This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Mr.Durick
Following high skepticism by @modalursine perhaps a couple of years back I became convinced that we don't have free will. This article:
Robert
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140609153508.htmargues that mental noise can disconnect cause and effect randomly and [my words] thereby allow for free will. My question, built on modalursine's doubt, is how can randomness, despite its obvious varying of cause and effect, lead to free will? How does this particular randomness allow for free will?
Robert
2timspalding
It's a typical non sequitur. If philosophers attempted to tackle scientific questions with this sort of extended misunderstanding, they'd be hooted down.
3Mr.Durick
modalursine was a technical guy, albeit an engineer rather than a scientist, and he hammered at the notion that cause and effect has its sway. Randomness may vary that sway, but randomness doesn't confer free will, that he could see. I also after long trying to respond also could not see it.
Roger Penrose may be onto something I don't understand. Or there could be a God, one who conferred free will on us as a creative act.
Robert
Roger Penrose may be onto something I don't understand. Or there could be a God, one who conferred free will on us as a creative act.
Robert
4rrp
I am not generally impressed by this sort of Neuromania.
"It inserts a random effect that allows us to be freed from simple cause and effect." Tosh.
If you were given the task of randomly choosing between left and right, and nothing much depended on your choice, you might toss a coin. Does tossing a coin free you from "simple cause and effect"? If you don't have access to a coin, your brain might delegate the choice to some other source or random outcomes you do have access to, say noise levels in the brain. Does using those sources free you from "simple cause and effect"?
I am even less impressed that the article cites the work of Libet, which has been thoroughly dissected and found wanting over the years. Wasn't there recent work that even found his original experiment wanting?
"It inserts a random effect that allows us to be freed from simple cause and effect." Tosh.
If you were given the task of randomly choosing between left and right, and nothing much depended on your choice, you might toss a coin. Does tossing a coin free you from "simple cause and effect"? If you don't have access to a coin, your brain might delegate the choice to some other source or random outcomes you do have access to, say noise levels in the brain. Does using those sources free you from "simple cause and effect"?
I am even less impressed that the article cites the work of Libet, which has been thoroughly dissected and found wanting over the years. Wasn't there recent work that even found his original experiment wanting?
5kiparsky
It seems to me that being governed by random fluctuations is no better than being governed by rigid deterministic cause and effect, if you want a theory that gives us "real" free will.
Of course, the idea that it can matter to us whether we "really" have free will or not is somewhat puzzling in itself. What difference would it make to any of us if it were proved by some means that our decisions are all foreordained? It would certainly not make your daily decisions any easier, nor would it give you any ability to know the future or replay the past. In fact, I think it would not change anything about our lives at all.
Of course, the idea that it can matter to us whether we "really" have free will or not is somewhat puzzling in itself. What difference would it make to any of us if it were proved by some means that our decisions are all foreordained? It would certainly not make your daily decisions any easier, nor would it give you any ability to know the future or replay the past. In fact, I think it would not change anything about our lives at all.
8southernbooklady
Instinct is typically defined as "not thinking." It describes a response that bypasses conscious thought.
