What Is Man?

[shunyadragon]

The preparing?

You know that action will be needed, the brain responds to that knowledge. The analagous picture that I got from the studies was something like the paddles of a heart stimulator. Potential builds - then action is taken. In the brain, potential/capacity to act on a decision builds, then the decision (pro or con) is made.

How does it know to prepare?
There are responses that don't depend on the brain for instigation - reflexes.
You see something, while you're deciding what to do about it, the brain prepares to act on the decision.
But reflexes truly are involuntary ... the brain doesn't know about what's happening until after the reaction.

You need to understand more about the brain to reach any conclusions. The parts of the brain that are involved in the decision making process is decidedly different from the involuntary actions controlled by the brain.

[seer]

The preparing?

You know that action will be needed, the brain responds to that knowledge. The analagous picture that I got from the studies was something like the paddles of a heart stimulator. Potential builds - then action is taken. In the brain, potential/capacity to act on a decision builds, then the decision (pro or con) is made.

So there is a conscious understanding before the potential builds?

[tabibito]

You're saying that free will cannot be exercised?

I am not comfortable with 'trying to fit comfortably within certain Biblical concepts.' This a problem since there are radically conflicting beliefs within Christianity that are not consistent.

I'm not "trying" to fit "no free will" into Biblical concepts. Accepting the "conflicting, not consistent" as valid, for the sake of argument - I am saying that the concept of "no free will" fits comfortably into one set of those inconsistencies.

The studies showed that potential builds, regardless of whether action is taken or not. In one set, subjects were told to decide whether to act when they saw a light come on. The potential built in the same way, whether ultimately they acted or not, as it did in subjects who were told to act when the light came on. The results showed that the potential precedes and is independent of the actual decision.

Withal, the studies only test stimulus response situations, so - even if it could be shown that there is no free will in such circumstances, extending that to decisions made in advance and in the absence of immediate stimulus have not been studied. This is a matter of over extrapolation.

[shunyadragon]

You're saying that free will cannot be exercised?

I did not say that 'Free Will' cannot be exercised. I am saying that 'Free Will' acts cannot be defined clearly as deliberately exercised with certainty. Many choices we make in life may be, and likely are, limited in the range of choices we can make. What appears to be the exercise of 'Free Will' may not be.

I'm not "trying" to fit "no free will" into Biblical concepts. Accepting the "conflicting, not consistent" as valid, for the sake of argument - I am saying that the concept of "no free will" fits comfortably into one set of those inconsistencies.

I cannot be comfortable either way. There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies.

The studies showed that potential builds, regardless of whether action is taken or not. In one set, subjects were told to decide whether to act when they saw a light come on. The potential built in the same way, whether ultimately they acted or not, as it did in subjects who were told to act when the light came on. The results showed that the potential precedes and is independent of the actual decision.

Withal, the studies only test stimulus response situations, so - even if it could be shown that there is no free will in such circumstances, extending that to decisions made in advance and in the absence of immediate stimulus have not been studied. This is a matter of over extrapolation.

This is only your view of the evidence from one of the research approaches to will, and it remains inconclusive.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, how many times in this very thread have you told me that we have no more genuine choice than a primate – your monkey choosing a banana? It doesn’t help your case by making it more complicated, it is all still determined.

We don’t in principle. But a primate still makes choices nevertheless, just as we do. And as far as it’s concerned (i.e. if it could analyze it) it is a Free-Will choice. It gets to enjoy its “chosen” banana after all. Just as you get to wear the blue shirt you “chose” to wear the other morning. Choices still have real consequences in the world even though predetermined. Causal Determinism and “Choices” both continuously interact - they are a part of the same process. This is what Sam Harris and others refer to as the continuous causal stream.

And sure, we as a society could hold the murderer accountable for his act and jail him but it still wasn’t his fault – he had no control over his character or actions – they were predetermined by the laws of nature. He is no more genuinely responsible for murder than the lion that kills and eats the gazelle. Both are equally determined.

As a society we may or may not hold the murderer accountable. In law we do recognize the concept of “diminished responsibility” consequent upon several possible factors, e.g. brain trauma. But either way, such a person is still a danger to the community and must be removed from it - but hopefully not out of revenge, but for the community’s own protection. We are evolved social animals hence the maintenance of social cohesion is essential.

Like I said Tass, science is not my last word; I am not limited to this narrow view. Nothing in science conclusively closes the door on the freedom of the will. They cannot even account for human consciousness, why should I assume that they know the human mind well enough to make such a claim? Since that is the case why should I see my experience of freedom as an illusion?

