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

[Thermal]

??

You called it a bad decision. I noted it could not be bad, as it had no agency. It was inevitable, therefore either Thanos or more likely, moral neutral.

Then I went back to singing a Thomas Dolby song out loud. Judgemental, much?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We *can*, whether or not we *should*.

Actually, we have no choice if we blame them.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, we have no choice if we blame them.

You'd think that would be a compelling affirmative defense in court, but judges opine they have no choice either...

 

[Thermal]

All those Jif commercials spoke too soon. But I guess "mothers without agency mindlessly obey the genetic impetus to inevitably choose Jif" doesn't have the same pizzazz.

 

[arthwollipot]

I also quoted noted evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould using the term...and after he said that 'Neo-Darwinism was effectively dead' he remained an evolutionary biologist.

I note that Stephen Jay Gould has been dead for 23 years.

You didn't respond to all of my post.

Some of your post was irrelevant.

What about Young's double slit experiment? The resulting pattern on the screen is different if we observe which slit the particle goes through - you don't get the interference pattern you get when not observing - you just get two strips of light.

That's mere observation altering a future outcome. And no one understands it.

That is a common misinterpretation of that experiment. Nothing is altering anything in the future, and it isn't "observation" that changes the outcome.

 

[acbytesla]

I definitely don't think the free will argument is even close to being solved. But I don't care.

 

[Poem]

I note that Stephen Jay Gould has been dead for 23 years.

Okay - but I was also aware that he had died some years back...so I am not sure of your point

We seem to be going round in circles. That I noted that a third of biologists (living biologists who are NOT creationists) have said that Neo-Darwinism (yes that word again....just means the current explanation) is not sufficient is just a statement of fact. You are reading into it more than is warranted. Nobody should be frightened of saying it. And, no, it isn't a destruction of evolution theory.

Some of your post was irrelevant.

Not at all - it just looks like you aren't able to respond.

 

[Poem]

The experiment I was talking about was just a more recent variation on the Libet Experiment. I saw it on several science-related Youtube channels months ago, but all I'm coming up with on a search is Libet... which was done in the 1980s (not recent). I'm pretty sure it's a variation on the same theme, but I haven't watched any of the full videos on Libet to be sure.

There is scepticism that Libet's findings (particularly the milliseconds that electrical brain activity is said to precede one's actual volition) are significant.

 

[Poem]

Are the free will naysayers suggesting that the free will proponents are in some way behaving like God-believers - that, essentially, they are endorsing woo?

 

[Poem]

Nothing is altering anything in the future, and it isn't "observation" that changes the outcome.

Er - yes it is observation that alters the outcome; cease observing and the interference pattern goes away.

You are perhaps pointing out that it is not human observation?

 

[Poem]

While his point is solid, Heisenberg and the conclusions he drew are a bad example. If the determinists are right, you are not altering the posited electron at all. Your observation was, surprise surprise, also predetermined.

Yet the position of the electron remains uncertain.

 

[sphenisc]

We seem to be going round in circles. That I noted that a
third of biologists (living biologists who are NOT creationists) have said that Neo-Darwinism (yes that word again....just means the current explanation) is not sufficient...

I missed that. Could you point it out again?

Thanks

 

[Poem]

I missed that. Could you point it out again?

Thanks

Sure: #476.

 

[Manopolus]

Are the free will naysayers suggesting that the free will proponents are in some way behaving like God-believers - that, essentially, they are endorsing woo?

Well, I know you weren't asking me (not one of the naysayers), but there IS quite a lot of religious baggage associated with the position... but that's true of the other side, as well (fate, destiny, etc.). My point is that you can't throw out what you can see right in front of your face (the fact that we make arbitrary choices all the time) without much clearer evidence than has ever been presented.

The woo is on the other foot, as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be primarily a rebellion against the "soul" concept... failing to consider that you can throw out all that extra religious baggage without denying what you can see right in front of your nose. Sure, it leaves a gap or two in knowledge (such as the mechanism), but at least you aren't claiming apparently real experience as illusionary without proper justification.

It's possible that some have just seen more compelling evidence than I ever have, but for reasons mentioned fairly early on, I don't think it's even possible to disprove free will. It'd be like trying to prove that you aren't conscious. If you ever do that, I guess there must be NPC's in this simulation.... pretty sure I'm not one of them, though.

 

[Poem]

Well, I know you weren't asking me (not one of the naysayers), but there IS quite a lot of religious baggage associated with the position... but that's true of the other side, as well (fate, destiny, etc.). My point is that you can't throw out what you can see right in front of your face (the fact that we make arbitrary choices all the time) without much clearer evidence than has ever been presented.

The woo is on the other foot, as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be primarily a rebellion against the "soul" concept... failing to consider that you can throw out all that extra religious baggage without denying what you can see right in front of your nose.

Are we (free will proponents) just assuming it because of vanity? We just want to be more then the mere robots that the deniers are in effect saying we are?

 

[steenkh]

We seem to be going round in circles. That I noted that a third of biologists (living biologists who are NOT creationists) have said that Neo-Darwinism (yes that word again....just means the current explanation) is not sufficient is just a statement of fact. You are reading into it more than is warranted. Nobody should be frightened of saying it. And, no, it isn't a destruction of evolution theory.

The “third” of biologists is taken from a web site that tries to sell itself on bringing something new. But as I have pointed out, it has been well-known for a long time that evolution is not getting its variation solely through mutations. When I was young, it was widely thought that only DNA determined heredity, or even only the gene-coding parts of DNA. Today this is substituted with knowledge of far more complexity than before. That they think they can find a third of biologists who who only know about mutations is in fact surprising.

But you are right, nobody thinks that evolution theory is in a crisis, just more complicated than you thought 20 years again.

 

[Manopolus]

Are we (free will proponents) just assuming it because of vanity? We just want to be more then the mere robots that the deniers are in effect saying we are?

Well, that would be a bizarre position considering it's readily apparent. that we're right... and are being told otherwise with very weak justification. I mean, you're basically being told that the screen you're currently staring at doesn't exist... the equivalent of that, metaphorically speaking. Personally, I'll back the obvious until someone comes up with a much better explanation as to why I shouldn't than anyone has presented.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, lucky for us, we do have direct evidence of free will -- specifically, that we know that we can make a choice.

This does not follow at all.

My roomba makes choices all the time. It does not have free will.

 

[Thermal]

Yet the position of the electron remains uncertain.

So? It's uncertain to us, not to deterministic forces.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Sure: #476.

To add to steenkh's post, this is where the value of 1/3 of biologists comes from...

Behe explained that, “Based on conversations with my own colleagues at Lehigh [University], dozens of other biologists, and news stories in journals I would guesstimate that a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology.” The growing literature speaks for itself.

quoted from Poem's article linked in the Federalist.

IOW, "Intelligent Design" Behe pulled it out of his nethers.