< 1 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

is science on the brink of disproving free will?

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3337
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
18 February 2015 00:25
 
gsmonks - 17 February 2015 06:11 AM

...
The same conclusions were reached independently in cosmology, wherein through observation alone it was noticed that proximity plays a part in performing calculations, particularly in the case of time as a local phenomenon. In the static universe Einstein originally envisioned, determinism was a real possibility. Inflation, and later acceleration, not only scotched the notion of a static universe, but fundamentally undermined the concept of determinism.

Regarding the statement, “We are very bad at determining which particular molecule of water will be the last to become vaporous.”, the problem here is that atoms, and therefore molecules, do not exist as singular, independent objects. All subatomic particles are manifestations of one and the same thing, and probably represent a locus of dimensional entanglement within a field. The field in question is vast, probably entailing the entirety of the universe. Ergo- there is no last water molecule to be had, so that attempts to nail it down are doomed from the start.

Speaking for myself, my problem with the notion of free will is just that- that it’s a notion, an idea. The worst science occurs when one sets out to prove an idea without first proving the idea has some basis in actuality, aka foundation. There is no physical evidence that Id and Ego exist, any more than there is an area of the brain that can be said to be where Conscience resides.

One can perform experiments that seem to show that will and free will are real, but there are many experiments that can be performed that appear to demonstrate similar ideas that have no basis whatever in reality.

I’m always reluctant to accept anything that comes of the mouths of hairless primates, because their brains operate by way of useful illusions such as time, colour, sound, the feel of temperature variations, and so on. As ideas such as Id, Ego, Conscience and Free Will originate from the same source, to me they all come with a red flag.

I’m not arguing for the whole-hog acceptance of Free Will as defined in religious traditions. I am arguing the specific point that science is not close to disproving it. Science is quite capable of showing the limitations of the notions, and has in the recent past done quite a bit to restrict the extent to which human behavior and thought can be considered “free”, in both quantitative statistical and qualitative senses.

One of the things that bothers me about the traditional notion of Free Will is what it tends to be used for. Conservative, law-and-order types like to use it. They like to use it particularly to criticize people who don’t want to do what the law-and-order types want them to do. It is therefore not about freedom but about coercion, in its social usage.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
18 February 2015 01:14
 
envy me - 17 February 2015 03:48 PM
GAD, to Poldano - 17 February 2015 12:48 PM

Nice song and dance but you did not show a single violation of determinism or causality….

How about this melody?

The issues of mental causation, consciousness, and free will have vexed philosophers since Plato. In this book, Peter Tse examines these unresolved issues from a neuroscientific perspective. In contrast with philosophers who use logic rather than data to argue whether mental causation or consciousness can exist given unproven first assumptions, Tse proposes that we instead listen to what neurons have to say. Because the brain must already embody a solution to the mind—body problem, why not focus on how the brain actually realizes mental causation?

Tse draws on exciting recent neuroscientific data concerning how informational causation is realized in physical causation at the level of NMDA receptors, synapses, dendrites, neurons, and neuronal circuits. He argues that a particular kind of strong free will and “downward” mental causation are realized in rapid synaptic plasticity. Recent neurophysiological breakthroughs reveal that neurons function as criterial assessors of their inputs, which then change the criteria that will make other neurons fire in the future. Such informational causation cannot change the physical basis of information realized in the present, but it can change the physical basis of information that may be realized in the immediate future. This gets around the standard argument against free will centered on the impossibility of self-causation. Tse explores the ways that mental causation and qualia might be realized in this kind of neuronal and associated information-processing architecture, and considers the psychological and philosophical implications of having such an architecture realized in our brains.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Neural-Basis-Free-Will/dp/0262019108/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

I had to consult The enigmatic wisdom of Deepak Chopra, he randomly sums it up well.

“The future is entangled in the flow of neural networks”
“The mind experiences a jumble of self-knowledge”
“Imagination is a modality of subjective destiny”
“Matter grows through personal actions”
“Experiential truth projects onto quantum potentiality”

[ Edited: 18 February 2015 01:39 by GAD]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
18 February 2015 01:38
 
Poldano - 17 February 2015 11:18 PM
envy me - 17 February 2015 03:48 PM
GAD, to Poldano - 17 February 2015 12:48 PM

Nice song and dance but you did not show a single violation of determinism or causality….

