48
   

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Forums: Religion, Spirituality And Religion, Philosophy, Lack Of Religion, Lack Of Belief
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:11 pm
@FBM,
The graph on the right.

http://www.mpg.de/638364/zoom.jpeg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

For one thing, the article overstates the actual results quite a lot. From the graphic provided in the link, it appears that the prediction is never better than 58% or so, which means that it failed 42% of the times. This is only slightly better than the null hypothesis which would be a success rate of 50%. That big ERM+computer apparatus only succeeds slightly more often than flipping a coin.

One would have to read the published article to verify that the difference was statistically significant and at what level of alpha risk. However, I assume there is some decent level of stat significance, or the article would not have been publishable.


Yes, and a lot of scientists who are much more capable of comprehending the significance of it than I do take it seriously. It's said that the concept of free will has long been dead in the relevant sciences.

Quote:
Another issue is that the choice in question is a very simple, binary one: left or right, and that it has no particular consequences. No moral quandary of any sort, no risk involved. Most life choices are far more complex than that and would thus involve a maze of brain signals that would be impossible to read through an ERM, at least with current technology.


Cows are routinely and necessarily rounded when studying complex phenomena. Wink

Quote:
A third issue is that the person in the ERM is encouraged to think about his choice well in advance and then commit to it. Now, we all know that when making a choice, we LEAN towards an option for a certain time, before COMMITTING to the choice, usually right before we act. The ERM could simply be reading that leaning process.

I therefore submit that it is possible to trick the machine by complexifying the choice process. Ie by thinking / imagining "left left left left" for a few seconds before switching to right (or not, say once you choose what you lean for, the second time you choose the opposite, and etc. alternatively). Doing so would (I guess) lead to a success rate that would be less than 50%.


Your conclusion seems to fall prey to infinite regress. How was the first decision made? How can the mental act of deciding precede the relevant brain activity? If it could, that decision would have to have been made somewhere else than the brain, it seems. The only way I know of to support this is to posit an unmoved mover in each of us. Can you identify this prime mover, be it an organ or a spirit or something else? What's issuing the fiat, the uncaused cause?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 06:24 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
It's said that the concept of free will has long been dead in the relevant sciences.

Many things have been said, true or not. I don't think there is any solid consensus on this issue yet, and even if there were, science is always provisional so no concept is ever completely dead.

Beside, I think a good argument can be made that the scientific method itself is predicated upon some degree of free (self-determined) thought, in the form of curiosity, intuition, creativity, observation and logic. Otherwise, if all mental processes are predetermined by a mix of biology and society, maybe scientists are just predetermined by society or biology to be wrong all the time.

Quote:
Cows are routinely and necessarily rounded when studying complex phenomena.

Sure, but there is such a thing as over-simplification.

Quote:
How can the mental act of deciding precede the relevant brain activity?

It doesn't need to precede it. All it takes to have some amount of freedom in mental processes is for such mental activity to be a necessary level of operation for the right result to be computed. IMO, we have thoughts for a reason. They play a role, they constitute a level or space where some causation occurs, one thought leading to another, e.g. in a mathematical proof.

Take a poem written on paper. What is the operative level, the right level at which the poem "works"? Not the ink dots. The ink and paper are only a physical support for a series of words and phrases. The same poem could be written on another sheet of paper with a different font and font color, or on stone, or on a computer RAM. The physical support would be entirely different, but it would still be still the same poem. Similarly, it is possible that the same thought be written in different ways in the brain, the mind allocating brain resources opportunistically to store the relevant information either here or there in the brain. In other words, mind over matter.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 06:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Hmm. Do you consciously choose the words you're going to think before you think them?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:04 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
For one thing, the article overstates the actual results quite a lot. From the graphic provided in the link, it appears that the prediction is never better than 58% or so, which means that it failed 42% of the times. This is only slightly better than the null hypothesis which would be a success rate of 50%. That big ERM+computer apparatus only succeeds slightly more often than flipping a coin.
Typical result in social science.
Olivier5 wrote:
Another issue is that the choice in question is a very simple, binary one: left or right, and that it has no particular consequences. No moral quandary of any sort, no risk involved. Most life choices are far more complex than that and would thus involve a maze of brain signals that would be impossible to read through an ERM, at least with current technology.
Good point
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:12 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
. . . .Yes, and a lot of scientists who are much more capable of comprehending the significance of it than I do take it seriously. It's said that the concept of free will has long been dead in the relevant sciences. . . .
We should definitely believe those scientists, since they are so capable.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:24 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
. . . .Yes, and a lot of scientists who are much more capable of comprehending the significance of it than I do take it seriously. It's said that the concept of free will has long been dead in the relevant sciences. . . .
We should definitely believe those scientists, since they are so capable.


