"Freedom" of the will.

[Flannel Jesus]

Don't be ridiculous, our brains do not work anything like computers, there's an entire field devoted to trying to mimic our brain function by using adaptive learning and fuzzy logic.

What makes you think adaptive learning and fuzzy logic cannot be produced by a computer program?

[Calrid]

Don't be ridiculous, our brains do not work anything like computers, there's an entire field devoted to trying to mimic our brain function by using adaptive learning and fuzzy logic.

What makes you think adaptive learning and fuzzy logic cannot be produced by a computer program?

What makes you think even if they could it says anything about biology?

If I drew a map of the world, would it tell me anything about Chinese culture?

What computers do atm is merely try to copy the way we think the brain learns, this however does not say anything about the actual biological function of memory and learning. It is just copying the superficiality. It's obvious to anyone working in biology that the way a computer works and the way a person does whilst sharing some superficial similarities are utterly different. This is not an accident after all the computer was designed by human brains.

[Calrid]

Yeah but those experiments only dealt with decisions that involved picking two arbitrary choices with their left or right hand..

Incorrect and once again displaying great ignorance.

What about the study of heuristics ? What about the study of cognitive biases? What about game theory ?

The problem here is that you don't know much about how the brain works so you just chuck it up to magic or some other indiscernible functioning that is not supported in any way by evidence.

No the problem here is you have absolutely not the first clue how to begin to even remotely map either how the brain works or how we make any decision, so what you do is make massive leaps of logic, talk cavernous amounts of religious waffle and then pretend the problem is solved. Volchok if the problem of free will had been solved by science, surely you would of expected us to have heard about it by now, but horror and shock you type it in to google and you find that the entire field are at complete odds not even on whether free will exists, but whether it is even possible to prove either way atm at all.

You can make reasonable inferences, what you can't do is then claim reasonable inferences = science without having done any of the groundwork. If you start doing things like claiming free will is solved before there is any peer review or consensus then you are in for a very short career when you do receive criticism. What Libet has said is his experiments demonstrate some interesting things about human thought. What neither he nor anyone else except pop science magazines have said is the issue of free will is dead. You have bought into the hype.

In science a resort to authority is king, the day someone wins a Nobel prize in medicine for proving or disproving the existence of free will is the day anyone including you should actually give a shit. And even then they may well be wrong.

What you are guilty of here thou is even worse than just ignorance and sidestepping the whole scientific process to proceed to a conclusion, you are also projecting all the flaws of your own argument onto other peoples justified claims at uncertainty and ignoring the fact you are clueless as to how to prove the matter yourself.

[Flannel Jesus]

What makes you think even if they could it says anything about biology?

Well, it's all I need to know that the idea of the brain working in something resembling binary, even if correct, isn't "ridiculous" or beyond consideration. To know that it's possible to produce in binary means, well, that it's possible that it is binary.

[volchok]

A list of where people drive says nothing important about how their car engines run.

That's not a fair analogy now, is it ?
The distinction between how the mind works and the result of its functioning is a practical one. It doesn't truly exist. What you perceive as your mind is your brain functioning. In your analogy, the car can drive to different locations because it is controlled by a driver. Not the case at all.

All you can say is that the models you propose via other methods fit the statistical data.

I don't necessarily agree with this but still, have I ever said anything beyond "what you're claiming does not fit with what we know" ?

Now who is confusing free will with randomness?

You are. Pretty clearly in fact.

If randomness were true, we would act in nonsensical ways given our past and our knowledge but at the same time, the behavior would be perfectly adequate given the input. It's just that the inputs would always be random and non dependent on any previous input. On the other hand, free will and a sane mind simply can't coexist. It's not even conceivable how free will could ever exist. If anyone wants to take a shot at explaining how it could be real, I'll listen. It should be good. Or not...

[volchok]

@calrid

By your standards, science hasn't disproved god either but I don't see you holding back in regards to the likelihood of god existing. As far as I can tell, you're a pretty staunch atheist.

You can keep whining how there is no consensus and all that bs but you can't explain your behavior without ending in an infinite regression nor can you account for the contents of your consciousness. So, already free will has been debunked. Or does your free will erase your memory too?