How about this melody?

The issues of mental causation, consciousness, and free will have vexed philosophers since Plato. In this book, Peter Tse examines these unresolved issues from a neuroscientific perspective. In contrast with philosophers who use logic rather than data to argue whether mental causation or consciousness can exist given unproven first assumptions, Tse proposes that we instead listen to what neurons have to say. Because the brain must already embody a solution to the mind—body problem, why not focus on how the brain actually realizes mental causation?

Tse draws on exciting recent neuroscientific data concerning how informational causation is realized in physical causation at the level of NMDA receptors, synapses, dendrites, neurons, and neuronal circuits. He argues that a particular kind of strong free will and “downward” mental causation are realized in rapid synaptic plasticity. Recent neurophysiological breakthroughs reveal that neurons function as criterial assessors of their inputs, which then change the criteria that will make other neurons fire in the future. Such informational causation cannot change the physical basis of information realized in the present, but it can change the physical basis of information that may be realized in the immediate future. This gets around the standard argument against free will centered on the impossibility of self-causation. Tse explores the ways that mental causation and qualia might be realized in this kind of neuronal and associated information-processing architecture, and considers the psychological and philosophical implications of having such an architecture realized in our brains.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Neural-Basis-Free-Will/dp/0262019108/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Thanks for the reference.

That appears to be very much in line with what I’m saying.

That is what you were saying? Really? That we learn from experience and adjust our future responses like dogs and pigeons and that that is freewill?

Weird because all I got out of it was this

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3337
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
19 February 2015 01:31
 
GAD - 18 February 2015 12:38 AM

...

That is what you were saying? Really? That we learn from experience and adjust our future responses like dogs and pigeons and that that is freewill?

Weird because all I got out of it was this

Well, it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if comprehension is similarly in the mind of the reader?

For those who appreciate Bullwinkle as a reservoir of unconventional wisdom, I have some additional comments.

First, it is said that magic is just technology that is not understood.

Second, causality is not entirely deterministic. The notion that everything must have a cause can only be verified if one accepts randomness as a cause, or accepts that we sometimes do not know what causes a particular phenomenon. In mathematical explanations of causality, deterministic models are distinguished from stochastic models, corresponding to the extent to which one variable predicts another variable. Free Will, to anyone not completely knowledgeable about a subject’s mental state, can be measurable only as a stochastic residue of some deterministic model. We do not yet have a deterministic model of human behavior that completely predicts everything a “free range” human being does. The unpredicted aspects of behavior are stochastic residue from an incomplete deterministic model. The individual events that constitute the causal chains of human behavior might be highly deterministic. This does not necessarily make the outcome highly deterministic.

Third, I am strongly suggesting that our naive notions of determinism are insufficient for a true understanding of how the world works, or what we can know about that. That was my motivation for the Aristotle hint. We are rehashing notions that the ancient Greeks had trouble with. They were not notorious for the rigor of their inductive science (Aristotle being one exception in this regard), so we should regard most of what they have to say about causality, and the specific elaborations of the various forms of determinism, with some suspicion. We should quantify it. We are more capable than they are of doing so, so we have no legitimate excuse for arguing on the bases of their assumptions. Quantifying the extent of determinism in any proposed causal link is equivalent to quantifying the extent of unpredictability in any causal link. These are necessary steps in the process of eliminating unnecessary stochastic residue, and thereby inductively reducing the likelihood of Free Will as an explanation, case by case. That is the best that any inductive process can do to disprove it.

[ Edited: 19 February 2015 01:34 by Poldano]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
19 February 2015 05:08
 
Poldano - 19 February 2015 12:31 AM
GAD - 18 February 2015 12:38 AM

...

That is what you were saying? Really? That we learn from experience and adjust our future responses like dogs and pigeons and that that is freewill?

Weird because all I got out of it was this

Well, it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if comprehension is similarly in the mind of the reader?

For those who appreciate Bullwinkle as a reservoir of unconventional wisdom, I have some additional comments.

First, it is said that magic is just technology that is not understood.

LOL! No, that is from a scifi story.