The fact is, outside of your unsubstantiated dualistic beliefs, you can produce no credible evidence supporting the notion of Libertarian Free-Will. NONE! Thus you have no alternative. To this extent science HAS conclusively closed the door on the freedom of the will in my view. Although one recognises many great minds recognise a limited degree of Free-Will as per Compatibilism.

As for “human consciousness”, the fact that we don’t fully understand it as yet doesn't mean that it wasn't a product of evolutionary mutation in common with every other aspect of living creatures. There’s no reason to assume that it wasn't.

[tabibito]

So there is a conscious understanding before the potential builds?

More appreciation than understanding I think. But yes - all the activity in the brain that results from stimulus (even when it is wholly unexpected) prior to a decision would be necessary to enable a decision to be enacted. Reflexes don't require brain activity at all - those are initiated by the nervous system. And none of these tests in any way examine pre-planned activity. The tests aren't relevant to such situations as "I'm going on a holiday next month - what do I need to take care of in the interim." They only examine what happens in the event of a trigger.
Later studies than Libet's did introduce variables, but they still examined reactions and responses to stimuli - which martial arts have taken into account for centuries in training. None of the studies has addressed actual unprompted decisions.

[seer]

We don’t in principle. But a primate still makes choices nevertheless, just as we do. And as far as it’s concerned (i.e. if it could analyze it) it is a Free-Will choice. It gets to enjoy its “chosen” banana after all. Just as you get to wear the blue shirt you “chose” to wear the other morning. Choices still have real consequences in the world even though predetermined. Causal Determinism and “Choices” both continuously interact - they are a part of the same process. This is what Sam Harris and others refer to as the continuous causal stream.

As a society we may or may not hold the murderer accountable. In law we do recognize the concept of “diminished responsibility” consequent upon several possible factors, e.g. brain trauma. But either way, such a person is still a danger to the community and must be removed from it - but hopefully not out of revenge, but for the community’s own protection. We are evolved social animals hence the maintenance of social cohesion is essential.

Tass that is nonsense. If you are correct we all have “diminished responsibility.” We could never choose to do other than we did. The a jihadist is just as predetermined to his behavior as the man born with Downs syndrome. And that is where you are inconsistent - you want to give a pass to the criminal who had a bad upbringing, but you want to (at least in your mind) hold the jihadist who murders morally culpable - he isn't, he is determined.

The fact is, outside of your unsubstantiated dualistic beliefs, you can produce no credible evidence supporting the notion of Libertarian Free-Will. NONE! Thus you have no alternative. To this extent science HAS conclusively closed the door on the freedom of the will in my view. Although one recognises many great minds recognise a limited degree of Free-Will as per Compatibilism.

Then show me the studies that conclusively shut the door on freedom of the will. According to Tabibito, and even Shuny, so far the evidence is inconclusive.

[shunyadragon]

Then show me the studies that conclusively shut the door on freedom of the will. According to Tabibito, and even Shuny, so far the evidence is inconclusive.

I believe Tass's main argument it is against autonomous or libertarian Free Will, not Compatibilist Free Will, though he believes even compatibilist Free Will is unlikely. As I stated before I believe the current evidence makes libertarian Free Will not likely possible.

[Darth Executor]

I dunno if it was covered but man is a social construct. Just a name given to a disparate supergroup of primates that just happen to be able to breed with each other. It's an antiquated division with no real basis in biology, which shows clearly that all life on earth is related to each other.

[Tassman]

We could never choose to do other than we did. The a jihadist is just as predetermined to his behavior as the man born with Downs syndrome. And that is where you are inconsistent - you want to give a pass to the criminal who had a bad upbringing, but you want to (at least in your mind) hold the jihadist who murders morally culpable - he isn't, he is determined.

mindset).

Then show me the studies that conclusively shut the door on freedom of the will. According to Tabibito, and even Shuny, so far the evidence is inconclusive.

NO! YOU show me how Libertarian Free-Will can possibly exist given that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature". You are making the positive assertion that is does; the burden of proof rests with you. Surprise us all by actually answering a question for once.

I believe Tass's main argument it is against autonomous or libertarian Free Will, not Compatibilist Free Will, though he believes even compatibilist Free Will is unlikely. As I stated before I believe the current evidence makes libertarian Free Will not likely possible.

Correct. The virtual impossibility of Libertarian Free-Will is the focus of my argument with the logical corollary that Determinism in one of its forms is the only alternative. And yes, I see Hard Determinism as the most likely, but acknowledge that some degree of Compatibilism is possible.

