Date: 15/10/2020 17:27:27
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1633701
Subject: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.
more…
Date: 15/10/2020 17:30:11
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1633702
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The conversation is doing a series on the science of free will.
Articles on The science of free will
Date: 15/10/2020 17:32:47
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633705
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Tau.Neutrino said:
We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.
more…
I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
Date: 15/10/2020 17:35:15
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633709
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.
more…
I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
“This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.”
Sigh.
I mean why do people write this stuff?
Date: 15/10/2020 17:37:33
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1633710
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.
more…
I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
“This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.”
Sigh.
I mean why do people write this stuff?
So we can agree and or disagree
but it is still a work in progress….IMO
Date: 15/10/2020 17:38:29
From: Cymek
ID: 1633711
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Through the wormhole had an episode on free will a couple of weeks ago, probably still on SBS catchup
Episode 37
“Do We Have Free Will?” July 24, 2013
We like to think we are the masters of our fates. But is that really true? What if everything that has happened or will happen in the universe has already been set, from the Big Bang to the Last Gasp, and we are unable to change our inevitable destinies?
Date: 15/10/2020 17:41:51
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633714
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
“This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.”
Sigh.
I mean why do people write this stuff?
So we can agree and or disagree
but it is still a work in progress….IMO
But stating a false dichotomy as an absolute and obvious truth gets the discussion nowhere.
Date: 15/10/2020 17:51:17
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1633721
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
“This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.”
Sigh.
I mean why do people write this stuff?
So we can agree and or disagree
but it is still a work in progress….IMO
But stating a false dichotomy as an absolute and obvious truth gets the discussion nowhere.
>>>Either determinism is true or it’s not.
They could allow for more variables.
Can the universe be both predetermined and random?
Date: 15/10/2020 17:53:15
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633724
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
So we can agree and or disagree
but it is still a work in progress….IMO
But stating a false dichotomy as an absolute and obvious truth gets the discussion nowhere.
>>>Either determinism is true or it’s not.
They could allow for more variables.
Can the universe be both predetermined and random?
No, but it can be neither predetermined nor random, and near certainly is.
Date: 15/10/2020 17:56:48
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1633727
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
But stating a false dichotomy as an absolute and obvious truth gets the discussion nowhere.
>>>Either determinism is true or it’s not.
They could allow for more variables.
Can the universe be both predetermined and random?
No, but it can be neither predetermined nor random, and near certainly is.
If you consider your past and run it backward to the big bang then run it forward again to your present, does it look determined or random?
Date: 15/10/2020 17:58:25
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633732
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
>>>Either determinism is true or it’s not.
They could allow for more variables.
Can the universe be both predetermined and random?
No, but it can be neither predetermined nor random, and near certainly is.
If you consider your past and run it backward to the big bang then run it forward again to your present, does it look determined or random?
No.
Date: 15/10/2020 18:05:15
From: Cymek
ID: 1633735
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Date: 15/10/2020 18:05:56
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1633737
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
that’s like saying SCIENCE explains mathematics
WTF
Date: 15/10/2020 18:22:02
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1633747
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
>I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
It’s likely to be nonsense, for which I have little patience tonight. So I’ll look at it tomorrow :)
Date: 15/10/2020 18:23:14
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633748
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
So we can agree and or disagree
but it is still a work in progress….IMO
But stating a false dichotomy as an absolute and obvious truth gets the discussion nowhere.
>>>Either determinism is true or it’s not.
They could allow for more variables.
Can the universe be both predetermined and random?
It depends what you mean by predetermined.
If you mean every last detail can be predicted billions of years in advance, then no. If you have a very high level and approximate version of determinism, then yes.
Date: 15/10/2020 18:26:44
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633750
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Cymek said:
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
Date: 15/10/2020 18:31:56
From: Cymek
ID: 1633751
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
Yes it doesn’t really matter, we are preprogrammed by lots of influences anyway
Date: 15/10/2020 18:32:25
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633752
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Bubblecar said:
>I’ll see what Bubblecar thinks.
It’s likely to be nonsense, for which I have little patience tonight. So I’ll look at it tomorrow :)
I knew you would say that. :)
Date: 15/10/2020 18:34:02
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1633753
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
Yes it doesn’t really matter, we are preprogrammed by lots of influences anyway
tree
bark
wrong
Date: 15/10/2020 18:38:15
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1633755
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
At this stage I’ll just say, in response to Cymek’s comment:
>What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
There is no we independent of our brains and other organs. If “our brains have already decided” that means we have already decided.
There are lots of decisions that don’t actually require conscience weighing of pros and cons etc.
But there are also decisions that do require that kind of conscious deterministic input. And decision-making (“exercising one’s will”) is, by definition, a deterministic process, conscious or otherwise (we do it to determine outcomes in accord with various criteria), so the word “free” really serves no useful purpose in this context.
Date: 15/10/2020 18:43:34
From: Cymek
ID: 1633763
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
Yes it doesn’t really matter, we are preprogrammed by lots of influences anyway
tree
bark
wrong
As in true free will to do what you want, when you want, to whatever you want is not something most people could due to nurture and societal influences.
Date: 15/10/2020 18:47:03
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1633768
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
conscience weighing of pros and cons = conscious weighing of pros and cons
Told you I don’t have much patience tonight :)
Date: 15/10/2020 20:55:05
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1633826
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
To be fair, the end of the article does briefly suggest a reasonable position on the question.
Date: 15/10/2020 21:02:19
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1633827
Subject: re: We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
What I saw comes down to our brains have already decided on actions before we consciously think about or perform it
Sighs again.
Yet more either orist nonsense.
To be fair, the end of the article does briefly suggest a reasonable position on the question.
imagine actually reading articles, what a load of tosh