I like these variation better;

Any sufficiently ignorant person is indistinguishable from stupid

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
19 February 2015 16:02
 
gsmonks - 19 February 2015 05:05 AM

The problem I’ve always had with the cause-and-effect model is that there is no differentiation at the moment cause comes into play. The two together are part of one single closed system. Hand and ball are two separate entities, but when hand pushes ball the two become part of a single system.

It is also arguable that they are always part of the same system, as the matter and physics that make them up are parts of the greater system that is the physical universe.

In other words, “cause and effect” is actually a matter of temporarily identifying two or more components within the already existing system.

While this may be a convenient method for us to measure isolated specifics, the specifics in question are not and never are isolated in actuality.

So to speak of things in terms of being “cause and effect” is actually erroneous, unless we’re clear on the ad hoc nature of our action of dissecting and measuring specifics belonging to the overall process.

The overall process itself, aka existence, may not have a beginning. I’m not speaking of “beginning” in terms of time because time is a notion I do not subscribe to. Mathematical time is always a matter of comparison between local, proximate and distal values, so there’s never any need for “time as a dimension”. The use of time as a dimension I’ve always viewed as a fatal flaw in modern physics and cosmology.

If there’s no beginning, then determinism is sunk as an axiom.

I’d like to say i follow that (understand that) but i dont. Is it anything like the principle of relativity: “Anybody moving uniformly with respect to somebody at rest is entitled to consider himself to be at rest and the other person to be moving uniformly.” ? ? (Since one cannot tell, by any experiment, whether one is at rest or moving uniformly.)

gregory

Post Scriptum: Definitions from “Space and Time In Special Relativity” N.David Mermin

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
19 February 2015 23:00
 
gsmonks - 19 February 2015 08:24 PM
Gregoryhhh - 19 February 2015 03:02 PM
gsmonks - 19 February 2015 05:05 AM

The problem I’ve always had with the cause-and-effect model is that there is no differentiation at the moment cause comes into play. The two together are part of one single closed system. Hand and ball are two separate entities, but when hand pushes ball the two become part of a single system.

It is also arguable that they are always part of the same system, as the matter and physics that make them up are parts of the greater system that is the physical universe.

In other words, “cause and effect” is actually a matter of temporarily identifying two or more components within the already existing system.

While this may be a convenient method for us to measure isolated specifics, the specifics in question are not and never are isolated in actuality.

So to speak of things in terms of being “cause and effect” is actually erroneous, unless we’re clear on the ad hoc nature of our action of dissecting and measuring specifics belonging to the overall process.

The overall process itself, aka existence, may not have a beginning. I’m not speaking of “beginning” in terms of time because time is a notion I do not subscribe to. Mathematical time is always a matter of comparison between local, proximate and distal values, so there’s never any need for “time as a dimension”. The use of time as a dimension I’ve always viewed as a fatal flaw in modern physics and cosmology.

If there’s no beginning, then determinism is sunk as an axiom.

I’d like to say i follow that (understand that) but i dont. Is it anything like the principle of relativity: “Anybody moving uniformly with respect to somebody at rest is entitled to consider himself to be at rest and the other person to be moving uniformly.” ? ? (Since one cannot tell, by any experiment, whether one is at rest or moving uniformly.)

gregory

Post Scriptum: Definitions from “Space and Time In Special Relativity” N.David Mermin

It’s like this:

Consider the known universe to be a cube that’s either 1 meter or 1 yard on all sides. Inside the cube is space. When you study physics (especially cosmology and the origins of matter), you study the hot furnace thought experiment which explains the formation of the universe.

Your box, or furnace, you heat to incredibly high energies. Inside the box is nothing but space. When Big Bang energies are reached (I’d have to go look up the numbers, but let’s just go with “Big Bang Energies”), you turn off the furnace. What happens next is that matter comes burbling into existence- subatomic particles such as quarks and gluons are able to exist in a free state while the energies are still extremely high. As the temperature drops, things begin to happen: quarks come together and either form pairs or groups of three, depending on their “flavour” or “colour”.