They would be the relevant experts. Seems pretty reasonable to include their lack of faith in free will as part of an eclectic position founded on the best scholarship available.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:49 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
. . . the relevant experts. Seems pretty reasonable to include their lack of faith in free will as part of an eclectic position founded on the best scholarship available.
So long as the 'scholarship' is untainted by confirmation bias.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:41 pm
@neologist,
Or any other logical error. You see, that's what publishing in peer-reviewed journals is designed to weed out. Submissions must first pass the editor and/or his team before it hits the stands. Then other scholars are still free to pick it apart in subsequent issues.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:59 pm
@FBM,
They are not called peers because of their diverse points of view.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 12:32 am
@FBM,
No but that is not a necessary condition for "free will".

I find the term "free will" inappropriate, in fact - my take is that thoughts are self-determined, one thought leading to another as in a mathematical proof. "Obeying oneself" implies a degree of freedom from non-mind influences (eg social, or biological influences, which evidently exist).
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 01:09 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

They are not called peers because of their diverse points of view.


Nor are they called peers because they all agree on the same things. They're called peers only because they work in the same general area.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 01:14 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

No but that is not a necessary condition for "free will".

I find the term "free will" inappropriate, in fact - my take is that thoughts are self-determined, one thought leading to another as in a mathematical proof. "Obeying oneself" implies a degree of freedom from non-mind influences (eg social, or biological influences, which evidently exist).


Evidently exist to the mind, yes. In any event, I don't see anything that I'd take issue with in what you wrote above. The last time I got into this thing about free will, I drifted towards identifying where the sense of agency is generated in the brain. Turns out, iirc, that it's an ongoing, dynamic and subconscious collaboration among at least 3 otherwise distinct lobes. Didn't bother memorizing which ones they are.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 02:45 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Typical result in social science

This is not social science, though. It's cognitive science, which aims to be taken seriously as "hard" science. This said, biology also typically leads to less clear-cut inferences than chemistry or geology, and calls for statistical analysis to analyse the risks of jumping to the wrong conclusions. Life is complicated.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 02:50 am
Came in this morning, and all the posts on the page are thumbed down to zero. I can't believe that the current thread participants (neo, FBM, Fil) would do such a thing. A lurker tried to kick down the entire thread?

If yes, thanks for your help. This will help keep the trolls out of this nice little clearing of a thread.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 04:03 am
@Olivier5,
Somebody has been acting like a disgruntled adolescent lately, thumbing down random posts. Probably one of the trolls. Meh. They'll grow out of it someday.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 07:39 am
@FBM,
A2K should add to members' profile the total number of thumbs down or up. That would be informative re. a poster's negative or positive attitude to the site.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 08:03 am
@Olivier5,
I'd run with that. Sadly, I have no powahs with teh powahs that be at A2K.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 09:41 am
@Olivier5,
neo wrote:
Typical result in social science
Olivier5 wrote:
This is not social science, though. It's cognitive science, which aims to be taken seriously as "hard" science. This said, biology also typically leads to less clear-cut inferences than chemistry or geology, and calls for statistical analysis to analyse the risks of jumping to the wrong conclusions. Life is complicated.
Exactly
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2015 09:44 am
@Olivier5,
It's the phantom thumb bum
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Would the World be Better off Without Religion?
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:40:28
▲ ▼