[Calrid]

@calrid

By your standards, science hasn't disproved god either but I don't see you holding back in regards to the likelihood of god existing. As far as I can tell, you're a pretty staunch atheist.

God is not a scientific area of investigation, free will is. WIll you stop using that piece of crap non sequitur as well, it didn't fly the first time you reeled it out. I don't suppose the fact I am agnostic has registered in your analogy here?

You can keep whining how there is no consensus and all that bs but you can't explain your behavior without ending in an infinite regression nor can you account for the contents of your consciousness. So, already free will has been debunked. Or does your free will erase your memory too?

You mean I can keep siding with real science while you go do that fairy tale shit you think matters to anyone but yourself. Cheers.

You cannot account for the contents of your consciousness without disappearing into your own fantastic la la land; as you well know to model the conscious minds first requires a map of it, then it needs a comprehensive biological functional analysis, then these things need to be correlated in such a way they fit observable processes. You can't just say some area of the brain lit up and some didn't and so the person was doing x, it's clown shoes and extremely poor science. There is no part of the brain that is only unconscious and no part of the brain that is purely conscious because the brain is a connectome not a modular system like a computer, functionality is not the preserve of one system, say for example like a hard drive or ALU is in a computer; to prove that you were doing something purely unconscious is hence impossible let alone claim we have no free will any more than proving that if a specific area lights up we must be doing maths is. And let alone the fact that it has already shown that a partly random system is the only system that does not suffer from eternal regression. If you have any more bad arguments that have already been refuted though be sure to make them again and again, it sure was fun the fifth time. Usually I save criticisms like living in a world of your own for creationists, but you have gone so far through your wardrobe you are on Narnia. And to reiterate the point again, even if the action of choosing between two items with your right or left hand, when nothing at all rides on the decision, only proves that you use very little conscious function when the decision is completely independent of value. Whilst this is an important, if obvious conclusion, it says nothing about free will.

If randomness were true, we would act in nonsensical ways given our past and our knowledge but at the same time, the behaviour would be perfectly adequate given the input. It's just that the inputs would always be random and non dependent on any previous input.

Again with this nonsense. If the inputs are random, such as for example coming up with an idea off the top of your head seemingly from nowhere, but the conscious decision process is deterministic then there is no reason that a random input will lead to a random output. For Jesus on a unicycles sake do you actually understand anything anyone says to you. Or are you just waiting for them to finish so you can repeat the same flawed logic to them over and over again, like some insane nodding duck?

Not to mention the fact that people tend to behave extremely unpredictably and that psychology is so weak because of this. In fact if ever there is a proof of free will it is the utterly unpredictable behaviours and lengths humans go to. There may be common behaviours as there will in any social grouping but looking at even say the way people behave when there is a fire in the building shows we are capable of often extremely counterintuitive and counterproductive behaviour, so that 10% people actually run towards the fire thinking this the most likely means of escape instead of away from it for example.

[volchok]

God is not a scientific area of investigation, free will is.

It might come as a shock to you but I'm not gonna just take your word for it.
Why ?

You mean I can keep siding with real science while you go do that fairy tale shit you think matters to anyone but yourself. Cheers.

You ignore science. And logic for that matter.
What's the point?

that is only unconscious and no part of the brain that is purely conscious

I never made such a claim.

And let alone the fact that it has already shown that a partly random system is the only system that does not suffer from eternal regression.

I'd love to see you explain that but even if it were true, how does that grant you free will?

Again with this nonsense. If the inputs are random, such as for example coming up with an idea off the top of your head seemingly from nowhere, but the conscious decision process is deterministic then there is no reason that a random input will lead to a random output.

The only nonsense here is that apparently you can't read. I never said that the output would be random. In fact, I said the output would be adequate given the input. We're talking English here right?

Furthermore, I never said that unconscious processing is random while conscious processing is deterministic. Why you keep making shit up like this is beyond me.

[Calrid]

God is not a scientific area of investigation, free will is.

It might come as a shock to you but I'm not gonna just take your word for it.
Why ?

You mean I can keep siding with real science while you go do that fairy tale shit you think matters to anyone but yourself. Cheers.

You ignore science. And logic for that matter.
What's the point?

that is only unconscious and no part of the brain that is purely conscious

I never made such a claim.