Without boring you with all the details, the skinny is that simple atoms form (mostly hydrogen), hydrogen clouds form, gravity takes over, the clouds collapse in on themselves and become the earliest stars, the collapsing of matter inside the early stars forms the heavy elements, stars that collapse into mostly iron go off with one hell of a bang because the stability of iron is at odds with the nuclear activity within a star, and blah, blah, blah, and eventually you end up with the present variety of stars and planets which are made up of the leftover junk from the early primitive and far more simple universe, and today you have planet Earth and us homo erectile dysfunctionals.

Now we come to it: everything we see around us is still that empty space we started with at the beginning. Just think of the theme song of The Big Bang Theory: “The whole universe was in a hot, dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started, wait . . . ” The “hot, dense state” spoken of is the furnace thought experiment. Space itself was cooked by high energies, became dense as matter formed, and then there was a period of incredible expansion, at speeds faster than light.

Now, you said,  “Anybody moving uniformly with respect to somebody at rest is entitled to consider himself to be at rest and the other person to be moving uniformly.” The thing is, in terms of matter and what it really is, there’s nobody to move uniformly with respect to someone at rest, because you’re still dealing with the uniform space you had at the beginning.

The difference is that the high energies caused dimensional entanglement, which is what matter is. Matter is space that became entangled due to being subjected to extremely high energies.

There is where you get into branes and string theory. Space itself is though to be made up of branes (membranes), which are, it is thought, vast fields that collided, or touched, which in turn seems to have caused a the violent reaction referred to as the Big Bang.

The two branes may have been very different, representing two incompatible types of physics. That in itself could theoretically have resulted in an explosion of terrible force. Each must work a certain way, both interfere with each other, a blast occurs that makes even a matter-antimatter explosion look like a sneeze. Your average nuke, if antimatter were substituted, would consist of a bit of antimatter roughly the size of the nail of your little finger. The ensuing explosion falls within well-understood properties of the Standard Model and can be predicted down to the smallest detail. The energies that would be release by the coming-together of two different sets of physical laws would be staggering.

Getting back to your two bodies, the physical laws you’re dealing with, governing them, are completely self-contained, and exist only in terms of our region of dimensionally entangled space. So they both exist, and don’t. This is why matter does and does not exist. It has location, yet it does not have location. Seen under an electron microscope, atoms wink in and out of existence.

Many think that the universe is holographic. You may have heard talk about matter becoming information on the event-horizon of black holes. This has to do with the holographic universe.

Anyway, this is too big and involved a subject for a thread like this. Suffice it to say that everything is virtual within a giant fish tank. The physical laws that are obeyed only work within the system itself.

Jesusfuck! that was outfuckingstanding. (i usually dont use the “f” word in public (just kidding about the f word). Thanks for that effort and engagement of eloquence gsmonks. I sure followed that, and it’s in accordance with my present state of belief or degree of faith in reality - as you defined it. I luv definitions.

I especially liked “homo erectile dysfunctionals”

You said “The thing is, in terms of matter and what it really is, there’s nobody to move uniformly with respect to someone at rest, because you’re still . -  - that I find adealing with the uniform space you had at the beginning” – - - -is that called a system?

“The ensuing explosion falls within well-understood properties of the Standard Model and can be predicted down to the smallest detai - - that’s amazing,  i mean in addition to the realizing the"staggering energies” involved.
gregory
Post Scriptum: Did you hear me mention i ‘ve been in college recently in order to be a middle school science teacher (high school class of 69) Again thanks.

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
20 February 2015 12:52
 

thanks gsmonks - as a round peg myself, with square holes all around me, i have a special place in my heart for gravity.
gregory

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3337
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
21 February 2015 00:35
 
GAD - 19 February 2015 04:08 AM
Poldano - 19 February 2015 12:31 AM
GAD - 18 February 2015 12:38 AM

...

That is what you were saying? Really? That we learn from experience and adjust our future responses like dogs and pigeons and that that is freewill?

Weird because all I got out of it was this

Well, it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if comprehension is similarly in the mind of the reader?

For those who appreciate Bullwinkle as a reservoir of unconventional wisdom, I have some additional comments.

First, it is said that magic is just technology that is not understood.

LOL! No, that is from a scifi story.

I like these variation better;

Any sufficiently ignorant person is indistinguishable from stupid

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice

Since the rhetorical trick of attacking the credibility of the speaker is acceptable, I will use it: You are about the best argument for hard determinism I could think of.

