Woo Denial

[Panthera tigris FC]

Standard deviation only relates to the shape of the curve.

Have enough trials (say for the sum of two dice) and you always get this curve.

Yes. You always get the curve, however for any single event you only get the likelihood of a result with a measurement of the degree of error. There is no certainty....only an approximation (and an understanding of how close that approximation will be to the actual).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Since no free will is the 'truth', then people are not responsible for their actions and should not be held responsible for them, obviously. You don't find this problematic? Surely if this is truth and you are a truth seeker you should be following through on your findings.

It is a vexing outcome of this line of thought....but just because we might not like the consequences, that says nothing about the accuracy of the claim.

I am not sure what you mean by "following through". It is something I have thought a great deal about.

Just because wheels are a good idea doesn't account for their existance. Someone needs to will them into existance. I am making exactly the same 'silly' point Evo made back here.

And will has a neurological basis. Will can be affected by brain damage, thus will has a cause.

I interpreted Evo's point as tongue in cheek.

A first cause implies acausality. This is where I see the breakdown.

What is this first cause that you refer to?

 

[Djevv]

It is a vexing outcome of this line of thought....but just because we might not like the consequences, that says nothing about the accuracy of the claim.

I am not sure what you mean by "following through". It is something I have thought a great deal about.

The point is that if free will is in fact 'woo'. Then shouldn't you and other skeptics be campaigning against prison sentences, laws, governments etc as all these things are in fact unnecessary as all is predetermined?

OK I'm being silly, but don't you find it somewhat bizzarre that your marrage partner was in fact decided by the motion of particles at the early stages of the big bang 15byrs ago? You don't find THAT a bit woohoohoohoohoo *shivers*?

And will has a neurological basis. Will can be affected by brain damage, thus will has a cause.

If will exists, then it can be a first cause outside the deterministic universe IMO. This implies the will, damaged or not is supernatural. I hope I am getting you two aright, you are saying that we are automatons with no real will aren't you?

Incidently there was an interesting Sci Fi series on this topic by Issac Asimov - the Foundation novels. I now understand his ideas about psycho-history better.

I interpreted Evo's point as tongue in cheek.

What is this first cause that you refer to?

Creative acts that have their origin in the human mind. We are the first cause of something. No antecedent sufficient causes exist outside the mind. Anyway I've made this point about 50 times now but I guess once more won't hurt. Can anyone show an actual cause that will produce creative ideas, every time, without the excercise of will?

 

[Djevv]

One of the best ways to demonstrate that we are in fact souls are Near Death Experiences. Scientific studies have been performed on them and have come to the conclusion that conciousness does survive brain death. Here.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The point is that if free will is in fact 'woo'. Then shouldn't you and other skeptics be campaigning against prison sentences, laws, governments etc as all these things are in fact unnecessary as all is predetermined?

OK I'm being silly, but don't you find it somewhat bizzarre that your marrage partner was in fact decided by the motion of particles at the early stages of the big bang 15byrs ago? You don't find THAT a bit woohoohoohoohoo *shivers*?

Of course it feels strange to ponder such things - that is one of the side effects of having a mind that struggles to grok such things. However my feelings on the matter don't have anything to do with nature of reality.

As I said in my original post on this particular topic, our minds produce a completely credible sense of free will, however our minds are part of the universe and are thus subject to its laws. I still fail to see where you see an exception to this.

If will exists, then it can be a first cause outside the deterministic universe IMO. This implies the will, damaged or not is supernatural. I hope I am getting you two aright, you are saying that we are automatons with no real will aren't you?

Just for clarity, I was referring to the sense of will that we experience. The fact that we can affect our consciousness through physically affecting the parts of the brain responsible for those elements of consciousness, makes any other 'supernatural' explanation extraneous IMO. Consciousness is a product of our neurological makeup. The cells that make up our nervous system are made up of molecules that follow the physical laws of the universe.