And let alone the fact that it has already shown that a partly random system is the only system that does not suffer from eternal regression.

I'd love to see you explain that but even if it were true, how does that grant you free will?

Again with this nonsense. If the inputs are random, such as for example coming up with an idea off the top of your head seemingly from nowhere, but the conscious decision process is deterministic then there is no reason that a random input will lead to a random output.

The only nonsense here is that apparently you can't read. I never said that the output would be random. In fact, I said the output would be adequate given the input. We're talking English here right?

Furthermore, I never said that unconscious processing is random while conscious processing is deterministic. Why you keep making shit up like this is beyond me.

Lol you are delusional frankly. You have had everything I mentioned explained a dozen times and it still doesn't sink in. How many people do you want to tell you are full of shit before you start to believe that actually all this half baked nonsense is exactly what they are telling you it is?

You should do a PhD and prove in it that free will does not exist, I bet you wouldn't even get funding, in fact most people would probably laugh at you for even suggesting it was an area of research that could yield any definite answers. Get with the real world, just shouting there is no free will and quoting endlessly poor logic at people is pointless. If you can't convince a bunch of internet nobodies you have absolutely no chance of convincing science, in fact I wonder on such a huse of cards of poor logic you even convinced yourself. Perhaps it would yield more results if you analysed why you in fact think you alone have all the answers. And what people who think they do against all common agreement are usually described as.

For the last time and I mean it this time

If an input is random but the random variable has a dependent variable then the resultant output although non deterministic is the result of a relationship. Hence something like a photon that has infinite possibilities, when acted on or measured only has finite outcomes and in fact usually only one, at no point is the methodology deemed purely deterministic except when the results are in. Likewise the way photons work cannot be purely random because they have quantised states, and interact with specific quantisation states. The analogy is simple. You can have a thought that came about from random brain activity say if an apple fell on your head you might suddenly be inspired to explain why it was not God who made it fall. Now this random event, with a random resultant thought, could be reasoned on by you and produce an entirely determined system. Even if it is all allegorical and didn't actually happen to Newton. We don't have to regress to what produced a random thought because by definition randomness does not equate to exact cause and effect. Only determinism needs an absolute cause, and hence only purely deterministic systems have a problem with eternal regress.

[volchok]

So, let me get this straight, you misquote me and misrepresent me and I am delusional? Right..

Anyway, all that bullshit just to say that randomness doesn't lead to an infinite regress? I don't care what "produced the random thought".
The point is, that if was caused randomly, then you can´t claim free will. Isn't this insanely obvious?

Are you the author of your thoughts and yet they are randomly caused? Yep, that must be it.

[Calrid]

So, let me get this straight, you misquote me and misrepresent me and I am delusional? Right..

Anyway, all that bullshit just to say that randomness doesn't lead to an infinite regress? I don't care what "produced the random thought".
The point is, that if was caused randomly, then you can´t claim free will. Isn't this insanely obvious?

Are you the author of your thoughts and yet they are randomly caused? Yep, that must be it.

You keep saying if it was caused randomly then you can't claim free will but this is in fact horse shit, a holistic approach to a system with a random element can and could produce free will and what's more it is not even disputed in philosophy, in fact as I already linked several eminent philosophers have used to prove how a non deterministic universe could produce free will, it's not even contentious. It's worse than delusional you are just plain wrong. Stop saying truly random means no free will, because that is the only the case if the whole system is completely random, ie we all just run around acting on random whims with no conscious thought involved that isn't just more random noise, clearly no brain works that way so who cares? The more times you say this nonsense, and in different ways does not make it truer than it did the first time you claimed it.

It is true that if we acted randomly and without any conscious process that this was not a freely wiled choice that's a no brainer by definition of choice and will, however since the brain is a hugely complex reiterative device with several billion feedback loops claiming that we do behave like that is frankly stupid. Feed a random variable into a deterministic system and no matter how many times you run the processes the output is determined if not predictable, only the initial variable is random. In fact that's precisely what much of quantum mechanics does, it takes truly random systems and makes predictions based reductively on experimental results. In other words it tames any random process into a statistical non wholly deterministic but useful whole. There is no reason to believe that the brain cannot do the same thing, nor is there as I have said any reason to believe it is not completely deterministic either. We just have no idea, that's the whole point.