Free Will, paradoxically, actually requires a high degree of determinism along certain lines. Adaptation itself is a process of finding which causes, in the form of signs and signals and patterns, are the best predictors of which effects. Adaptation results in an increase in available choices, and better means of selecting among them. Free Will can only be increased when the number of recognizable choices increase. You are incapable of evaluating different kinds of determinism, to decide which are best at evaluating which aspects of the world. Therefore, you do not recognize the choices you have in estimating the amount of variability (the degrees of freedom) in the world, and are capable of only a single choice. You fail to adapt, you cannot recognize the choices available to you, except that which your programming predetermines, and so your actions are almost entirely predetermined.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 February 2015 01:10
 
Poldano - 20 February 2015 11:35 PM
GAD - 19 February 2015 04:08 AM
Poldano - 19 February 2015 12:31 AM
GAD - 18 February 2015 12:38 AM

...

That is what you were saying? Really? That we learn from experience and adjust our future responses like dogs and pigeons and that that is freewill?

Weird because all I got out of it was this

Well, it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if comprehension is similarly in the mind of the reader?

For those who appreciate Bullwinkle as a reservoir of unconventional wisdom, I have some additional comments.

First, it is said that magic is just technology that is not understood.

LOL! No, that is from a scifi story.

I like these variation better;

Any sufficiently ignorant person is indistinguishable from stupid

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice

Since the rhetorical trick of attacking the credibility of the speaker is acceptable, I will use it: You are about the best argument for hard determinism I could think of.

Free Will, paradoxically, actually requires a high degree of determinism along certain lines. Adaptation itself is a process of finding which causes, in the form of signs and signals and patterns, are the best predictors of which effects. Adaptation results in an increase in available choices, and better means of selecting among them. Free Will can only be increased when the number of recognizable choices increase. You are incapable of evaluating different kinds of determinism, to decide which are best at evaluating which aspects of the world. Therefore, you do not recognize the choices you have in estimating the amount of variability (the degrees of freedom) in the world, and are capable of only a single choice. You fail to adapt, you cannot recognize the choices available to you, except that which your programming predetermines, and so your actions are almost entirely predetermined.

Adaptation is not freewill.

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3337
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
23 February 2015 01:27
 
GAD - 21 February 2015 12:10 AM

...

Adaptation is not freewill.

I hope I didn’t say it was! If I seemed to have done so, my bad, I didn’t mean it. My brain isn’t working so good at putting words together right now, but I feel some responsibility for finishing what I started, so I try.

Adaptation is not, as you point out, free will. It is almost (not quite) the opposite of free will. Adaptation is a process of finding some causality for phenomena that matter to an agent. To clarify, I’m referring specifically to adaptation of active agency, as opposed to passive response, in other words, the way agents learn to jiggle their environment to achieve a desired end. In some ways, the more deterministic the adaptation is, the better it is. In other ways, not all adaptations can be highly deterministic, because the causality itself is not highly evident or systematic. The process of adaptation seems to start from a state where causal triggers are not known, and proceed by generating partially-random inputs that are subsequently selected on the basis of effectiveness. Thus, active adaptation proceeds from the less deterministic to the more deterministic, with the assistance of a generation process that may be at least partially stochastic.

I have not worked this out yet to my satisfaction, and I may very well be wrong. This is just my thinking at this moment.

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3337
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
23 February 2015 01:29
 
gsmonks - 21 February 2015 02:07 AM

...

LOL! You should have ended with a bit of vocal condemnation, for good measure, such as, “Stupid, stupid monkey!”

Makes me laugh every time.