So, again, although it may not appear so to our consciousness, we are made up of components that are just obeying natural laws. The mind boggling complexity of those components suggests that any type of total awareness of such things will be impossible and thus the illusion of free will is completely convincing. However, our knowledge of biology and physics reveals that the illusion of free will is just that. If you consider that being an automaton...fair enough...however life represents the most complex 'automatons' that we are aware of (it is one of the features of life, by some definitions).

Creative acts that have their origin in the human mind. We are the first cause of something. No antecedent sufficient causes exist outside the mind. Anyway I've made this point about 50 times now but I guess once more won't hurt. Can anyone show an actual cause that will produce creative ideas, every time, without the excercise of will?

So do you consider other that animals have free will? I can make a similar argument on the part of many animals. When it comes down to it though I would consider all human thought original in its own way. I would be interested to hear how you distinguish creative acts from other acts....the presence of a 'cause'? I would argue that creative acts have a cause that is neurological in nature (like all other thoughts).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

One of the best ways to demonstrate that we are in fact souls are Near Death Experiences. Scientific studies have been performed on them and have come to the conclusion that conciousness does survive brain death. Here.

If that is the best evidence than I am surprised you subscribe to it. When you link to "scientific studies" it is generally a good idea to point to the scientific literature that provides the evidence, as opposed to someone hocking their own book on the topic.

There are plenty of physical explanations for NDEs. You don't have to look very hard.

 

[Djevv]

If that is the best evidence than I am surprised you subscribe to it. When you link to "scientific studies" it is generally a good idea to point to the scientific literature that provides the evidence, as opposed to someone hocking their own book on the topic.

There are plenty of physical explanations for NDEs. You don't have to look very hard.

Well a braindead woman looks down and accurately describes a surgical procedure done on herself and also a conversation. What is the reasonable physical explanation?

Is it OK if I did a brief google on the subject and came up with this? Are you saying there have been no studies published in the literature on NDEs?

 

[evo]

.

So, again, although it may not appear so to our consciousness, we are made up of components that are just obeying natural laws. The mind boggling complexity of those components suggests that any type of total awareness of such things will be impossible and thus the illusion of free will is completely convincing. However, our knowledge of biology and physics reveals that the illusion of free will is just that. If you consider that being an automaton...fair enough...however life represents the most complex 'automatons' that we are aware of (it is one of the features of life, by some definitions).

Well sir,I couldn't have put it better myself.'Tis always a good day when scientists and philosophers agree. :grouphug

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Well a braindead woman looks down and accurately describes a surgical procedure done on herself and also a conversation. What is the reasonable physical explanation?

Is it OK if I did a brief google on the subject and came up with this? Are you saying there have been no studies published in the literature on NDEs?

Why hasn't the doctor published this remarkable finding in the medical literature? My BS meter is bound to go off when someone bypasses peer review.

Of course it is OK to google, but to then claim that it is a "scientific study" is blatantly false. There have been studies published in the literature on NDEs, but you are better off using Google Scholar or PubMed to find them.

Why would you think that I was implying that there were no studies on the topic when I clearly said:

There are plenty of physical explanations for NDEs. You don't have to look very hard.

 

[evo]

. Can anyone show an actual cause that will produce creative ideas, every time, without the excercise of will?

Just to be clear,no-one is denying the existence of will.

The claim is that it isn't free;ex causa.

The strongest knowledge (that of the total freedom of the human will) is nonetheless the poorest in successes: for it always has the strongest opponent, human vanity. Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Djevv]

Just to be clear,no-one is denying the existence of will.

The claim is that it isn't free;ex causa.

The strongest knowledge (that of the total freedom of the human will) is nonetheless the poorest in successes: for it always has the strongest opponent, human vanity. Friedrich Nietzsche

What kind of will is not free? How can something be described as will if it is not free to do as it wills?

 

[evo]

What kind of will is not free?

I thought the answer would've been clear by now-- all will.

How can something be described as will if it is not free to do as it wills?

It doesn't have to be free to exist.Only one definition even mentions freedom and is only by means of example.

will2   /wɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wil] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, willed, will⋅ing.
–noun 1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.