[tabibito]

In the initial study, subjects are told to act when a light comes on: The light comes on and the subject acts. When was the decision to respond to the light coming on made? Not when the light came on - it was a simple, predetermined response. The decision to act was made long before the light came on.

Later studies are more complex, but the underlying problem remains. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that decisions are initiated without a person's volition. Not that they are followed through, but that they are initiated. The hypotheses regarding the absence of free will have themselves been tested, and with some rather thoroughly expected outcomes.

In 2008, psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler published a study on how people behave when they are prompted to think that determinism is true. They asked their subjects to read one of two passages: one suggesting that behaviour boils down to environmental or genetic factors not under personal control; the other neutral about what influences behaviour. The participants then did a few math problems on a computer. But just before the test started, they were informed that because of a glitch in the computer it occasionally displayed the answer by accident; if this happened, they were to click it away without looking. Those who had read the deterministic message were more likely to cheat on the test.

It would seem that the exercise of free will is to some extent affected by the belief in the existence of free will. What a surprise..

[Tassman]

In the initial study, subjects are told to act when a light comes on: The light comes on and the subject acts. When was the decision to respond to the light coming on made? Not when the light came on - it was a simple, predetermined response. The decision to act was made long before the light came on.

Later studies are more complex, but the underlying problem remains. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that decisions are initiated without a person's volition. Not that they are followed through, but that they are initiated. The hypotheses regarding the absence of free will have themselves been tested, and with some rather thoroughly expected outcomes.



It would seem that the exercise of free will is to some extent affected by the belief in the existence of free will. What a surprise..

The following may be of interest to you:

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-ev...have-free-will

"...over the past several years, while the philosophers continue to argue about the metaphysical underpinnings of human choice, an increasing number of neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on — quite literally. And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion..."

[tabibito]

"Some"
"of them"
"believe"

And there you were promoting it as a scientific theory. "Some of them", with or without "believe", says hypothesis.

[tabibito]

The Headline: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE FREE WILL

neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on — quite literally. And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion.

And here is the editorialised addition tacked hard on the end of the foregoing: "Here's why you probably don't have free will." What the experts consider a possibility has suddenly been turned into a probability with nothing but the reporter's (or perhaps the editor's) opinion of the meaning of "some neuroscientists believe" as a foundation.
Critically read enough Biblical Commentaries, and you learn how to trap these little embellishments.

As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we’re actually aware of them that's what I said, decisions have been made before the experiments begin even. — and at times by a significant degree. It’s a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we’re less in control of our choices than we think — at least as far as some basic movements and tasks are concerned.said that too

The results were shocking. Haynes’s data showed that the BP occurred one entire second prior to conscious awareness — and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of his paper, he told Nature News:

“The first thought we had was ‘we have to check if this is real.’ We came up with more sanity checks than I’ve ever seen in any other study before.”

The cognitive delay, he argued, was likely due to the operation of a network of high-level control areas that were preparing for an upcoming decision long before it entered into conscious awareness. Basically, the brain starts to unconsciously churn in preparation of a decision, and once a set of conditions are met, awareness kicks in, and the movement is made.

and I said that too.

Neuroscientist Itzhak Fried's experiment showed that the neurons lit up with activity as much as 1.5 seconds before the participant made a conscious decision to press a button. And with about 700 milliseconds to go, Fried and his team could predict the timing of decisions with nearly 80% accuracy. In some scenarios, he had as much as 90% predictive accuracy.

There's something I didn't know about. Brain activity .... makes it possible to predict, in advance, the timing of a decision. So - a final decision quite clearly hasn't been made, just a lot of preparation to make action possible.

And all of that is just what comes out before the criticisms of methodology are taken into account.

All that brain activity is not much more than "on your marks" "get set" - prior to the conscious "go"

The amount of time that the brain takes in preparation is a mystery. Quite a number of actions in response to stimuli simply don't have 1.5 seconds of lead time available for a decision to be made - and yet data quite clearly available shows that decisions are made and acted on with less than a third of that time available.

[seer]

I believe Tass's main argument it is against autonomous or libertarian Free Will, not Compatibilist Free Will, though he believes even compatibilist Free Will is unlikely. As I stated before I believe the current evidence makes libertarian Free Will not likely possible.

Then there is no free will. All you have done was to redefine free will in a non classical way. If we really don't have the ability to do otherwise then we are not free in any sense of the word. Compatibilism basically defines free will as the ability to act on your desires apart from outside influence - no duh - if that is the case then an ape has free will.