[volchok]

is not even disputed in philosophy

lol

eminent philosophers have used to prove how a non deterministic universe could produce free will, it's not even contentious

lol


And I'm the delusional one?




Anyway, please go ahead and demonstrate how free will could ever exist in a semi random, semi deterministic system which seems to be what you're proposing.
This should be good.

[Only_Humean]

Calrid warned for his flamboyant approach to respectful conversation in an only-just-unlocked thread. He'll be gone for a day.

[Calrid]

is not even disputed in philosophy

lol

But it isn't though, you can have free will, philosophy agrees.

eminent philosophers have used to prove how a non deterministic universe could produce free will, it's not even contentious

lol

Again this is not a cause of contention this is where the debate is.

And I'm the delusional one?




Anyway, please go ahead and demonstrate how free will could ever exist in a semi random, semi deterministic system which seems to be what you're proposing.
This should be good.

Yeah Volchok you are delusional I mean, your acknowledgement of your delusion would help you to understand your mental fragility. I have already linked this but hell on the off chance you will actually answer any questions, I'll link it again so you can smugly disregard any need for argument.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

And then read this.

And for once in your stupid Jesus life actually tackle these issues.

3.3 Do We Have Free Will?

A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986) or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own (Pereboom 2001). Smilansky (2000) takes a more complicated position, on which there are two ‘levels’ on which we may assess freedom, ‘compatibilist’ and ‘ultimate’. On the ultimate level of evaluation, free will is indeed incoherent. (Strawson, Pereboom, and Smilansky all provide concise defenses of their positions in Kane 2002.)

The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. Mele (2009) and O'Connor (2009b) argue that the data adduced by Libet, Wegner, and others wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

This is such a contentious field that basically any psychologist has joined one side or the other. If this is a resolved question it's so controversial anyone with any intelligence must assume it is only resolved that the argument is and has never been resolved.

I'm not making up the fact that this field is unresolved just for effect, it just isn't because the science is lacking. Now you can go on claiming your religious beliefs bear any relation to fact, but what you are is a fanatic. And the argument you have is purely dogmatic.

Think about it you claim absolute certainty, you alone know the truth, everyone else is just illogical. What would you say that someone who is claiming that is except a fanatic? Now there's nothing wrong with having a profound belief in your cause, but when your cause is so deeply rooted in a lack of logic, as people have pointed out countless times, one has to ask oneself if they are really on the button.

Answer the contentions. Don't just palm them off with I am rights and you are wrongs as you have done endlessly on this thread.

[volchok]

eminent philosophers have used to prove how a non deterministic universe could produce free will, it's not even contentious
Again this is not a cause of contention this is where the debate is.

This is comedic gold.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

And then read this.

I've read that page more times then I can count.

And for once in your stupid Jesus life actually tackle these issues.

You have just received a warning and you're using an ad hominem again? Can't you have a discussion in a civilized manner?

A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986) or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own (Pereboom 2001). Smilansky (2000) takes a more complicated position, on which there are two ‘levels’ on which we may assess freedom, ‘compatibilist’ and ‘ultimate’. On the ultimate level of evaluation, free will is indeed incoherent. (Strawson, Pereboom, and Smilansky all provide concise defenses of their positions in Kane 2002.)

The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. Mele (2009) and O'Connor (2009b) argue that the data adduced by Libet, Wegner, and others wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.

I just read this two paragraphs and I can´t fathom why you would quote them.
They go against everything you say..

This is such a contentious field that basically any psychologist has joined one side or the other. If this is a resolved question it's so controversial anyone with any intelligence must assume it is only resolved that the argument is and has never been resolved.
I'm not making up the fact that this field is unresolved just for effect, it just isn't because the science is lacking. Now you can go on claiming your religious beliefs bear any relation to fact, but what you are is a fanatic. And the argument you have is purely dogmatic.

