Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will but how free really?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 129 of 182 (812807)
06-20-2017 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tangle
06-19-2017 5:16 PM


Tangle writes:
Religion provides motivation to do harm to others. It's divisive.
Certain manipulations of religion do, yes.
Other manipulations do not.
People don't need (religious) crutches.
I think this blanket statement is wrong.
Some people certainly do.
For some people, the only way they can carry on is by using a religious crutch.
I see no reason to deprive them of that as long as the religion they use does not provide motivation to do harm to others and is not divisive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2017 5:16 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2017 11:42 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 139 of 182 (813979)
07-03-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Tangle
07-01-2017 11:43 AM


Tangle writes:
The fact that some people find consolation in a fantasy, doesn't make their beliefs real nor does it deal with the underlying causes of their problems. If you deal with the cause, the placebo is no longer required and we can get on with doing more useful things.
Are you trying to say it's impossible for someone to find better support from religion than from objective scientific findings?
I don't think that's true.
And all it takes is one example to refute it.
People are different.
Can you think of a person who is afraid of death?
Being afraid of death and the unknown is a problem almost all people have an issue with.
Myself, I find solace in the fact that no one has such answers. Therefore, I don't feel bad without knowing myself, and I feel better.
But what if something like that doesn't work for someone else?
Have you ever heard of someone feeling better because somebody gives them a hug and says: "Don't worry, you're safe now, it's all going to be okay."
It can't possibly be true.
No one can read the future.
Everyone knows no person can read the future.
But, still, this helps many people.
Sometimes, for some people, it can be the only thing that helps them.
Going back to being afraid of death, some people cannot find peace in the 'unknown.' They require a feeling that "everything's going to be okay" even if they don't understand how that's going to happen.
God (or "religion" in more general terms) can provide such an "answer" for such people who need more of a "don't worry, that's taken care of" thought. Even if there's still a itching doubt... just as I still have an itching doubt about 'not knowing what's going to happen when I die.' It doesn't matter... an 'itching doubt' is much better than a paralyzing fear.
Are you trying to say that it's impossible for such a person to exist?
I don't think I can prove one exists.
But, then again, you can't really prove that non-religious ideas provide an equal (or better) amount of solace anyway.
Because "solace" or "inner-peace" or whatever is not a measurable thing. We can only take people's word for it.
But, if you're trying to say that it's impossible for a person to exist that requires religious-ideas to get around paralyzing fears... I would, really, laugh in your face. As the anecdotal evidence (the only evidence available for such things... even against such things...) implies that you are completely wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 07-01-2017 11:43 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2017 9:32 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 143 of 182 (813996)
07-03-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tangle
07-03-2017 9:32 AM


Tangle writes:
My position is not that religion doesn't help some people sometimes. It's that because we know it's a fiction AND we know that social structures that don't have religions as their basal systems are better at making more people happier more of the time we'd be more sensible trying to build them. Particularly as we know they're dying anyway.
Must have read you wrong, then.
I have no issues with such a position.
I would only have issues on some sort of 'ban of religion' or something like that.
I see no problems with 'letting religion die out' or even 'promoting secular social systems' in their stead. Especially on the basis of better results.
I see religion as a way for certain people to use personally in order to have a healthy mind.
I think it will always have it's own promoters and affiliates.
And I, too, hope it will be 'reduced' somewhat from it's current size in America and Canada.
Canada still has a government-funded Catholic school board.
I'm against such a thing.
Not to the point of doing much about it, just enough to check the "fund public school system" as opposed to the "fund Catholic school system" on my taxes. (Yes, in Canada, we get the choice on where our school-taxes will go... as long as you're a home-owner, I think?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2017 9:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2017 11:40 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 168 of 182 (814262)
07-05-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT
07-05-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Who orchestrated this?
ICANT writes:
Since the information in the DNA is gained through the evolution process where does the free will come from?
What is it about the evolution process you think prevents free will from being created?
The only free will I know of comes from God and it is built into every human.
And the only free will I know of comes from the evolution process which is also built into every human.
At least there's some evidence for the evolution process to exist...
What now?
At one point, there were no eyes.
Through the evolution process of mutation and natural selection... there are now eyes.
At one point, there were no air breathing creatures.
Through the evolution process of mutation and natural selection... there are now air breathing creatures.
At one point, there were no brains.
Through the evolution process of mutation and natural selection... there are now brains.
At one point, there was no free will.
Through the evolution process of mutation and natural selection... there is now free will.
All that's required for free will is a brain developed past a certain point. One that can reflect, imagine and judge.
We know that mutation and natural selection develops brains.
We know that some brains can reflect, imagine and judge (like humans, whales, dolphins, elephants...)
We know that some brains cannot (creatures that are instinctually driven.. always doing X whenever Y happens...)
What is it about mutation and natural selection that you think prevents it from developing reflection, imagination and judgment?
But free will if evolution is correct is an impossibility in my opinion as someone or something had to program it into humans.
I'm pretty sure your opinion of things still has no effect on reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2017 12:49 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 178 of 182 (842511)
11-02-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by 1.61803
11-01-2018 5:50 PM