As an afterthought, I thought of adding a snarky smiley, but decided it was not worth the editing effort. You got the jape anyway.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6436
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
23 February 2015 22:40
 

I’m sure someone has already said this, but I think that science has been “on the brink” of disproving free will for quite some time. But politically I don’t think there is much incentive (e.g. money, funding) to disprove it. There’s probably more likely a heavy disincentification since society relies so heavily on the fact that a person’s will can be taken away for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation. Imagine the implication if people actually knew and understood that that will we were caging was never free in the first place? “Judge, um, Ah, well… isn’t deterrence illusory, anyway?” hahaha.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6436
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
24 February 2015 20:34
 
gsmonks - 24 February 2015 06:08 AM
jb8989 - 23 February 2015 09:40 PM

I’m sure someone has already said this, but I think that science has been “on the brink” of disproving free will for quite some time. But politically I don’t think there is much incentive (e.g. money, funding) to disprove it. There’s probably more likely a heavy disincentification since society relies so heavily on the fact that a person’s will can be taken away for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation. Imagine the implication if people actually knew and understood that that will we were caging was never free in the first place? “Judge, um, Ah, well… isn’t deterrence illusory, anyway?” hahaha.

The problem is that free will is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. There’s no “free will” to be found in the human brain, any more than there’s a thingy in the brain that can be identified as a conscience, or an id, or an ego, or any of that other stuff people love to bloviate about.

The closest anyone can come to science where free will is concerned is indirect inference. Even is you directly observe a person exhibiting what you might think is an act of free will, it remains an act of interpretation that might be attributable to something else entirely.

Every idea started off as a philosophical musing, then hypothesis, concept, operation/idea, conclusion, theory/fact yada yada yada. That how science works, it gets to the how’s and why’s of shit that’s otherwise not “fact” yet, to the extent of our capacity to perceive “objectivism.”

If the brain and nervous system control our actions, thoughts, emotions, memories and perceptions, Science can study to what extent causation controls this process before, during and after the past goes through the trouble of happening through our mind, which is simply the brain’s do-thing, if in fact, the brain has the capacity to “do” anything (or if it just does shit mirroring its environment). Regardless of whether it does or doesn’t, I think that distinguishing the objective brain and subjective experience is important to this regard and that’s where we get ideas about consciousness, the id, ego and what not.

[ Edited: 24 February 2015 20:38 by Jb8989]
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6436
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
24 February 2015 23:52
 
gsmonks - 24 February 2015 08:47 PM
jb8989 - 24 February 2015 07:34 PM
gsmonks - 24 February 2015 06:08 AM
jb8989 - 23 February 2015 09:40 PM

I’m sure someone has already said this, but I think that science has been “on the brink” of disproving free will for quite some time. But politically I don’t think there is much incentive (e.g. money, funding) to disprove it. There’s probably more likely a heavy disincentification since society relies so heavily on the fact that a person’s will can be taken away for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation. Imagine the implication if people actually knew and understood that that will we were caging was never free in the first place? “Judge, um, Ah, well… isn’t deterrence illusory, anyway?” hahaha.

The problem is that free will is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. There’s no “free will” to be found in the human brain, any more than there’s a thingy in the brain that can be identified as a conscience, or an id, or an ego, or any of that other stuff people love to bloviate about.

The closest anyone can come to science where free will is concerned is indirect inference. Even is you directly observe a person exhibiting what you might think is an act of free will, it remains an act of interpretation that might be attributable to something else entirely.

 

Every idea started off as a philosophical musing, then hypothesis, concept, operation/idea, conclusion, theory/fact yada yada yada. That how science works, it gets to the how’s and why’s of shit that’s otherwise not “fact” yet, to the extent of our capacity to perceive “objectivism.”

If the brain and nervous system control our actions, thoughts, emotions, memories and perceptions, Science can study to what extent causation controls this process before, during and after the past goes through the trouble of happening through our mind, which is simply the brain’s do-thing, if in fact, the brain has the capacity to “do” anything (or if it just does shit mirroring its environment). Regardless of whether it does or doesn’t, I think that distinguishing the objective brain and subjective experience is important to this regard and that’s where we get ideas about consciousness, the id, ego and what not.

That’s still putting the cart full of bunny-wunnies before the pony.

The brain doesn’t do a very good job of studying itself, because it’s built to work a certain way, and that certain way is made up of useful illusions. So the brain’s thinkifying is skewed from the get-go in ways that are very difficult to work around, assuming we’re not fooling ourselves in the bar-goon.

No doubt. It is. But at the end of the day we have some tools and epistemology is a thing so I’m compelled with a desire to know shit. For instance, you want to know where I found my vape? Fucking in my toiletry bag. What the hell was it doing there? I never travel with that thing!

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >