Originally posted by apathistHow do you easily recognize a strong willed person from a weak willed person?
Free will is [b]volition, which is studied by science (multi-discipline). So of course science can detect it.
Volition is part of the human condition, and learning what to look for makes it fun and interesting to detect it within ourselves through introspection. Will is a type of power! It should be nurtured, not dismissed.
It's easy for an indiv ...[text shortened]... gnize the difference between a person with strong will and a person with weak will, for example.[/b]
And can a weak willed person change to strong, and vice versa?
Originally posted by wildgrassCorrection: it spurred doubts regarding the libertarian concept of free will.
[b]Apparently this landmark 1983 paper, documenting the "unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act", has been cited over 1,700 times in academic journals [1]. This is the original study that spurred doubts regarding the concept of free will. ...
Of course there is 'unconscious' activity preceding awareness of the final decision - but there had been feedback between mind and brain which led up to that final decision. The mind was a player.
Every decision concerns choices or options. The brain processes information as it tries to reach a decision, and keeps updating the mind, checking for response in return. The mind, of course, is the global workspace. That's how things seem to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory
2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3How they respond when faced with a decision between short-term gratification vs long-term desired goals, for example.
How do you easily recognize a strong willed person from a weak willed person?
And can a weak willed person change to strong, and vice versa?
Yes. Doing so is a process, which is a subject of psychology (google it).
I'd point out that our own will-power ebbs and flows throughout our days and our lives.
Originally posted by apathistMaybe the philosophical implications were always clear, but the Libet et al. experiments changed the entire discussion on the research end of things. Before that it was only sociological mumbo jumbo, but now... Does neural activity precede or coincide with conscious awareness? You point out that distinction may be inconsequential for the existence of free will but it is an important step in establishing mechanisms of thought experimentally. I found this gem of a semi-religious quote that seemed to fit here:
Correction: it spurred doubts regarding the libertarian concept of free will.
[b]Of course there is 'unconscious' activity preceding awareness of the final decision - but there had been feedback between mind and brain which led up to that final decision. The mind was a player.
Every decision concerns choices or options. The brain processes ...[text shortened]... orkspace. That's how things seem to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory[/b]
.. it may take time for people to turn awareness of a decision into the relatively complex report of it demanded in his experiments. But even if brain activity does come first, this is only at odds with the idea of free will if we believe either in a personality distinct from, and which ought to control, the brain, or conversely that what we observe as our material body describes the totality of who we are, rather than being one manifestation of it.
Obviously the "or" part of the quote is where the religious- and scientifically-minded folk part ways, but that's ok. Since personality/mind is part of your brain, then neural activity preceding awareness is completely aligned with the concept of free will. Case closed. Mic drop.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/04/religion-buddhism
11 edits
Originally posted by apathist"violation" of what? What does that mean? Honestly don't know what you are talking about.
Free will is volition, which is studied by science
Is "violation" a scientific term? If not, how can it be "studied" by science?
In what way "studied"? Can you give a specific example of this "studied" with a specific observation and explain what that has to do with or how does it demonstrate "violation" (of something) ?
Originally posted by humyVolition. Seriously, it's like you are a bit slow.
[b]"violation" of what? What does that mean? Honestly don't know what you are talking about.
Is "violation" a scientific term? If not, how can it be "studied" by science?
In what way "studied"? Can you give a specific example of this "studied" with a specific observation and explain what that has to do with or how does it demonstrate "violation" (of something) ?
I'm autistic. I did not intend slur.
13 edits
Originally posted by apathistI am currently doing cutting edge research and of an extremely rare kind not normally done by anyone; specifically, in developing totally new kinds of statistical equations (mainly called mav equations in this case) for the analysis of raw scientific data and also researching the implications of those new equations for scientific philosophy; at least the first part of that sounds pretty boring, and much of it albeit certainly not all of it is, but its cutting edge nevertheless. But the point I like to make here is that it is both cutting edge and nothing like any pseudo-science. All its axioms and terminology are well defined and would be very easily understood by rational laypeople and it has none of the kind of vagueness of concepts and terms that you would find in a typical pseudo-science. Its real science.
[b]So how do you recognize a frontier.
Cutting edge! Do you engage in new research at all, young man?[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistI have no idea what you are talking about; "no choice" about what? What kind of "indoctrination"?
Do you tell your kids they have no choice?
Look, no-one needs your acceptance here. Figure out how to process your indoctrination and then come back.
And I didn't ask for nor seek "acceptance".
Originally posted by humyIt's a side issue, but I wonder about it. Do you teach your kids that according to your understanding, everything that ever happens was pre-determined by the laws of physics at the dawn of time? If we had enough information then the future is knowable in entirety?
I have no idea what you are talking about; "no choice" about what? What kind of "indoctrination"?
And I didn't ask for nor seek "acceptance".
3 edits
Originally posted by apathistIf I had kids, which I don't, I wouldn't teach them that at all. Physics doesn't currently say one way or the other that everything is determined and thus that is what I would teach them. I would also teach them not to form any opinion based on ignorance;
It's a side issue, but I wonder about it. Do you teach your kids that according to your understanding, everything that ever happens was pre-determined by the laws of physics at the dawn of time? If we had enough information then the future is knowable in entirety?
Better and much more intelligent to humbly admit ignorance and have no opinion on something than to arrogantly base one's opinion on something based on ignorance.
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one.