Another scientist telling us we have no free will

[ZenMode]

I mentioned it before, but a lack of free will doesn't mean that we don't learn. In fact, who we are is shaped by our genetics, with the rest the result of external influences like parents, friends, the law, etc. (aka nurture)

Yes it does.

Nope. A lack of free will is why we can learn and why we can, sometimes against our preference, have our mind changed. If you understand the English language, you can't use your free will to not understand when someone talks to you in the English language. If you understand that 2+2 is 4, you can't will yourself to not understand that. Conversely, you can't use your free will to understand something that you don't understand.

I used to be a person who thought viability was the correct point to disallow abortion. I believed that for a very long time. Then, I read an argument basically stating that the heart beat is the correct point to disallow abortion because a heart beat, in the medical world, is a key sign that "life" is present and if there is human life, then there should be constitutional protection of that life.

Prior to being exposed to that argument, I couldn't have imagined my mind changing but, when presented with a convincing argument, I basically had my mind changed against my will. I'm not able to use my free will to undo the impact of that argument any more than I'm able to use my free will to unknow what it means to say the surface of a stove is very hot when it's on.

So, not only is there no scientific basis for the existence of free will (there is no "I" that sits outside of our stream of thought- there are only thoughts), but there is also no basis for free will in the subjective experience of having our mind changed or learning.

 

[ZenMode]

Bye!

 

[BidenPresident]

I find it hilarious that scientists think free will is a physical object to be studied. A waste of time.

 

[BidenPresident]

troll

 

[BidenPresident]

"One does wish that those with knowledge of the empirical sciences would spend a bit more time reflecting carefully on the concepts they use, and the justification for them. That is one thing that the philosophers do well, and from which the scientists could learn."--Leiter

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/b...e-latest-scientists-foray-into-free-will.html

Many scientists think saying "it is physical" is an explanation. False, it explains nothing.

 

[Damocles]

Nihilistic nonsense. We are the sum of the choices we have made, while it works alongside what he talks about we do make choices that impact our futures.

 

[BidenPresident]

Nihilistic nonsense. We are the sum of the choices we have made, while it works alongside what he talks about we do make choices that impact our futures.

Most of what we mean by free will is 'local.' Should I sweep the floor before I brush my teeth? That is what free will means, making decisions.

 

[Damocles]

Most of what we mean by free will is 'local.' Should I sweep the floor before I brush my teeth? That is what free will means, making decisions.

We also make singularly impacting decisions. Should I go to college first or join the Navy then go to college? Noting that factors we use to make decisions such as whether we have the money for college directly or if we'll have to get a loan or use the GI Bill are factors, but the decision is what is impacting.

The "scientist" ignores the choices and focuses on the factors and conflates correlation with causation. Basically, this factors into our decisions but they are not our decisions in fact. Even the poor guy can choose to get loans and go to college rather than join the military. Or the rich person, though they have all the deneg, may decide that service and experience are more important than more school.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Most of what we mean by free will is 'local.' Should I sweep the floor before I brush my teeth? That is what free will means, making decisions.

Yes. It means "making decisions" as opposed to "reacting to previous experience or genetics". Do you think a dog makes a decision on whether it's safe to chase a ball into the street? Or does it only see the ball?

Do dogs make a decision about the age or safety of having sex with another dog or do they simply react to instinct without thinking about the consequences?

Do some people act like dogs and other animals? Yes. Do most people have the ability to think on a higher level, to posses the "free will" to decide? Yes, they do.

 

[BidenPresident]

We also make singularly impacting decisions. Should I go to college first or join the Navy then go to college? Noting that factors we use to make decisions such as whether we have the money for college directly or if we'll have to get a loan or use the GI Bill are factors, but the decision is what is impacting.

The "scientist" ignores the choices and focuses on the factors and conflates correlation with causation. Basically, this factors into our decisions but they are not our decisions in fact. Even the poor guy can choose to get loans and go to college rather than join the military. Or the rich person, though they have all the deneg, may decide that service and experience are more important than more school.

Agree. Scientists do not understand most of human life and how we live with each other.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We also make singularly impacting decisions. Should I go to college first or join the Navy then go to college? Noting that factors we use to make decisions such as whether we have the money for college directly or if we'll have to get a loan or use the GI Bill are factors, but the decision is what is impacting.

The "scientist" ignores the choices and focuses on the factors and conflates correlation with causation. Basically, this factors into our decisions but they are not our decisions in fact. Even the poor guy can choose to get loans and go to college rather than join the military. Or the rich person, though they have all the deneg, may decide that service and experience are more important than more school.

That's not science and other scientists will laugh such an idiot out of the room.

 

[IBDaMann]

Obviously there is a range of complexities in language among animals. Prairie dogs are known to have very complex communication methods.... compared to many other animals. None of them are in the same universe as humans.

Did you just say that humans aren't in the same universe as dolphins?

 

[Into the Night]

Obviously there is a range of complexities in language among animals. Prairie dogs are known to have very complex communication methods.... compared to many other animals. None of them are in the same universe as humans.

How do you know? Do you speak Prairie Dog? BTW, they ARE in the same universe. You can go out to the prairie and see them right now if you like.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. A lack of free will is why we can learn

Animals can learn.

and why we can, sometimes against our preference, have our mind changed.

You cannot change your mind unless YOU WANT to change your mind. No one can change your mind for you.

If you understand the English language,

You don't, unfortunately.

you can't use your free will to not understand when someone talks to you in the English language.

How would you know? You don't know the English language.

If you understand that 2+2 is 4, you can't will yourself to not understand that.

2+2 might equal 10, or it might equal 11, depending on context. It might even equal an image or an icon.

Conversely, you can't use your free will to understand something that you don't understand.

Sure you can. You can easily use your free will to choose to learn, just as many animals can.

I used to be a person who thought viability was the correct point to disallow abortion.

Pivot fallacy. No one is talking about abortion.

I believed that for a very long time. Then, I read an argument basically stating that the heart beat is the correct point to disallow abortion because a heart beat, in the medical world, is a key sign that "life" is present and if there is human life, then there should be constitutional protection of that life.

Prior to being exposed to that argument, I couldn't have imagined my mind changing but, when presented with a convincing argument, I basically had my mind changed against my will.

No one can change your mind against your will. Only you can choose to change your mind.

I'm not able to use my free will to undo the impact of that argument

Yes you can, and you do.

any more than I'm able to use my free will to unknow what it means to say the surface of a stove is very hot when it's on.

So...what DOES that mean? What do you mean by 'hot'? What if the stove has no power or fuel to it? Turning it on doesn't do anything under those conditions.

So, not only is there no scientific basis for the existence of free will

Science does not have to describe something that simply exists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument, not an statement against the Proof of Identity.

(there is no "I" that sits outside of our stream of thought- there are only thoughts), but there is also no basis for free will in the subjective experience of having our mind changed or learning.

Try English. It works better. Nonsensical portion ignored.

Playing word games with 'free will' is really quite pointless. It exists. It exists in animals as well.

 

[ZenMode]

Did you just say that humans aren't in the same universe as dolphins?

In a comparison of language complexity, yes. You already knew that....

 

[NiftyNiblick]

In a comparison of language complexity, yes. You already knew that....

Shall we take a quick look at a sample of JPP posts
before we decide what level of linguistic complexity and nuance
we're comparing to the Dolphins?

 

[ZenMode]

Animals can learn.

Humans are animals.

You cannot change your mind unless YOU WANT to change your mind. No one can change your mind for you.

Nope. If you believe X and someone presents a thoroughly convincing argument or facts you didn't know or you have never considered, and you are convinced by that argument despite what you absolutely believed previously, you will have no control over the impact of that conversation.

You don't, unfortunately.

How would you know? You don't know the English language.

Avoiding the point.

2+2 might equal 10, or it might equal 11, depending on context. It might even equal an image or an icon.

Sure, it might equal anything, but that isn't the point...as you already know, but still insist on avoiding.

Sure you can. You can easily use your free will to choose to learn, just as many animals can.

I said understand, not learn.

Pivot fallacy. No one is talking about abortion.

The topic isn't point....as you once again know. There are any number of examples I could have used. The point is that the argument presented fundamentally changed my views and I had no control over whether a change happened or to what degree it happened.

No one can change your mind against your will. Only you can choose to change your mind.

Incorrect. A recent example is the alleged hospital bombing in Gaza. Initial reports were that an Israeli rocket hit it and many people apparently believed it. Those same people, if exposed to the satellite imagery and audio recordings of the terrorists talking about what they did, had their minds changed. Do you believe that you could use your free will to not know the additional details that you learned and actually maintain your previous views?

Yes you can, and you do.

So...what DOES that mean? What do you mean by 'hot'? What if the stove has no power or fuel to it? Turning it on doesn't do anything under those conditions.

As a child, you can't understand "hot" until you truly understand what it means for something to be hot and it doesn't matter how many times your parents point at the stove and say "Hot! Don't touch! It's hot!"

Science does not have to describe something that simply exists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument, not an statement against the Proof of Identity.
Try English. It works better. Nonsensical portion ignored.

