Is free-will an illusion?

I mean, since when must we run away from time, space, infinity, responsibility or uncertainty, just because we can't put our mind around them fully? A real man stands up and faces uncertainty. He accepts his responsibility. He embraces his doubts. He enjoys the fun and messiness of it all. That's what the human condition is all about: to sail in a sea of uncertainty.

To deny space, time and hazard, as you do, is to deny life. That's for the fools. But to deny them out of fear of uncertainty, that's for cowardly fools.

It's important to realize that the concept of agency is compatible with modern science. In fact, there can be no science without it, so no scientist in his right mind would deny agency...

More bold assertions, but still no evidence. I'll wait.

Bold arguments rather, which you seem bound on ignoring... You also ignore my questions. For instance:

1. How can science operate without or beyond reason? Isn't a belief in the capacity of human reason to understand and impact on the world necessary for the scientific approach to mean anything?

2. What theoretical constraints should apply to verbal communication in order for it to qualify as scientific evidence? Should science be expected to understand how human beings interact everyday, or is that question purely anecdotal or beyond science, for some mysterious reason?

3. How do you interpret Benjamin Libet's experiments?

I'll wait for some CLEAR answers... :-)

And I'll wait for you to provide some clear evidence, thanks. No offense intended, but rhetoric and a priori reasoning are cheap and have yielded nothing decisive over the years. When you have experimental data, I'll be more interested in engaging.

Looking at what is going on in the brain in given moments and how processes work is still ignoring the role of the environment and conclusions that can be drawn regarding why something happens.

https://youtu.be/mQ3hm4RGEsw

Responses occur due to past experience. Lights and sounds are enough to maintain responding at a high rate in some situations. In the video it's clear that the child does not know the "purpose" as the adult understands it, but which doesn't really matter to the child.

https://youtu.be/DsuVLsDyln4

Maybe that was just a crazy smart squirrel and prior consequences and environmental modifications had nothing to do with the outcome?

People do not see their history when behavior happens. When they don't see an immediate "cause" and they don't see their history, then what conclusion is drawn about what starts things? "Me, me, me". " I did it all on my own. Did you see someone show me or hold a gun to my head? Okay, then forget all that silly stuff that happened to me in my life. What happened in the past is in the past. We're talking about now and why I'm doing what I'm doing. If I'm aware, then there is no need to look further; question answered. A scientific account of behavior? You can't provide that? Besides, who would want to learn about improvements to be made in human life through scientific analyses? If you have a problem, you can just will it away. If you don't then you probably don't want things to get better or are defective."

Like I've said elsewhere Freud tried to tie our present day behavior to past experience, but he had no tools to do so and ended up inventing a mental apparatus to carry salient experiences up to the present moment; which also misses much along the way to the present moment.

So you won't answer my questions but you want me to answer yours... Illogical.

So I present experimental data, but you refuse to. Illogical.

I have but you rejected it as anecdotal.

Because it was.

A meat robot can't do that.

The only entity that could possibly do so would be a mindful agent, capable of analyzing a situation, think through the possible improvements, decide about a course of action and implement it... Someone with agency, in other words.

Yet you have been referring to Libet, et seq, almost as having discovered "undisputed fact."



You might want to find some "clear evidence" for your own poorly articulated a priori assumptions first, eh?

"Data" is not "science." It is a mere collection of observations, which do not, and cannot, "speak for itself." Conclusions drawn from data are based upon a priori assumptions, definitions, etc., and are highly theory-laden.

FBM thinks his interpretation of the "data" (which ignores conflicting data) is somehow empirical, "scientific" and therefore indubitable.

This attitude is quite common with adherents of naïve "scientism," as FBM repeatedly demonstrates himself to be. But interpretations are not "empirical." They are the result of the a priori premises from which they are derived.

Complex verbal communication is NOT anecdotal.

Very often it is. I'll wait for you to provide some experimental, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claim, like I have done.

+ the imagination, creativity and logical consistency of the interpreters.

But yes, I agree that naive scientism is what is being displayed by FBM and Brian. They fail to realize that science requires human agency, or science means nothing.

Let's take Libet experiments. Is that something you would be ready to look at and accept as scientific?

That was pages ago. Libet and Haynes, et al, published their results in peer-reviewed journals. Please present something equivalent for your position.

Yes and summaries of studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, which severely undermine the interpretations of Libet, were also provided "pages ago."

You have totally ignored all of those studies. Maybe you should read them, instead, eh?

For example:

Trevena, Judy; Miller, Jeff (2010). "Brain preparation before a voluntary action: Evidence against unconscious movement initiation". Consciousness and Cognition 19 (1): 447–56. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.006. PMID

Repost that, if you care to, Ollie. FBM apparently has me on "ignore."

I submit that peer-reviewed scientific articles, such as the ones published by Libet and Haynes et al, is an excellent example of complex verbal communication... Therefore, the possibility for complex verbal communication is a scientific fact.