As far as I know most psychologists (at least the ones I know on a personal level) have never given the free will issue much thought.
Also, you keep repeating that if the issue is so obvious then everyone would agree with my position. This is of course a nonsequitur.
The science isn't lacking and you're the one being dogmatic because you ignore evidence. That's exactly what dogmatic means. But for the sake of argument, let's say that we had absolutely no scientific knowledge about the brain. None. Would free will seem more likely then? When you really think about it, the answer is no. You simply cannot account as to why or when you think your thoughts and that alone shows that you can't possibly have free will, UNLESS, like I said before you have it and it erases your memory immediately after having "freely willed" something.

Think about it you claim absolute certainty, you alone know the truth, everyone else is just illogical.

Let me put this way, I am as sure that free will doesn't exist as I am sure that fairies do not exist.
However, as in every subject, I'm open to everything for which there is evidence. Having said that, there is no evidence in favor of free will, none. What seems to be evidence at first, your subjective experience, is easily explained and I have explained it. That's why Sam Harris says that the illusion of free will is an illusion in itself. We simply do not feel as free as we think we do.

Another thing; " I alone know the truth" ?
That's bs. A lot of scientists and philosophers do not believe in free will. Many of them were dead long before the advancements of neuroscience.
I didn't discover anything and I didn't come up with new arguments. Everything I've said and have been saying has been said before by much clever people then me.

[Calrid]

I just read this two paragraphs and I can´t fathom why you would quote them.
They go against everything you say..

Lol you are so blind you can't even see when people are criticising others. I don't see the point of this any more you're clearly utterly confused. Why is it usually undergraduates who think they have all the answers to everything? You seldom see a Post Doctorate researcher waffling on about how his research disproves some major contention, 2 years of post school education and suddenly you become the worlds biggest authority on a subject you don't even study. It's a weird phenomena that deserves its own thread I think.

Read it again carefully this time turn off your bias. English is not your first language so I can understand if the subtleties elude you. But that is saying that the whole field is basically a controversy.

You have just received a warning and you're using an ad hominem again? Can't you have a discussion in a civilized manner?

This is civilised, if it wasn't I wouldn't hold back on telling you how much of a jack ass you are.

Another thing; " I alone know the truth" ?
That's bs. A lot of scientists and philosophers do not believe in free will. Many of them were dead long before the advancements of neuroscience.
I didn't discover anything and I didn't come up with new arguments. Everything I've said and have been saying has been said before by much clever people then me.

A resort to authority fallacy? Really? The key here is do not believe free will exists, and since its an opinion not backed up by empirical study it's a fallacy to say what people believe to be true is a mark in its favour, if that were the case then God is more likely to exist because more people believe in him than don't.

That aside a lot of people believe free will does exist and have written extensively on the subject of how it could, Dennett to name but one, but there are many many more. This is the point though I'm not arguing that free will exists, if I was you might have some sort of case, I am arguing that science does not have the means to say if it does or doesn't. And the critique where they dismiss Libets revisionary conclusion just drills home how totally biased you are on this subject. Get some objective skills please, for a start when a scientist makes the claim that free will doesn't exist, and Libet never says that, it behooves any good scientist to check on the peer review and criticism around their work, you would then see that Libet claims that conscious action does not preceed thought or acts, is in fact far from proven, let alone does it say anything about free will. Did you honestly read that and think Stanfords own journals were saying that science has conclusively proven that there is no free will. Really?

=

Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures

In your head I presume this part where he outright blatantly says he still allows the conscious mind the power of veto, means that Libet claims free will is dead? As I said even Libet isn't stupid enough to claim his work proves or disproves free will.

There is evidence for free will, you just refuse to accept it. I've shown at least half a dozen studies that show random activity in the brain, you just dismissed them out of hand as you do anything that doesn't fit your new religion.

In fact there is not a single scientist who would say that their research in any way proved free will did not exist, not even remotely. That much is true. Philosophers sure, but then opinions are like assholes.

[Calrid]

What makes you think even if they could it says anything about biology?

Well, it's all I need to know that the idea of the brain working in something resembling binary, even if correct, isn't "ridiculous" or beyond consideration. To know that it's possible to produce in binary means, well, that it's possible that it is binary.