Playing word games with 'free will' is really quite pointless. It exists. It exists in animals as well.

There's no scientific basis for believing there is an "I" somewhere in the neurological wiring of our brain. There's no self standing on the banks of our stream of conscious thought, watching our thoughts go by. There is only the stream of conscious thought. There is no self creating our thoughts. We don't know what our next thought is going to be until it arrives in consciousness and we can't stop our thoughts from arriving in consciousness.

Let's say I ask you to take 5 minutes to think of a movie. Any movie you're aware of. It doesn't have to be good. It can be one you saw as a child or yesterday..... doesn't matter. So I say "Think of a movie." There's abrief pause and then names of movies start appearing consciousness....Jack Reacher..... Elf....Venom.....Titanic....on and on for some amount of time. At the end of that period of time, you will have thought of a list of movies, but you didn't think of Wizard of Oz. You absolutely know of Wizard of Oz. You've seen Wizard of Oz but, for whatever reason, that title simply didn't occur to you. Your Wizard of Oz circuits weren't activated.

Were you free to pick Wizard of Oz if that title didn't occur to you to pick? Could you have used your free will to force your brain to push the title "Wizard of Oz" into your conscious mind?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Shall we take a quick look at a sample of JPP posts
before we decide what level of linguistic complexity and nuance
we're comparing to the Dolphins?

While it's true several JPP posters aren't very bright, I blame either dementia or mental illness on their problems, not the genetics of our species.

That said, whale song is learned making it a cultural phenomenon although it's not without controversy: https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2022/05/014.html

Whales socially learn from other whales, one of the few examples of vocal culture in a non-human species. In the case of humpbacks, scientists overwhelmingly believe that novel songs pass from innovative singers to groups of eager imitators.

Even if it's learned behavior, that doesn't mean whales, or dolphins, rise to the level of human intelligence much less possess free will as opposed to simply reacting to innate instinct or experience.

 

[IBDaMann]

In a comparison of language complexity, yes.

I disagree. I think there are some humans who can communicate quite well and who can even express complex concepts.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. If you believe X and someone presents a thoroughly convincing argument or facts you didn't know or you have never considered, and you are convinced by that argument despite what you absolutely believed previously, you will have no control over the impact of that conversation.

A conversation is not a decision. Redefinition fallacy.

Avoiding the point.

You aren't making a point.

Sure, it might equal anything, but that isn't the point...as you already know, but still insist on avoiding.

You aren't making a point.

I said understand, not learn.

You said learn, liar.

The topic isn't point....as you once again know.

You aren't making a point.

There are any number of examples I could have used.

Of what?

The point is that the argument presented fundamentally changed my views and I had no control over whether a change happened or to what degree it happened.

Yes you do.

Incorrect. A recent example is the alleged hospital bombing in Gaza. Initial reports were that an Israeli rocket hit it and many people apparently believed it. Those same people, if exposed to the satellite imagery and audio recordings of the terrorists talking about what they did, had their minds changed. Do you believe that you could use your free will to not know the additional details that you learned and actually maintain your previous views?

Yes.

As a child, you can't understand "hot" until you truly understand what it means for something to be hot and it doesn't matter how many times your parents point at the stove and say "Hot! Don't touch! It's hot!"

Can't define 'hot', eh?

There's no scientific basis for believing there is an "I" somewhere in the neurological wiring of our brain.

No, but there's a logical one. Too bad you deny both.

There's no self standing on the banks of our stream of conscious thought, watching our thoughts go by.
There is only the stream of conscious thought. There is no self creating our thoughts.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot claim a thing exists and does not exist at the same time.

We don't know what our next thought is going to be until it arrives in consciousness and we can't stop our thoughts from arriving in consciousness.

Sorry, but apparently you get your thoughts beamed into your head from the orbital mind control satellite.

Let's say I ask you to take 5 minutes to think of a movie. Any movie you're aware of. It doesn't have to be good. It can be one you saw as a child or yesterday..... doesn't matter. So I say "Think of a movie." There's abrief pause and then names of movies start appearing consciousness....Jack Reacher..... Elf....Venom.....Titanic....on and on for some amount of time. At the end of that period of time, you will have thought of a list of movies, but you didn't think of Wizard of Oz. You absolutely know of Wizard of Oz. You've seen Wizard of Oz but, for whatever reason, that title simply didn't occur to you. Your Wizard of Oz circuits weren't activated.

There are no 'Wizard of Oz' circuits.

Were you free to pick Wizard of Oz if that title didn't occur to you to pick? Could you have used your free will to force your brain to push the title "Wizard of Oz" into your conscious mind?

I decided not to. You decided to.