Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

Thermal said:
And yet we have not the foggiest idea if that is a realistic model. Before you say it, yes, we are all familiar with the 'study' that showed a run-up to decisions (the "push the button when you feel compelled to" study). Not only was that methodologically ridiculous, but about a third of the reactions showed no run-up at all, which blew the conclusion right out of the water.

We don't even remotely understand how thinking actually works. It's only a wild assumption that there is an 'if chemical/experience A, then choice B' absolute and inviolate chain going on. We have no evidence that this is an accurate model.
Click to expand...
What on earth has that to do with us not having freewill, whether we have freewill or not does not depend on us knowing how we think etc.?

Freewill in the traditional meaning is incompatible with everything we currently know about how the universe works, there is just as much evidence for freewill as there is for souls, which is zero.
 
Thermal said:
And yet we have not the foggiest idea if that is a realistic model. Before you say it, yes, we are all familiar with the 'study' that showed a run-up to decisions (the "push the button when you feel compelled to" study). Not only was that methodologically ridiculous, but about a third of the reactions showed no run-up at all, which blew the conclusion right out of the water.

We don't even remotely understand how thinking actually works. It's only a wild assumption that there is an 'if chemical/experience A, then choice B' absolute and inviolate chain going on. We have no evidence that this is an accurate model.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Benjamin Libel's study?
 
Darat said:
What on earth has that to do with us not having freewill, whether we have freewill or not does not depend on us knowing how we think etc.?

Freewill in the traditional meaning is incompatible with everything we currently know about how the universe works, there is just as much evidence for freewill as there is for souls, which is zero.
Click to expand...
Nope. I can say 'I exist" with no further proofs needed, or billiard ball explanations for it. Same with free will. There is no programmer, as you said earlier. And until the process of a working brain is understood (as opposed to treating it like the utterly unique thing it is), I have no reason to suspect malicious programming or whatever your programming hypothesis is all about.

ETA: 'no free will' is the complementary, yet opposite position to having a soul. It's putting existence into a neat little box, when you got no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you're talking about. Just embrace the chaos and stop trying to think you got it all figured out. :)
Poem said:
Are you referring to Benjamin Libel's study?
Click to expand...
I thought it was Libset or something, but probably, yeah.

ETA: googled it, we were both wrong but both close. Benny Libet.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Because that is the standard creationist playbook, and since you've been following that so far, I figure it is next.
Click to expand...
If you had been following then you would already know that I have said otherwise.

If you want to make a meaningful contribution, please do - but I won't respond to further posts in the same vein.
 
Poem said:
If you had been following then you would already know that I have said otherwise.
Click to expand...

By your fruits we shall know you
Poem said:
If you want to make a meaningful contribution, please do - but I won't respond to further posts in the same vein.
Click to expand...
OK so then what is the basis for your claim that there is "disagreement among scientists" about evolution?
 
You can go round in circles discussing whether or not there is or isn't free will. Every organism reacts to its environment and circumstances to one degree or another. But that doesn't mean there is no such thing as free will.

What made Mozart write a symphony or Stephen King a novel? Neither are exactly reactions. They both had to sit down and do the work when both could have chosen to participate in other activities. They made conscious choices. That certainly seems like free will to me.
 
Last edited:
The argument gets pretty whacky after a while.

"When a choice is being made, the brain shows a lot of activity in this area. Therefore, no free will."

"Ok. Does that mean that you understand why the electrical activity is going on, and what happens in consciousness with each neural firing? Or most? Or some?"

"Not a clue. But having free will is way too scary to me to let a lack of understanding interfere. Billiard balls, man. Easier to think about."
 
Thermal said:
And yet we have not the foggiest idea if that is a realistic model. Before you say it, yes, we are all familiar with the 'study' that showed a run-up to decisions (the "push the button when you feel compelled to" study). Not only was that methodologically ridiculous, but about a third of the reactions showed no run-up at all, which blew the conclusion right out of the water.

We don't even remotely understand how thinking actually works. It's only a wild assumption that there is an 'if chemical/experience A, then choice B' absolute and inviolate chain going on. We have no evidence that this is an accurate model.
Click to expand...
Neurological studies are only one facet. The more significant point is that there is no model that would leave room for free will, while the model for a lack of free will is perfectly logical, with many different scientific disciplines irrevocably pointing in that direction, from neuroscience to genetics.
acbytesla said:
You can go round in circles discussing whether or not there is or isn't free will. Every organism reacts to its environment and circumstances to one degree or another. But that doesn't mean there is no such thing as free will.