It isn't though, we know the brain does not encode its signals in anything resembling binary, it encodes it as neurones, or new neuron connections, which is why computers and the human brain work so differently. If you are trying to say that the electrical signals in the brain represent a grid of 1s and 0s that are read by a processor, then you are way off the mark. It seems to me it is more like a massive chemical signalling system that encodes information by making new paths. Probably is more like a grid of inter related chemistry and signalling with different structures doing many and varied jobs. Where as a computer has specialised areas that perform specialised tasks, the brain performs tasks by making connections to a massive web of other areas with multiple functions. The sum being greater than its parts. It's not the individual bits that hold information as in binary, it is the way in which those bits are connected that holds the key to finding out how we encode information.

[volchok]

Lol you are so blind you can't even see when people are criticising others.

I have read those two paragraphs 4 times now. They pretty much go against everything you said while conceding that we may have a compatibilist version of free will which as you know or should know means "freedom to act" and not free will.

Why is it usually undergraduates who think they have all the answers to everything? You seldom see a Post Doctorate researcher waffling on about how his research disproves some major contention, 2 years of post school education and suddenly you become the worlds biggest authority on a subject you don't even study. It's a weird phenomena that deserves its own thread I think.

Why is it that instead of counter-arguing my arguments you attack me because I'm pursuing an education?
Anyway, the educational system where I live differs immensely from the american system. Psychology takes 3 years not 2. I'm currently in my second year. Plus, I did 3 years of what I guess you call "law school" before.

This is civilised, if it wasn't I wouldn't hold back on telling you how much of a jack ass you are.

And another ad hominem.

A resort to authority fallacy? Really?

Holy shit balls. Seriously? I simply stated that a lot of scientists and philosophers do not believe in free will BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT I ALONE KNEW THE TRUTH.
I never said that you should believe that free will is an illusion because others believe that. You should obviously come to your own conclusions trough logic and critical thinking.

In your head I presume this part where he outright blatantly says he still allows the conscious mind the power of veto, means that Libet claims free will is dead? As I said even Libet isn't stupid enough to claim his work proves or disproves free will.

If you go back a few pages on this thread you will see that a post where I said that Libet himself didn't think he had disproved free will and also that he thought we had an ability to veto actions. I mean, it's just a few pages ago. Do you have that poor of a short-term memory?

There is evidence for free will, you just refuse to accept it. I've shown at least half a dozen studies that show random activity in the brain, you just dismissed them out of hand as you do anything that doesn't fit your new religion.

My case does not depend on determinism being true. So why the fuck would I care about random activity?

[Calrid]

Lol you are so blind you can't even see when people are criticising others.

I have read those two paragraphs 4 times now. They pretty much go against everything you said while conceding that we may have a compatibilist version of free will which as you know or should know means "freedom to act" and not free will.

Why is it usually undergraduates who think they have all the answers to everything? You seldom see a Post Doctorate researcher waffling on about how his research disproves some major contention, 2 years of post school education and suddenly you become the worlds biggest authority on a subject you don't even study. It's a weird phenomena that deserves its own thread I think.

Why is it that instead of counter-arguing my arguments you attack me because I'm pursuing an education?
Anyway, the educational system where I live differs immensely from the american system. Psychology takes 3 years not 2. I'm currently in my second year. Plus, I did 3 years of what I guess you call "law school" before.

This is civilised, if it wasn't I wouldn't hold back on telling you how much of a jack ass you are.

And another ad hominem.

A resort to authority fallacy? Really?

Holy shit balls. Seriously? I simply stated that a lot of scientists and philosophers do not believe in free will BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT I ALONE KNEW THE TRUTH.
I never said that you should believe that free will is an illusion because others believe that. You should obviously come to your own conclusions trough logic and critical thinking.

In your head I presume this part where he outright blatantly says he still allows the conscious mind the power of veto, means that Libet claims free will is dead? As I said even Libet isn't stupid enough to claim his work proves or disproves free will.

If you go back a few pages on this thread you will see that a post where I said that Libet himself didn't think he had disproved free will and also that he thought we had an ability to veto actions. I mean, it's just a few pages ago. Do you have that poor of a short-term memory?

There is evidence for free will, you just refuse to accept it. I've shown at least half a dozen studies that show random activity in the brain, you just dismissed them out of hand as you do anything that doesn't fit your new religion.

My case does not depend on determinism being true. So why the fuck would I care about random activity?

