1 edit
Originally posted by apathistWell that clearly depends on your definition of volition and free will.
You want to understand how the brain works. Does that mean you want to understand how volition (free will) works?
Do you admit that you made up the claim that I do not want to understand how the brain works and actually oppose that understanding being sought?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never said you don't want to understand how the brain works. I specifically asked if you want to understand how volition works.
Well that clearly depends on your definition of volition and free will.
Do you admit that you made up the claim that I do not want to understand how the brain works and actually oppose that understanding being sought?
I'd say that clearly you think free will does not exist. I'm not trying to build a strawman, I'm trying to communicate - which means I need to know your position. Do humans have volition?
>>>What definition do YOU use when you try to answer that question?<<<
Originally posted by humyWhat gave you that idea? When talking about the meanings of words, science has NOTHING to say about it? wow
NO; 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. ...
Earth is flat. Science has nothing to say about that, according to humy. Science doesn't deal with the meanings of words.
Originally posted by apathistYou said:
I never said you don't want to understand how the brain works. I specifically asked if you want to understand how volition works.
But you oppose trying to understand it, which is weird.
I do not see any question mark and the context strongly suggested we were talking about how the brain works.
I say you are lying.
I'd say that clearly you think free will does not exist.
That depends on the definition of 'free will'. There has been a remarkable shortage of clear definitions in this thread.
I'm not trying to build a strawman, I'm trying to communicate - which means I need to know your position.
Then you should begin by asking instead of making false assertions about my position and then denying having made them. Lying isn't the best way to encourage conversation.
My position overall is reasonably clear as I have set it out multiple times over the course of this thread. But you tend not to read my posts and instead try to make up a position for me and then have the nerve to suggest I am lying.
Do humans have volition?
Define volition.
>>>What definition do YOU use when you try to answer that question?<<<
I don't try to answer that question until the definition is provided by the questioner.
I believe humans can make decisions but that the decision making process involves a large number of factors both deterministic and random, environmental, genetic, historical, hormonal, chemical etc. I think consciousness does feedback into the decision making process but that the process overall take place across the brain including a significant amount of unconscious calculation and inputs - usually a lot more than we realise.
Originally posted by apathistHe is correct. What 'flat' means is not defined by science. Science merely uses it for communication purposes. Maths on the other hand, does define what 'flat' means:
Earth is flat. Science has nothing to say about that, according to humy. Science doesn't deal with the meanings of words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_(mathematics)
Science merely determines whether the shape of the earth matches the definition of 'flat'.
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistunless that science is specifically all about the psychology of what people mean by words, correct. Most people including laypeople already know this as an unremarkable fact. You really should study philosophy and also what is conventionally called "scientific method" which is what all valid science is based on. Start here;
When talking about the meanings of words, science has NOTHING to say about it? .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Start off by noting it neither mentions nor implies anywhere there anything about scientifically researching what the meaning/definitions of words SHOULD be; which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the process of scientific method.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll tackle this part first, but obviously there was a lot more in your post (Regarding the "does a silicon chip have free will?", I have answered that several times. It's a distinct paradigm from biological sciences, and probably requires different terminology to properly understand the meaning. Context matters. BTW chip, yet another word that can be distorted by context.)
Point 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.
Once upon a time, big thinkers deemed the problem too complicated to study. Back in 1983, some scientists then "proved" free will doesn't exist because brain activity occurs before awareness they were making decisions. But then here's a 2008 abstract highlighting what can be tackled with new technologies. It is now a very ripe field of scientific study. Scientists remain reluctant to specifically argue yes/no "free will" since a) the experimental systems are complex, b) it's kind of a silly scientific query, and c) will always leave room for philosophically-based criticism but it is clear they are studying free will/volition. As we've agreed earlier, the philosophical hogwash here cannot be resolved and is therefore routinely avoided by scientists.
Several studies suggest that free will is a neurological process that occurs independently of actual decisive actions such as muscle movements (e.g. [2] I can't find free text). Amazingly they did this study in patients undergoing awake brain surgery. They moved without deciding to move, therefore the conscious decision was not required for the decision to occur. It seems like this hypothesis has been expanded upon in recent years [3]. Free will might be an 'illusion', but if it is it raises extremely interesting questions about how that cognitive function evolved and why, and whether or not (and how) its effects can be altered.