 

[Djevv]

Why hasn't the doctor published this remarkable finding in the medical literature? My BS meter is bound to go off when someone bypasses peer review.

Of course it is OK to google, but to then claim that it is a "scientific study" is blatantly false. There have been studies published in the literature on NDEs, but you are better off using Google Scholar or PubMed to find them.

Why would you think that I was implying that there were no studies on the topic when I clearly said:

Nay saying stuff it not hard. From my brief readings on the subject NDEs are mysterious and not well understood. Surely the fact that they are well documented in sober scientific literature must give people pause for consideration on whether conciousness can survive death?

The fact that this testimony came from a book does not invalidate it. Obviously the testimony was not part of a scientific study.

 

[Djevv]

I thought the answer would've been clear by now-- all will.

:hihi

We're begging the question now are we?

It doesn't have to be free to exist.Only one definition even mentions freedom and is only by means of example.

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.


All of these, to me, seem to involve the element of choice. A choice implies the freedom to choose.

 

[Disco08]

An essay that I was reading when we were discussing precognition makes this claim which I guess is somewhat relevant to NDE's and the possible explanations thereof:

A significant volume of evidence has been put forward (Roberts, 1991) suggesting that perception is a non-physiological phenomenon which takes place in a level of consciousness independent of the brain.

 

[evo]

:hihi

We're begging the question now are we?

It is not 'begging the queestion fallacy if I've made an argument for it--which I have in numerous previous posts--it is a claim

A choice implies the freedom to choose.

With the emphasis on implies.

I'm aware it 'seems' like we have free-will and it would be nice if we did.But logic and science indicates that we don't.So I have to go where it takes me.I'd prefer if I had free-will too,doesn't make it true however.

Pantera raised a good point.Where,assuming free-will exists, is the demarcating line in the animal world?

Do dolphins have it?

Do monkeys?

Do Jelly fish?

Does algae?

If not,why not?

It seems to me dolphins have a will---is it free?

 

[evo]

An essay

Once a premise is flawed it is likely that what follows will be illogical.

For eg.

It will be appreciated that if the future did not already exist in some form, then the present moment would move forward into a blank area of non-existence, and to achieve the obvious reality of the universe as the present moment passed into the future would require the continuous creation of everything.

1.It is absurd to posit that the future already exists.It doesn't by definition.Otherwise it would be the present.
2.He uses the term "some form"--this further points to the reality that it does not yet exist.Otherwise he would be able to ellucidate in what form it exists.
3.Most importantly,"form" requires a perceiver.Given that perceiver hasn't arrived there yet,it has no form.

While prima facie the claim appears to make sense in short he has a shakey grasp of the meaning of the word "existence".

A significant volume of evidence has been put forward (Roberts, 1991) suggesting that perception is a non-physiological phenomenon which takes place in a level of consciousness independent of the brain.

Well if that is your premise,then anything is possible.Why are we even bothering pretending we are using science?If we accept the above is true then all paranormal claims are potentially true.We don't even need to read on.

Roberts(1991) should submit his work to Mr Randi

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, I wasn't putting it forward as something I agreed with, I just remembered that claim as possibly relevant.

I'd like to know what the evidence he references actually is. I also remember reading something about a double-blind test that showed some individuals exhibited physiological responses to images seconds before they actually saw them which I thought was interesting.

1.It is absurd to posit that the future already exists.It doesn't by definition.Otherwise it would be the present.

I did like the point made that the existence of a present moment is really only true as a notion given that something that happened 1 nanosecond ago is already history and something about to happen 1 nanosecond from now is still part of the future. How would you define 'the present moment' evo?

 

[evo]

I did like the point made that the existence of a present moment is really only true as a notion given that something that happened 1 nanosecond ago is already history and something about to happen 1 nanosecond from now is still part of the future.

So do I.That was his moment of lucidity

How would you define 'the present moment' evo?

Reality.

All that exists.

What appears to be.

 

[Disco08]

Can't reality and what appears to be often be totally different things?