Since you know absolutely that free will does not exist you would expect you to have more than a piss poor set of illogical premises you could explain. If you are going to say stupid things like a lot of people don't beleive in free will, and Libet does not believe that he disproved free will and then expect us to buy you somehow have, then it begs the question why the hell should we?

This is what I mean by religion, all you really have is faith.

If determinism is false then free will exists especially libertarian free will assuming it is not totally random. So yes it does depend on determinism being true, unless you are bizarrely defining free will to be something it isn't. So if determinism is false you have just disproven your own case, nice going.

You seem to be some bizarre third state of existence between incompatiblism and compatiblism. So what you are saying is free will does not exist because things are determined, and that determinism does not have to be true for this to be the case?

I have read those two paragraphs 4 times now. They pretty much go against everything you said while conceding that we may have a compatibilist version of free will which as you know or should know means "freedom to act" and not free will.

Lol try a fifth time. What it says is that free will is not a coherent argument, that does not equate to free will does or does not exist, it merely means that philosophy is currently going nowhere fast as it pertains to a logical proof of free will, in fact either way. Basically if you can't define free will coherently then you have no chance of making a decision whether it exists or not. That's what the first paragraph says. Unfortunately your bias translated it as an attack on free wills existence instead of an attack on the argument itself.

Compatibalism and ultimate. I presume by that they meant that only compatibilism is coherent. Although I'd argue that is in fact nonsense.

Compatibilism is free will not freedom to act, otherwise what would be the point of discussing it at all?

Compatibilism determinism is reconcilable with free will, incompatibilism determinism is not compatible with free will, sub section libertarian free will, determinism being false proves there is free will essentially. Or put simply if one were to go back in time and one could have acted differently then free will exists.

You should probably read something about compatibilism though, because your bias is skewed about that too.

And another ad hominem.

Actually it was a joke but since you are half Vulcan I expect it shot right over your head.

[volchok]

Since you know absolutely that free will does not exist you would expect you to have more than a piss poor set of illogical premises you could explain. If you are going to say stupid things like a lot of people don't beleive in free will, and Libet does not believe that he disproved free will and then expect us to buy you somehow have, then it begs the question why the hell should we?

This is beyond ridiculous. You keep stating that "I alone know the truth". And I am simply telling you that there are many people who do not believe in free will. How many? I don't know. Is it a majority? Fuck no. The number is not even big enough to be called a minority. But, as someone interested in philosophy, you should already know that in this context numbers are meaningless. So, I am not making an appeal to authority and I'm not saying that you should believe what I believe simply because others believe in it too. The only thing I'm saying is that I am not the only person who thinks free will is an illusion. I always thought this was self-evident but apparently not since you keep repeating that "I alone know the truth".

This is what I mean by religion, all you really have is faith.

Someone needs to buy a dictionary.

If determinism is false then free will exists especially libertarian free will assuming it is not totally random. So yes it does depend on determinism being true, unless you are bizarrely defining free will to be something it isn't. So if determinism is false you have just disproven your own case, nice going.

Dude, are you serious?
First, "if determinism is false, then free will exists" is a complete nonsequitur. But, more importantly, there is no fundamental difference between libertarian free will and the compatibilist position. And guess what? Both revolve around a concept that is not free will. Why don't you actually read upon these things ?

So what you are saying is free will does not exist because things are determined, and that determinism does not have to be true for this to be the case?

No. Free will can't possibly exist regardless of what kind of universe we live in, be it a deterministic universe, a random universe or a deterministic and random universe.

Lol try a fifth time. What it says is that free will is not a coherent argument, that does not equate to free will does or does not exist, it merely means that philosophy is currently going nowhere fast as it pertains to a logical proof of free will, in fact either way. Basically if you can't define free will coherently then you have no chance of making a decision whether it exists or not. That's what the first paragraph says. Unfortunately your bias translated it as an attack on free wills existence instead of an attack on the argument itself.

Free will is not a coherent argument??? Free will is an concept, not an argument. But also, can you even read?
Here's a quote from that paragraph: ...reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986) or at least inconsistent with a world very much like our own...

It says that free will is incoherent with a world like our own..
Did you skipped this part or something??
I mean, this is pretty fucking ridiculous on your part when you can't even interpret a simple paragraph written in YOUR native language.
Basically the concept does not fit in with what we know about the world and instead of realizing that the concept is nonsensical, you say that there must be something wrong with what we know about the world.
Strong bastardization of logic is strong.

Compatibilism is free will not freedom to act, otherwise what would be the point of discussing it at all?

Again, have you even bothered to read about compatibilism ? Compatibilists use the term free will but they are referring to ability to act freely given your wants which are not freely chosen by you according to this position. They simply mean a situation where the agent was not coerced nor restrained.
And since you were so kind as to link a wikipedia page a few posts ago, here is one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism .
Read it carefully because apparently you don't know what compatibilism is.

[Only_Humean]

Calrid warned for a second time in one thread.

[d63]

I think one of the problems here is that we keep speaking in terms of “Free Will”. The problem is that given the discoveries of neuroscience, we have no choice but to admit that the biological infrastructure plays a major role in the actions of consciousness.

However, all hope is not lost if we think of it in terms, rather, of participation. It may well be that chaotics are the last bastion of hope for a PARTICIPTING self in that the self may be a cumulative effect, or emergent property, of the different aspects of the physiological infrastructure that, through a kind of momentum, becomes more than the sum of its parts and engages in a non-linear feedback loop between it, the physiological infrastructure, and the environment. The question isn’t whether Free Will exists in any pure sense. It’s one of whether consciousness, as we experience it every moment of our lives, participates, or if it is just some kind of free rider and illusion.

I also think what may play a role in this is something gotten at by Sartre, beginning with Transcendence of the Ego and further developed up into Being and Nothingness. What may well play a role in the coherence and consistency of our experience of self is that, as a consciousness, we are a something that emerges out of nothingness into something. We are always a point at some point between point A and point B. And as this emergence, we are always a particular point in space and time.

To give you an idea of what I’m getting at: in the movie The Sixth Day, the antagonists, after being killed, were repeatedly cloned and the clones were implanted with their own memories up till that time. Now for all practical purposes, this would seem to be a science based reincarnation of the individual, of bringing back the dead. But I would argue that this is not so certain since there would a disruption in the perceiving thing: that particular point in space in time.

Now you take this and the notion of the self as emergent property engaged in a non-linear feedback loop with the non-conscious objects that surround it, both out and in, and I think you have a reasonable model for the nature of consciousness and a participating self.

[d63]

The dark side of this, though, comes when you consider the 4 phases of consciousness:

1. The Alpha which is complete consciousness.
2. The Beta which is that semi-conscious state you experience as you go to sleep.
3. The Theta which the point at which you dream.
4. And, finally, the deep wave Delta which many experts think is a state at which you experience nothing.

Now what if 2 and 3 are results of the conscious fearing the 4th state? It, in some inherent sense, fears its own dissipation. This would explain why in the Beta state, we tend to have experiences that jolt us awake. And dreams may simply be a way of the mind’s dipping its toe in the water of complete non-consciousness.

But the really scary thing is that you have to ask: what if every time we reach that delta state, we die in a sense? What if we create a disruption in that particular point in space and time that is our particular consciousness?

[d63]

I always remember that line out of the movie Moonlighting by the old man:

I hate sleeping! It's too much like death.

[volchok]

To give you an idea of what I’m getting at: in the movie The Sixth Day, the antagonists, after being killed, were repeatedly cloned and the clones were implanted with their own memories up till that time. Now for all practical purposes, this would seem to be a science based reincarnation of the individual, of bringing back the dead. But I would argue that this is not so certain since there would a disruption in the perceiving thing: that particular point in space in time.

This is an interesting thought, specially the " since there would not(?) be a disruption in the perceiving thing" bit.
Just the other day I posted a talk by Tom Clark where he described this as subjective continuity or something to that effect and in a sense, you are in fact correct. We never find ourselves missing. From a subjective point of view you are always present even though you can be unconscious through large periods of time, namely while you sleep.

Now you take this and the notion of the self as emergent property engaged in a non-linear feedback loop with the non-conscious objects that surround it, both out and in, and I think you have a reasonable model for the nature of consciousness and a participating self.

The reason why the self is an illusion is exactly because there isn't a causa sui in the brain that is participating. Objectively, there isn't even a non-participating self.