Is free-will an illusion?

@Olivier5,

Keep begging the question, man. And I'll keep an eye out for the next Nobel selections. I assume you'll be among them, having solved such a long-standing and monumental problem that has evaded the biggest and brightest minds for centuries.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

I'm not willing to sacrifice my mind, my own agency, to any "truth" out there. So I am a big fan of science, understood as the creative and open-minded search for usable and tested theories.

I hate scientism because it debases science, it makes of it a religion, an idol, a "truth", an end in itself, when it should be a pursuit.

If you can't understand the inherent modesty of scientific claims, if you are bound to make of it a provider of ultimate truths, you don't understand science nor why it works. It works precisely because it is modest.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Reviews [implicitly, ONLY] the evidence which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes.

Hmmm, words like "suggest" and "may" sound a little iffy, eh? But at least this sentence implies it relates to ALL "higher order cognitive processes."

Oh, wait...

Quote:

Ss are sometimes unaware...

I guess not.

====

I sometimes pick the wrong answer on a multi-choice test.

The obvious conclusion: I always get every answer wrong, and will never, into the indefinite future, get one right.

Sho nuff.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Please provide such missing evidence, so that I can start raging against it... :-)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Done many times over in this thread alone. Your denialism isn't proof of free will. Wink

Hope to see you at the next Nobels.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

It's where you are: you ARE a mind, remember?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Begging what question, exactly? What's the big deal with science? Why do YOU for instance seem to care for it?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Done many times over in this thread alone.

That's a lie, and I don't like liars. You're entitled to your POV but not to your own facts.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Begging what question, exactly? What's the big deal with science? Why do YOU for instance seem to care for it?

You start with the assumption that free will exists to make science possible, which then proves your conclusion that free will exists. We could also call it circular reasoning, I suppose. Very basic logic errors.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Done many times over in this thread alone.

That's a lie, and I don't like liars. You're entitled to your POV but not to your own facts.

I've posted a shitload of experimentally derived facts, whereas you've presented little more than a priori reasoning and fallacious, knee-jerk naysaying. Denialism is an insidious beast.

1 Reply

@FBM,

It's not circular. Human agency is what make science possible. Take out agency, and you take out science.

Try and prove scientifically that logic is unreliable. Or try and prove scientifically that human observation (the capacity to look at the world and note down what happens) is always an illusion. See how far you can get...

You are aware that science is a human concept, conceptually built on some other concepts such as reason, logic, observation, right? Or is that "word salad"?

1 Reply

@FBM,

You posted no evidence whatsoever that any neuronal activity was unconscious (while patients were awake). Stop lying.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Human agency is what make science possible.

Bold claims such as this are why we need peer-reviewed studies as evidence. I've posted a bunch of them that places your claim in doubt.

Quote:

Try and prove...

No thanks. I have no taste for red herring. I've proved what I set out to prove, viz, that there is good reason to be skeptical of any conclusion regarding free will.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You posted no evidence whatsoever that any neuronal activity was unconscious (while patients were awake). Stop lying.

Quit denying. Now who's the one who doesn't even read what I post? Wink

1 Reply

@layman,

I always watch all the videos that I post. This one is interesting and unbiased.

2 Replies

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021612

Quote:

Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI

Stefan Bode , Anna Hanxi He , Chun Siong Soon, Robert Trampel, Robert Turner, John-Dylan Haynes

Published: June 27, 2011

Abstract

Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness. Activity patterns in anterior frontopolar cortex (BA 10) were temporally the first to carry intention-related information and thus a candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions. In the present study, the original paradigm was replicated and multivariate pattern classification was applied to functional images of frontopolar cortex, acquired using ultra-high field fMRI at 7 Tesla. Here, we show that predictive activity patterns recorded before a decision was made became increasingly stable with increasing temporal proximity to the time point of the conscious decision. Furthermore, detailed questionnaires exploring subjects' thoughts before and during the decision confirmed that decisions were made spontaneously and subjects were unaware of the evolution of their decision outcomes. These results give further evidence that FPC stands at the top of the prefrontal executive hierarchy in the unconscious generation of free decisions.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I always watch all the videos that I post. This one is interesting and unbiased.

I agree. Much better than the omnipresent videos which vociferously advocate, and selectively present arguments for, only one, preferred point of view. Also better than "debates" between opponents on opposite sides on an issue, where the goal is to "win" the debate. Sophistry generally reigns in those.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So I am a big fan of science, understood as the creative and open-minded search for usable and tested theories. I hate scientism because it debases science...

I too think that science should try to provide answers regarding natural phenomena and that conclusions not extend in any illogical way to phenomena that were not studied. It has been characterized as a humble process, one that routinely says that the given findings cannot explain everything, and further research in certain areas is needed to strengthen a given argument. If it doesn't, then we'll go back to the drawing board. That, to me, is modest.

I do not see that kind of humility in the answers given from theocratically-oriented positions. Those answers sound more like "there is no evidence that you could present that would make me change my mind," or, "There will never be sufficient evidence."

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It's where you are: you ARE a mind, remember?

I am a body; a place that is the product of things that have been passed down.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I always watch all the videos that I post. This one is interesting and unbiased.

Have anything to add, Fil? You only responded to the easy part of my question, which was:

Quote:

I actually took the hour and half required to watch this video, Fil, and I found it interesting. Did you (or anybody else) actually watch it? If so, what about it stands out to you, if anything?

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know