Two cents
1.61803 writes:
Well this article is interesting and I thought I'd share.
It is an interesting article.
I think it makes some pretty big assumptions and then runs with them though.
Although - I have no idea how to get around the assumptions they make (currently).
But in the end - I doubt this experiment really tells us much one way or the other because of the assumptions and lack of clarity.
I don't know if we have freewill or a deterministic brain or universe.
I don't really care either - it is what it is and labeling it one way or another won't change what it is.
I just don't see what additional, reliable information this article is adding.
That is - it's all about monitoring brain activity, then a person monitoring "their intention to move" and then actually moving.
Recording all these different times and identifying patterns.
But there's issues with all of these "identifications."
Yes - "brain activity" is being monitored.
But can it tell the difference between thinking of an idea to move vs. an intention to move?
That is - I can think of moving - then think I will definitely move - then revoke that idea - and move later... or not.
Can the "monitoring of brain activity" tell the difference, distinctively and reliably, between those flip-flops of "idea" vs "intention but later revoked" vs "intention that is eventually decided to act upon?"
I'm not even sure if I can identify the difference specifically in my own mind all the time...
Which leads into the next problem:
"Their intention to move."
How does the person identify their own intention to move? - and disregard any delay they might add in just because of the nature of the experiment?
For example - I can say to myself - I'm going to move now - and move now.
Or I can say - I'm going to move.... .... .... ....now.
In the second scenario... is the "intention to move" the part when I decide I will move? Or the "now" part when I'm actually starting to move my hand?
If it's the first part - this introduces a very huge error into the experiment. It is a willed (free-willed? ) delay. That is, the "idea" of "going to move" has been solidified - but the "intention to actually move" is delayed on purpose and done a bit later. So we cannot really consider taking the first part.
If it's the second part - then there's not much point in having the person attempt to identify "when they want to move" - It's move identifying reaction-time in a person. From "move now" to "hand is actually moving..." Measuring this part has it's own problems - you're not really measuring some delay that's helpful in predicting when someone will move... you're only really measuring the delay in brain activity and muscle response through the body - a measurement that should be irrelevant in monitoring whether or not we have free will.
On top of that... the delays inherent in the system will also cause issues.
That is... electrical monitoring of the brain is fast, but I'm sure it's not instant.
As well... someone "looking at a clock and identifying they're own intention to move" will have it's own delays (muscle and brain processing) involved.
Plus human error - Given many attempts, I can stop a stop-watch close to a 5 second mark. Maybe within a few hundredths of a second. But not much better than that. And that has nothing to do with identifying some "vague notion of intention" in my own mind.
I'm not sure if they attempted to accommodate for any of these issues - and I agree that the article is very interesting in the "why not start measuring what we can and see what it says?" sort of way.
It's just... there's way too many red-flags and possible-sources-of-error here for me to consider any of the results reliable or conclusive.
But yes - pretty interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2018 5:50 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by 1.61803, posted 11-06-2018 3:17 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 180 of 182 (842739)
11-06-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by 1.61803
11-06-2018 3:17 PM


Re: Two cents
1.61803 writes:
The science is fairly established and documented.
I'm not saying the results aren't scientific.
I'm saying the implied results don't seem to follow from the experiment... which may be the media's reporting and not the fault of the science.
It is a fact that scientist can tell up to 7 seconds in some instances you are going to make a choice and move before you are even aware of a conscious choice to do so.
Is that so?
Again, how does the scientist identify the difference between "an idea to eventually move" and "the will to move exactly now?"
That is... I would be much more convinced if the experiment was altered slightly:
Change the experiment so that we have 10 buttons.
Now... if the scientist can tell up to 7 seconds in some instances that someone is going to choose the exact button before they are aware of their conscious decision to select that specific button...
THEN I would agree we are onto something showing the scientist is aware of the conscious choice before the person is.
However... if the scientist can only tell that the person "will select *A* button" 7 seconds ahead (in some instances) but the scientist is unable to predict *which* button the person will choose until an-amount-of-time-undifferentiated-from-error-margins-inherent-in-the-system (like a few hundred milliseconds)... then I would say that back in this one-button experiment... the scientist is NOT identifying "the will to move"... but only "the idea to move.... eventually."
Which is not the same thing.
Why does the test not have 10 buttons?
-perhaps equipment is not sophisticated enough to identify the brainwaves for button 1 to 10 selection...
-if the equipment is not this sophisticated... how do we know it's sophisticated enough to tell the difference between "the will to move now" and "the idea to move.... eventually?"
If your brain makes a decision to do something and there is a lag of time until you or that thing you call you says "hey I think Im gonna do this." Then you do it. Who made the decision?
What if that's not how it works?
What if the brain provides ideas to the conscious mind.... and then the conscious mind filters those ideas (chooses one) and then acts upon the decision...
If that's how it works... then obviously the "conscious mind" makes the decision.
With a 10 button experiment... you can filter out the difference between "idea entering brain from who-knows-where" and "idea inside the brain has been filtered and decided upon..."
But with a 1 button experiment... with only 1 option to choose... you can't tell the difference between "idea entering the brain" and "conscious decision to act upon that idea."
That's the problem with any conclusion this is implying about free will.
It's not even identifying a decision that is made or not.
Maybe what I described isn't how it works... maybe what you described is how it works... but a one button experiment doesn't allow us to tell that difference.
...hence the red flags.
I believe there is a element of randomness in our reality as well as a deterministic element.
I'm not sure what I believe.
I'm just also not sure if this experiment tells us anything useful about the issue or not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by 1.61803, posted 11-06-2018 3:17 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024