What made Mozart write a symphony or Stephen King a novel? Neither are exactly reactions. They both had to sit down and do the work when both could have chosen to participate in other activities. They made conscious choices. That certainly seems like free will to me.
Click to expand...
No, they couldn't have. Their arbitrary clusters of genes were shaped by an arbitrary environment, and at the point where they did their work, other pressures from the environment pushed at those clusters, from financial pressures to the pressures of a serotonin shot that they received from listening to Bach or reading Dracula that they wanted to re-experience in some way. And those pressures were stronger than the pressures to do something else.
Thermal said:
[...]
"Not a clue. But having free will is way too scary to me to let a lack of understanding interfere. Billiard balls, man. Easier to think about."
Click to expand...
Okay, let me stop you right there. There's only one conclusion that ever evokes feelings of anxiety in these discussions, and it's always the idea that there is no free will. That's the conclusion with the scary implications, usually feared by those arguing for free will, although many proponents of a lack of free will also point it out. Absolutely no one studying free will has ever seen the potential existence of free will as the bad outcome. It's alway the thing people hope for.
 
Olmstead said:
Neurological studies are only one facet.
Click to expand...
And one that leaves no indication that we should assume no free will.
Olmstead said:
The more significant point is that there is no model that would leave room for free will,
Click to expand...
We also have no model for how the process of making choices works at all.
Olmstead said:
while the model for a lack of free will is perfectly logical, with many different scientific disciplines irrevocably pointing in that direction, from neuroscience to genetics.
Click to expand...
They do not.
Olmstead said:
Okay, let me stop you right there. There's only one conclusion that ever evokes feelings of anxiety in these discussions, and it's always the idea that there is no free will.
Click to expand...
Your opinion, not fact. See below.
Olmstead said:
That's the conclusion with the scary implications, usually feared by those arguing for free will, although many proponents of a lack of free will also point it out. Absolutely no one studying free will has ever seen the potential existence of free will as the bad outcome. It's alway the thing people hope for.
Click to expand...
No. No-free-will advocates are saying the equivalent of "we don't have hands." You can concoct goofy philosophical games to show that you cant be certain of that, objectively, but that doesnt change the subjective certainty of "I think, therefore I am." The only "anxiety" felt by their critics is "wtf is wrong with you, man?"
 
Thermal said:
The argument gets pretty whacky after a while.

"When a choice is being made, the brain shows a lot of activity in this area. Therefore, no free will."

"Ok. Does that mean that you understand why the electrical activity is going on, and what happens in consciousness with each neural firing? Or most? Or some?"

"Not a clue. But having free will is way too scary to me to let a lack of understanding interfere. Billiard balls, man. Easier to think about."
Click to expand...
Billiard balls???
 
Poem said:
Billiard balls???
Click to expand...
Yes. You hit one, and it hits another, ending up in an inevitable trajectory chain to a predictable conclusion. That's how the no-free-will guys model their cause-effect gig. I would have said pool balls but it confuses the Brits.
 
Olmstead said:
No, they couldn't have. Their arbitrary clusters of genes were shaped by an arbitrary environment, and at the point where they did their work, other pressures from the environment pushed at those clusters, from financial pressures to the pressures of a serotonin shot that they received from listening to Bach or reading Dracula that they wanted to re-experience in some way. And those pressures were stronger than the pressures to do something else.
Click to expand...
<Wanted to address this one separately >

Seems you have developed the world's first working model of how the thought/choice process works. Outstanding! Please tell me all about what exactly the 'genes' are doing and how they are doing it. Without, of course, convenient personifications and other literary devices that gloss over that annoying "I don't have the foggiest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea how any of this works" thingy that keeps popping up in such explanations. .
 
Darat said:
What on earth has that to do with us not having freewill, whether we have freewill or not does not depend on us knowing how we think etc.?

Freewill in the traditional meaning is incompatible with everything we currently know about how the universe works, there is just as much evidence for freewill as there is for souls, which is zero.
Click to expand...
I would say that the "traditional" version of free-will, i.e. the version a layperson would use when they say "I did that of my own free-will" just means that a conscious decision was made. The fact that a conscious decision is ultimately the product of biology and physics is simply irrelevant.
The version that pseudo philosophers endlessly naval gaze over, requiring some sort of magical freedom from causality, obviously isn't real, and is equally obviously completely irrelevant to most people.
It's noteworthy that the only people putting forward the idea that the world being ultimately physical means that a people can't be held accountable for their conscious actions are theists trying to assert that it's some sort of problem for non-theists, even though it clearly isn't, and even though the existence of a god in no way solves the "dilemma".
 
There are these questions or ideas that no one can ever posit a provable answer. Or even an answer with any actual credible evidence. Is their a God? Why is there something instead of nothing? The meaning of Life? Etc. Do we have free will? is another.

All of which I consider to be a giant waste of time. IMV, this discussion means as much as whether our navel is an inny or an outie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom