The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

ZenMode said:
If an person applies the same requirements for belief to religion, that they do everything else, yes. Yawn.
Click to expand...
Then rational adults should therefore demand that you support your assertion, which you have never done because you can't.

ZenMode said:
Decisions were made by the brain in your body. There is no "I" or "self" that exists behind your eyes that is making decisions.
Click to expand...
Now you are just chanting without supporting anything.
 
IBDaMann said:
Then rational adults should therefore demand that you support your assertion, which you have never done because you can't.
Click to expand...
No. Those who are claiming the existence of a god need to support their claims. It's not up to people like me to disprove the existence of gods. Same with people who claim big foot exists, astrology is real, alchemy works, etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's no more evidence for the existence of any gods than there is evidence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, etc
Now you are just chanting without supporting anything.
Click to expand...
Every conscious decision we make comes as the result of our thoughts. We are sitting on the couch watching football and the thought "I need to use the restroom" enters your conscious mind. After that, there are probably subsequent thoughts ("Should I wait until commercial or go now". I really don't want to miss the end of this drive", etc)

However the thought process plays out, that leads to an ultimate decision to wait or not wait, the fact is you have no control over the thoughts that lead to the ultimate decision. You had no part in creating those thoughts. Those thoughts come into existence at a level of the brain that we have no visibility to. Our consciousness, where we actually become aware of thoughts, is at the end of the process.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
we can always resist impulses.

freedom is real.

maybe not for you.

you might be a weak tyrant inside.

of course it's political.
Click to expand...

Rather than merely DECREEING the opposing point of view "invalid" perhaps you could take a stab at actually formulating a response to the points raised, OR (hear me out) proposing your OWN position that you can DEFEND.

Wouldn't that be wild?
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
we can always resist impulses.
Click to expand...

That is NOT an argument against the possibility that there is no "free will".

Let's look at it from the opposing side (the side that hears about the science showing intent may precede consciousness of intent in the brain): the hypothesis on this forum is that in that scenario the brain is really just an "AI" that has seen a lifetime-long "training set" of responses. The brain develops a suite of re-actions to any given stimulus which it zeroes in and and puts into your conscious thought as a "desire" or, if you will, an "impulse". The RESISTANCE of said impulse may be nothing more than another circuit activating that urges caution.

The really rough part of all of this is that you are INSIDE the machine...you ARE the machine. Is there a separable component that is your "essence" (aka "soul", "driver", "self") or is it all a function of a physical brain?

I have, in my life, seen many instances of the physical brain being broken or harmed and the resulting "self" that was coming out of that "brokenness" was unlike that person normally was. I have also NEVER seen a disembodied "soul" but I KNOW with 100% accuracy that without a physical brain no personality develops, and likely no life is even possible.

So, if the science seems to be giving hints that "free will" may be in question, AND there's no reason to believe in a person's essence separable from the physical brain, it kinda looks more like we are just animated meatbags who function on a quotidian basis according to what our neural network picked up from a lifetime of training.

I'll be honest and say that I'm not really happy with that explanation but if I'm also being honest about my "approach to knowledge" I would have to say that I can see some reason to believe it.

 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
we can always resist impulses.

freedom is real.

maybe not for you.

you might be a weak tyrant inside.

of course it's political.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with me or politics. It's biology/neurology. What you may want to believe doesn't matter.

your ability to resist impulses is also out of your control.
 
Cypress said:
1) a. What caused the Big Bang to happen? How exactly does matter and energy spring into existence from nothing?
Click to expand...
May I answer this, speculatively? Black holes compress matter. We don't know what happens to it after it passes the event horizon. What if all that missing matter accreted *somewhere else* to the point where it created a Big Bang, releasing all that energy and physical matter? There are black holes all over the universe. If they get large enough to consume galaxies, maybe that is how the universe ends. And a new one begins. Maybe we repeat this endlessly, in time spans we cannot even imagine.
 
ZenMode said:
This has nothing to do with me or politics. It's biology/neurology. What you may want to believe doesn't matter.

your ability to resist impulses is also out of your control.
Click to expand...
biological impulses can be resisted.

have you ever fasted or quit an addiction or a bad relationship?
 
Obtenebrator said:
That is NOT an argument against the possibility that there is no "free will".

Let's look at it from the opposing side (the side that hears about the science showing intent may precede consciousness of intent in the brain): the hypothesis on this forum is that in that scenario the brain is really just an "AI" that has seen a lifetime-long "training set" of responses. The brain develops a suite of re-actions to any given stimulus which it zeroes in and and puts into your conscious thought as a "desire" or, if you will, an "impulse". The RESISTANCE of said impulse may be nothing more than another circuit activating that urges caution.

The really rough part of all of this is that you are INSIDE the machine...you ARE the machine. Is there a separable component that is your "essence" (aka "soul", "driver", "self") or is it all a function of a physical brain?

I have, in my life, seen many instances of the physical brain being broken or harmed and the resulting "self" that was coming out of that "brokenness" was unlike that person normally was. I have also NEVER seen a disembodied "soul" but I KNOW with 100% accuracy that without a physical brain no personality develops, and likely no life is even possible.

So, if the science seems to be giving hints that "free will" may be in question, AND there's no reason to believe in a person's essence separable from the physical brain, it kinda looks more like we are just animated meatbags who function on a quotidian basis according to what our neural network picked up from a lifetime of training.

I'll be honest and say that I'm not really happy with that explanation but if I'm also being honest about my "approach to knowledge" I would have to say that I can see some reason to believe it.
Click to expand...
it is a rebuttal of the only theory offered against free will.

this is yet another thing you don't understand.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
biological impulses can be resisted.

have you ever fasted or quit an addiction or a bad relationship?
Click to expand...

It kind of feels like you aren't quite grokking what the other side is saying. All of your arguments stop BEFORE the critical piece we are discussing engages.

If there is no free will it may still appear to you to be free will, but in reality it is an illusion. Even the choice to resist an urge might be something that springs up BEFORE you have consciousness of wanting to resist the urge.

In other words: this isn't a valid riposte to the debate point as it stands now. You may as well be saying "You can always choose to drink Pepsi". It's literally no different for the purposes of this conversation.
 
Obtenebrator said:
It kind of feels like you aren't quite grokking what the other side is saying. All of your arguments stop BEFORE the critical piece we are discussing engages.

If there is no free will it may still appear to you to be free will, but in reality it is an illusion. Even the choice to resist an urge might be something that springs up BEFORE you have consciousness of wanting to resist the urge.

In other words: this isn't a valid riposte to the debate point as it stands now. You may as well be saying "You can always choose to drink Pepsi". It's literally no different for the purposes of this conversation.
Click to expand...
it's perfectly valid.

you're full of bullshit, and are actually very stupid, and a bad person.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
it is a rebuttal of the only theory offered against free will.
Click to expand...

Not really. The question is: Are YOU making decisions or is the brain's physical network actually selecting the option you end up 'choosing'?"

So any example of me "choosing" (whether it's to do an edible or drink a coffee or resist the urge to do so) is going to be insufficient to answer the question.

Does that make sense? In other words you can't just put up examples of "choosing an action" if the opposite side says that in reality the brain chooses the action and you only THINK you have chosen the action.

Hopefully that clarifies it.
 
Obtenebrator said:
So you can't actually express what you disagree with in detail in my post, you just know it's wrong? Forgive me if I disagree.



Oh really? A "bad" person? Whence come you to sit in judgement of me?
Click to expand...
your post is bullshit.

the only meaningful argument has been refuted because:

Biological impulses can be resisted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top