want to understand how the brain works. Does that mean you want to understand how volition (free will) works?
...But you oppose trying to understand it, which is weird.
And there you go again, falsely attributing to me views I don't hold.
What if anything have I ever said that lead you to believe that I oppose trying to understand how the brain works?...
Originally posted by humyClarity comes from the investigation. (The word 'life' for example.)
Any question that uses very vague undefinable terms is not a scientific one and cannot be properly scientifically explored until if or when there is clarity made of the meaning.
>>>So explain YOUR definition for volition.<<<
5 edits
Originally posted by apathistNO; unless the scientific investigation is directly and specifically for the psychology of what people mean by a term, a scientific investigation does NOT clarify what the definition of the term should be. The validly of a definition always depends on what we generally actually mean by it, NOT scientific facts (other than specifically those of the psychology of what we mean) such as biological ones or physics ones etc.
Clarity comes from the investigation. (The word 'life' for example.)
>>>So explain YOUR definition for volition.<<<
Why? It is almost just as vague and undefinable as the term 'free will' and I never claimed the contrary to that. Keep up.