Science and free will

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
How can you honestly be so confident in something because "you think you've directly experienced it"?
Click to expand...

UndercoverElephant said:
For exactly the same reason you can honestly be so confident when you say "I have a splitting headache!"
Click to expand...

Saying "I have a splitting headache" is not the same as saying "I think I experienced witnessing a spirit". In the former I'm not saying "I think I experienced" it. I know I did, but additionally, this can be tested empirically through science.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Would you apply that same criteria to "thinking you saw a shadow" on a night when you had a couple drinks, or "thinking you heard a creepy whisper in the bathroom" when you just came home from seeing a scary movie?
Click to expand...

UndercoverElephant said:
The "think" was only there out of convention. I know damned well I experienced it. It was a poor use of language, actually. It would have been better without the "think."
Click to expand...

So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception say like for example witnessing a mirage, in which you are one hundred per cent positive you're seeing water, only to later realize you weren't?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Saying "I have a splitting headache" is not the same as saying "I think I experienced witnessing a spirit". In the former I'm not saying "I think I experienced" it. I know I did, but additionally, this can be tested empirically through science.
Click to expand...

No it can't. Science tries hard to explain or react to people's reported subjective states, but it can't accurately predict or directly observe them.



So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception say like for example witnessing a mirage, in which you are one hundred per cent positive you're seeing water, only to later realize you weren't?
Click to expand...

Can it seem to seem like it is Thursday?
Or if it seems like Thursday is it definately certain that it seems like Thursday?
 
UndercoverElephant said:
No it can't. Science tries hard to explain or react to people's reported subjective states, but it can't accurately predict or directly observe them.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering if you live in this reality at all. Because in this reality, headaches and other types of pain can be studied and observed through neuroscience


UndercoverElephant said:
Can it seem to seem like it is Thursday?
Or if it seems like Thursday is it definately certain that it seems like Thursday?
Click to expand...

Please answer specifically the question I'm asking you. Don't try to get clever by changing the example with a false analogy

I will ask again

So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception say like for example witnessing a mirage, in which you are one hundred per cent positive you're seeing water, only to later realize you weren't?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I'm wondering if you live in this reality at all. Because in this reality, headaches and other types of pain can be studied and observed through neuroscience
Click to expand...

No they can't. Neuroscience studies the neural correlates of headaches, not headaches.

So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception say like for example witnessing a mirage, in which you are one hundred per cent positive you're seeing water, only to later realize you weren't?
Click to expand...

No. I'm always one hundred percent positive that I am actually experiencing everything which I am actually experiencing. What I later interpret the causes of those experiences to be is another matter.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
On the contrary, it would be dishonest to myself to deny my experiences really happened. It would be the zenith of dishonesty.
Click to expand...
UndercoverElephant said:
What I later interpret the causes of those experiences to be is another matter.
Click to expand...
BINGO. Now we are getting somewhere. So what are your criteria for determining and interpreting if your experiences are real, hallucination, illusion or delusion?
 
paximperium said:
BINGO. Now we are getting somewhere. So what are your criteria for determining and interpreting if your experiences are real, hallucination, illusion or delusion?
Click to expand...

I've already refused to answer that question on the grounds that it is the original case which led to the term "black art."
 
Last edited:
UndercoverElephant said:
I've already refused to answer that question on the grounds that it is the original case which led to the term "black art."
Click to expand...
Therefore there is nothing to discuss. You have your black box that can never be seen or even touched by anyone.

You are preaching, not debating. Why are you here again?
 
paximperium said:
Therefore there is nothing to discuss. You have your black box that can never be seen or even touched by anyone.

You are preaching, not debating. Why are you here again?
Click to expand...

I'm not preaching. Here's why: I am not trying to prove that free will necessarily exists. I am trying to demonstrate that there is no a-priori means of proving that it can't exist.

Have a look at the posts above this one. There's lots of NEGATIVE claims going on. This is not accidental.
 
Last edited:
I actually see this conclusion drawn because of science. It is post- priori.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
I am trying to demonstrate that there is no a-priori means of proving that it can't exist.
Click to expand...

Proving it to you? With your version of free will even after all, huh? I am fine with the assertion that that what I would like to see as "real" free will can't be. (Incidentally, anything upthread doesn't even make the cut as "real" free will. *shrug*)
 
UndercoverElephant said:
No they can't. Neuroscience studies the neural correlates of headaches, not headaches.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to discuss this any further. You know the point I'm making is: headaches can be studied as something that is an actual medical sympton, not an illusion

You can keep saying science can't study and prove that headaches are an actual real medical symptom, but it won't make it any more true

UndercoverElephant said:
No. I'm always one hundred percent positive that I am actually experiencing everything which I am actually experiencing. What I later interpret the causes of those experiences to be is another matter.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you this once again until you actually answer the question that's being asked to you

So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception?
Click to expand...
Yes or no?

Meaning:

If you are 100% sure you're seeing water (meaning, if you were asked at the moment if you "think" you're seeing water, you would answer "No. I don't think I'm seeing water. I know I'm seeing it. It's real, drinkable water), only to later find out as you walk further that you were wrong, that it wasn't actually water, that it was nothing but a mirage, even though at the previous moment you "knew" what you were seeing water. Do you in other words accept that perception is erroneous and leads to false beliefs, no matter how convincing they are? That believing that things are real because "you are one hundred per cent that what you're perceiving is real" is a dishonest approach based on wishful thinking?
 
UndercoverElephant said:
I'm not preaching. Here's why: I am not trying to prove that free will necessarily exists. I am trying to demonstrate that there is no a-priori means of proving that it can't exist.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't demonstrated anything, no more that I can demonstrate that you can't prove there isn't an invisible pink flying unicorn hoping on the surface of Pluto. Good luck disproving that one. Haha I win

Like I said: dishonest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom