Philosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer. Neuroscientists optimistically entered the field in the 1980s, armed with tools they were confident could reveal the origin of actions in the brain. Three decades later, they have reached the same conclusion as the philosophers: Free will is complicated.
more…
Tau.Neutrino said:
Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free willPhilosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer. Neuroscientists optimistically entered the field in the 1980s, armed with tools they were confident could reveal the origin of actions in the brain. Three decades later, they have reached the same conclusion as the philosophers: Free will is complicated.
more…
I agree with Bubblecar on this question.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free willPhilosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer. Neuroscientists optimistically entered the field in the 1980s, armed with tools they were confident could reveal the origin of actions in the brain. Three decades later, they have reached the same conclusion as the philosophers: Free will is complicated.
more…
I agree with Bubblecar on this question.
Wise :)
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free willPhilosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer. Neuroscientists optimistically entered the field in the 1980s, armed with tools they were confident could reveal the origin of actions in the brain. Three decades later, they have reached the same conclusion as the philosophers: Free will is complicated.
more…
I agree with Bubblecar on this question.
Wise :)
You would say that.
It was pre-ordained.
i disagree with everyone
SCIENCE said:
i disagree with everyone
Does the set “everyone” include the person known as “SCIENCE”?
> “I think studying it is important because it teaches us about processes in the brain and how things like volition come about. That has implications for the legal system, for example, which distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary actions.”
Now this is where it all falls down.
The law is and must be all about protection. Protecting people from others who would harm them. Free will doesn’t and must not come into it. What matters is repitition and the best way to avoid it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
i disagree with everyone
Does the set “everyone” include the person known as “SCIENCE”?
I disagree with everyone, too.
Feed that through your logic circuits.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
i disagree with everyone
Does the set “everyone” include the person known as “SCIENCE”?
I disagree with everyone, too.
Feed that through your logic circuits.
Including SCIENCE?
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
i disagree with everyone
Does the set “everyone” include the person known as “SCIENCE”?
I disagree with everyone, too.
Feed that through your logic circuits.
I like this suggestion (which I mentioned in the previous but long ago thread on this very topic) If god existed and has all of the knowledge of past , present and future and also allow for choice or free will for humans. Knowing all possible choices and potential outcomes in every moment and presenting a scenario to human they can choose any one of those options. Knowing what the options are doesn’t prevent the human choosing a specific option out of the calculatable potentials.
imagine that, putting free before will like that, and making it a silly question.
transition said:
imagine that, putting free before will like that, and making it a silly question.
As I’ve been saying for years, but they still keep doing it.
reading…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
strikes me that every whatever you make happen is to ensure other things don’t happen
so you know free will is largely the territory of the unhappen/ed, operates in that possibility space.
there’s a fucked up idea, put that in your empiricist pipe, add some physicalism and smoke it.
If it’s as difficult to detect as they say it is, then it has no observable effect on our lives.