Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

ZenMode said:
They shouldn't. There's no reason to believe it exists.
Click to expand...

Certainly what the science is indicating.

It's obviously far more complex than just the intent studies, and it most assuredly can be valuable to live with the "illusion" of free will. A study was run in which two groups were given tasks after seeing some stuff about the existence or lack thereof for free will and depending on which group they were in those that were primed to question the belief in free will acted less "decent" to others in the test than those that were primed in the opposite direction.

Apparently the belief that we have free will is extremely valuable to social groups.
 
Daylight63 said:
Certainly what the science is indicating.

It's obviously far more complex than just the intent studies, and it most assuredly can be valuable to live with the "illusion" of free will. A study was run in which two groups were given tasks after seeing some stuff about the existence or lack thereof for free will and depending on which group they were in those that were primed to question the belief in free will acted less "decent" to others in the test than those that were primed in the opposite direction.

Apparently the belief that we have free will is extremely valuable to social groups.
Click to expand...
Honestly, once I accepted that free will is an illusion, it made so many things easier, including being a parent. Once you're aware that your kids misbehavior is truly outside of their control, it almost entirely removes the impulse to get angry.
 
ZenMode said:
Honestly, once I accepted that free will is an illusion, it made so many things easier, including being a parent. Once you're aware that your kids misbehavior is truly outside of their control, it almost entirely removes the impulse to get angry.
Click to expand...

That might be a bit of a stretch, though. I'm currently reading "Whose in Charge" by Gazzanigga, he's a neuroscientist from UCSB I believe. He's describing the studies which question free will but he also is clear to note that the development of intent and actions are also quite complex. That isn't as simple as merely "what my nervous system tells me", and I have to believe that secondarily our ability to predict alternative outcomes means we must have some input on the final response taken.

I'm not 100% on board yet with fully giving up on free will at all levels, yet. But the science is VERY strange and very weird. But as you say, in some ways, it helps explain some of the actions humans DO take.
 
Daylight63 said:
I don't understand why you and Cypress both characterize things as "science or not science" and then start pointing at verbs as if that makes the point. Will is a thing. It is both a noun and a verb describing something we all "experience". The nature of it is what is being investigated.

And why do you make a universal declaration of "science cannot...." when no such evidence exists?
Click to expand...
Science can only describe physicality. The will is not a physical object.
Do you assert that science describes non-physical objects?
 
Hume said:
Brain. But we went through this before. Your brain does not desire ice cream.
Click to expand...
We agree that your brain creates thoughts and pushes them into your consciousness. Your view is that "you" sometimes consciously create thoughts, which means that there has to be some separate part - the "you" - somewhere in your body/brain that is doing the thought creating, or feeling your feelings, hoping your hopes, desiring your desires.

What/where is that "you"?
 
Daylight63 said:
That might be a bit of a stretch, though. I'm currently reading "Whose in Charge" by Gazzanigga, he's a neuroscientist from UCSB I believe. He's describing the studies which question free will but he also is clear to note that the development of intent and actions are also quite complex. That isn't as simple as merely "what my nervous system tells me", and I have to believe that secondarily our ability to predict alternative outcomes means we must have some input on the final response taken.

I'm not 100% on board yet with fully giving up on free will at all levels, yet. But the science is VERY strange and very weird. But as you say, in some ways, it helps explain some of the actions humans DO take.
Click to expand...
The belief in free will is based primarily on the belief that there is a self, which sits outside of the stream of conscious thoughts, and is weighing options and thinking thoughts. That self is what we believe ultimately makes decisions.

The problem is, there is no self. There no part of us that exists outside of your stream of consciousness. The feeling of self comes from experiencing our unique stream of thought. A stream of thought that we have no control over, but is the final determiner of all of our actions.
 
ZenMode said:
If you don't believe there is a self, which part of your body are you referring to that is creating thoughts that determine your actions?
Click to expand...
I answered this the very first time you posed the question years ago. There is no physical location of the self you obsessively talk about.
 
Hume said:
I answered this the very first time you posed the question years ago. There is no physical location of the self you obsessively talk about.
Click to expand...
Then what is the self that somehow sits outside of your stream of consciousness and ultimately makes decisions, creates thoughts, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top