Tom

No unseen, clearly you haven’t been properly educating yourself on the topic because you are ignorant of theories which are taken seriously by neurosciences and philosophers. They are not fringe theories. Your fear of picking up a book and reading it keeps you from educating yourself on it. It baffles me why you are fearful of this but there must…[Read more]

Unseen I have reached my limit of patience with you mischaracterising me as a free will believer. I cannot count the amount of times I have specifically and clearly stated that I do not claim that free will exists. If you continue to do that I will permanently cease all further discussions with you about free will. Please stop it.

Instead of…[Read more]

I’vy that definition is so broad that even cats have free will. Do you think cats have free will?

I never said quantum effects explain free will. I like how you keep trying to frame my position as though I stand by free will existing or not. I don’t. You…actually…are the only person who has taken a hard position on the topic. And the sum of your argument is: I just don’t see how it’s possible (that and a propensity for visiting sites and…[Read more]

I guess I just laugh because I think y’all are way over complicating this LOL…

So what’s your definition of free will Ivy?

What are you talking about unseen. If it cannot even be predicted when a radioactive element will decay then how could you possible predict a coin toss 1000 years in the future even if you know the current state of every particle?

A youtube video yet again. And with Tyson discussing something outside of his field of expertise. Great.

Yeah Pope there have been quite a few that are worthwhile. The only one I think that is reducible to something easily discussed without delving rather deeply into it is:

free will infers conditions in which an agent is morally responsible for their decisions

I still have not seen a satisfactory definition of free will

Yeah but you have to actually read works on free will (beyond something of encyclopedic, youtube or magazine article nature to get to a working definition). Plenty of philosophers have given more than reasonable definitions.

In any event there is no evidence for “thoughts” without matter and energy so our will…will always be bounded.

Indeed this is quite similar to what Reg is saying. We are bound by the choices available and the structures that allow certain choices and only those choices (whether we actually get a say in that choice or not). Our choice is bound…[Read more]

Daniel Dennet has argued over the methodology of the experiment, especially over the methods use to determine when an agent is aware of a decision which was based on several assumptions

Raymond Tallis (a neuro surgeon) with the overly broad application of the results of the experiment (reducing a decision down to one single moment with one…[Read more]

That is a grossly broad interpretation of a set of experiments which have been highly critiqued by neuroscientists.

Unseen is right (though only with the added caveat of MAY) in that there may never be a solution and perhaps correct in that the solution is free will simply IS an illusion…they are both possibilities. Simon is correct in that the solution may come by finding the right conceptual framework. As Raymond Tallis (a noted neuroscience and…[Read more]

Oh I have no doubt you believe there is no solution to a problem on an issue in which we lack even basic information on and one you refuse to inform yourself on opposing arguments. That’s why, while on most topics I totally respect your point of view (even when I may seriously disagree with it) on this one I can only shake my head and laugh out…[Read more]

Hey Jake, don’t get me wrong…I also think it’s great that Sam is trying to add meaning and value to a secular life without religion. It is fantastic. But I simply laughed while reading his book “Free Will” where he casually dismisses free will because “determinism” but then at the end talks about moral responsibility without even bothering to…[Read more]

Neuroscience is far more difficult a field than rocket science Ivy. You need to have a near medical understanding of the physiology of the brain and then a theory of consciousness and an understanding of human psychology and be up to date on the most recent research. Rocket scientists have sufficient information and millions of man hours of…[Read more]

Jake…you see…this is basically why I was very reluctant to elaborate on Dennet’s theory because while Simon did about as good of a job as you possibly can with summarising a complex theory…it didn’t begin to do it justice. The chess program is an analogy and not a direct explanation of his theories. I don’t want to get bogged down into…[Read more]

Unseen you specifically said in the past any idea should be easily summarised in a couple sentences. When challenging you to do so (say summarise relativity or evolution into a few sentences so a layperson can reasonably understand it you were conveniently silent).

In any case…an average person cannot properly understand the intricacies of the…[Read more]

If you can’t explain it to ordinary folks plainly, then in their mind the problem will remain.

Unseen that is total bullshit. Please explain the theory of relativity in “two sentences”.

Simon Matthews, a great user here on atheist zone some years back who sort of fizzled away, wrote a 2 page summary of Dennet’s “Freedom Evolves”. I’m not going to search the archives for it (it may even be on think atheist!) but for a book that is insanely difficult to summarise I’d say he did an okay job on the basic premise. The best way to look…[Read more]