Here's an interesting (free full text) study about a "point of no return" in initiating movements [4]. Apparently we have the ability to veto the process of decision-making up to a certain threshold of activity. Rather than speculate as to the implications for free will, they simply state "the possibility of a veto has played an important role in the debate about free will (13), which will not be discussed further here.." In a media interview, the author says "Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought." [5]
Here's another one that should be free full text, using a model of spontaneous self-initiating movements [6], with an associated article about rethinking the 1983 divorce between neuroscience and free will [7]. Again, they do not speculate; rather, they are reframing their results within the context of a free will debate. They stay very far away from the philosophical debate.
The research is ongoing and out there. The interpretations are complex and controversial, but claiming it's all pseudoscience or non-scientific is wrong.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19020512
[2] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5928/811
[3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/
[4] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/1080.long
[5] http://neurosciencenews.com/decision-making-eeg-free-will-3333/
[6] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/E2904.full.pdf
[7] http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.html
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have not avoided these questions, I already answered the second one several times. Remember moonbus's statement that "if you keep the logical categories distinct, the mind/body problem goes away."
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.
As to the first one I don't know. It's an open scientific question, and a very interesting one. We need to do the experiments first in order to know. When we started studying cardiovascular systems, did we know if flies had circulatory systems? Not until we cut them open and imaged their organs and studied how their blood flowed did we discover that they have a simple non-directional heart which pumps hemolymph.
Originally posted by wildgrassSo basically your definition is useless.
I'll tackle this part first, but obviously there was a lot more in your post (Regarding the "does a silicon chip have free will?", I have answered that several times. It's a distinct paradigm from biological sciences, and probably requires different terminology to properly understand the meaning. Context matters. BTW chip, yet another word that can be distorted by context.)
Worse, you contradict yourself over your definition from post to post.
At one point we have free will because its defined as what we have, but cant say whether other animals have it or whether computers can have it, then you are citing studies that suggest we might not have it. Your definition is so vague as to be of no value from a scientific stand point.
Originally posted by humyNew knowledge created through the scientific method changes definitions and meanings and concepts all the time. They are often imprecise and unsatisfying.
unless that science is specifically all about the psychology of what people mean by words, correct. Most people including laypeople already know this as an unremarkable fact. You really should study philosophy and also what is conventionally called "scientific method" which is what all valid science is based on. Start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scie ...[text shortened]... s of words SHOULD be; which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the process of scientific method.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBased on your definition of vague, what words aren't vague?
So basically your definition is useless.
Worse, you contradict yourself over your definition from post to post.
At one point we have free will because its defined as what we have, but cant say whether other animals have it or whether computers can have it, then you are citing studies that suggest we might not have it. Your definition is so vague as to be of no value from a scientific stand point.
I understand that the definition of free will is controversial and debatable. We've already been over this. What I am saying is that scientists are actively studying free will/volition as defined by "the ability to make decisions" in humans and other mammals. This fact seems clear/apparent by the references. I'm not even getting that deep into the literature. The review articles have hundreds of references. I'm sorry to sound purposefully evasive on the subject of what does or does not have free will, but I'm trying to be precise and I feel these are active ongoing research subjects.
I'm also not contradicting myself in these references. What study suggests we don't have free will?
Originally posted by wildgrassIt depends on context.
Based on your definition of vague, what words aren't vague?
I understand that the definition of free will is controversial and debatable. We've already been over this.
Yes, and when we were going over it, you made the claim that we indisputably have free will because you define free will as what we have.
What I am saying is that scientists are actively studying free will/volition as defined by "the ability to make decisions" in humans and other mammals.
I am sure they are and have not disputed that. Why you feel the need to demonstrate that they are is what is confusing.
I'm sorry to sound purposefully evasive on the subject of what does or does not have free will, but I'm trying to be precise and I feel these are active ongoing research subjects.
My issue is that you made some apparently definite claims earlier in the thread suggesting that we could not make a computer that had free will.
What study suggests we don't have free will?
Well that, obviously, depends on how it is defined. Given that you keep changing definitions, I cannot give an answer.
Originally posted by twhiteheadA thought experiment allegedly designed to test for free will:
It depends on context.
[b]I understand that the definition of free will is controversial and debatable. We've already been over this.
Yes, and when we were going over it, you made the claim that we indisputably have free will because you define free will as what we have.
What I am saying is that scientists are actively studying free will/vo ...[text shortened]... depends on how it is defined. Given that you keep changing definitions, I cannot give an answer.
Suppose we have a board with colored buttons on it leading to unknown devices.
Say they are in a circle, say 12 of them in a circle plus one in center.
They are all painted red except one somewhere in the circle, a single button painted green.
Your given task for the test is to just push a button, any button you want.
If you push the green button what does that say about free will? Or if you pushed the middle button what does that say about free will?