CDZ Lol, Scientists Think They Have Proven Free Will is an Illusion....SMH

[Cruz-Clinton]

America is not moslem nation or old Russia or Husseins Iraq there nobody haved free will. America are nation of brave and free economic solutions.

 

[Cruz-Clinton]

Catholics mostly all have no free will. Are they dumb?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Catholics mostly all have no free will. Are they dumb?

Yes, Catholics do have free will, dude.

lol

 

[320 Years of History]

These dudes trick people into thinking that they made a choice, and then use the manner in which people rationalize events to *prove* that ALL cases of choice are merely us tricking themselves.

IF people cant see the deep chasm of flaws int hat logic, well, my condolences.

Scientists might just have proved that free will is an illusion

In one of the studies undertaken by Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, of Princeton University, the test subjects were shown five white circles on a computer monitor. They were told to choose one of the circles before one of them lit up red.

The participants were then asked to describe whether they’d picked the correct circle, another one, or if they hadn’t had time to actually pick one.

Statistically, people should have picked the right circle about one out of every five times. But they reported getting it right much more than 20 per cent of the time, going over 30 per cent if the circle turned red very quickly.

The scientists suggest that the findings show that the test subjects’ minds were swapping around the order of events, so that it appeared that they had chosen the right circle – even if they hadn’t actually had time to do so....

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing.

But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather.

The scientists cautioned that the illusion of choice might only apply to choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. But it might also be “pervasive and ubiquitous — governing all aspects of our behaviour, from our most minute to our most important decisions”.

I think I could use this study to prove that some scientists should hand in their phuds.

interestingly you're not qualified to judge scientific conclusions.

Red:
Out of curiosity, do you know JimBowie1958 well enough to arrive legitimately at that conclusion?

 

[PK1]

Catholics mostly all have no free will. Are they dumb?

Yes, Catholics do have free will, dude.

lol

---
It depends how you define "free will".
If you believe in RCC dogma, and you experienced natural pleasure while masturbating, then you do NOT have free will ... due to fear of "hell".
LOL.
.

 

[PK1]

Catholics mostly all have no free will. Are they dumb?

---
Yes.
.

 

[PK1]

America are nation of brave and free economic solutions.

---
America is more than USA.
USA's "free" economic "solutions" benefit the rich folks the most.
It's easier to make money when you have lots of it.
.

 

[PK1]

I must say, on a mathematical basis, that free will can never exist. This is because as soon as you look at something, you put it in a scope, and that is a constraint. Constrained systems always exist in finite states, finite energy levels, finite combinations. In fact, the entire human mind is finite. Free will would require infinite possibilities to follow, not finite ones.

---
How do you define "free will"?
That is important to do before understanding your claim that "the entire human mind is finite".

I agree that the number of neurons the animal mind is based on is finite, but the "mind" generated from those neurons may have properties beyond quantifiable perceptions.
.

If the human mind was infinite, then you would not restrict the idea of infinity to a simple large number problem. Also, if the human mind was infinite, then you could think of all outcomes of any event in the same time, another impossibility for humans. It is easy to test that human mind is finite, because you can always just add one new state to it and make it surprised all the time. Or even simpler, the next new thing defines its next will, so how is it any free of a will? Free will may exist, but that is invisible to humans and humans can't reproduce it.

Why must a Deciding Mind have infinite mind to have Free Will?

Why can I not choose between A and B and have free will?

---
You can choose between A & B, but if that choice is influenced by authoritarian dogma, it it really "free will"?

Soviet/Communist Russia gave their citizens "free" choices ... to behave "appropriately".
Islamic nations also give their citizens "free choice" ... you think?
.

 

[PK1]

I must say, on a mathematical basis, that free will can never exist. This is because as soon as you look at something, you put it in a scope, and that is a constraint. Constrained systems always exist in finite states, finite energy levels, finite combinations. In fact, the entire human mind is finite. Free will would require infinite possibilities to follow, not finite ones.

---
How do you define "free will"?
That is important to do before understanding your claim that "the entire human mind is finite".

I agree that the number of neurons the animal mind is based on is finite, but the "mind" generated from those neurons may have properties beyond quantifiable perceptions.
.

If the human mind was infinite, then you would not restrict the idea of infinity to a simple large number problem. Also, if the human mind was infinite, then you could think of all outcomes of any event in the same time, another impossibility for humans. It is easy to test that human mind is finite, because you can always just add one new state to it and make it surprised all the time. Or even simpler, the next new thing defines its next will, so how is it any free of a will? Free will may exist, but that is invisible to humans and humans can't reproduce it.

---
You have yet to define "free will".
You seem to think mathematical "infinity" has something to do with it.
Infinity does not exist in our conscious world, outside of math class.
.

... it is much harder, if possible, to prove that something is free, than that something is not free. ... how can you prove, that the human mind can produce anything, that has not been correlated and predicted before?

---
I could agree on a "macro" level, that human behavior often has correlations that imply cause-effect ... leading to accurate predictions.
However, there are too many independent variables to prevent prediction of extreme, "unexpected" behavior, as seen with some mass murderers from "normal" families.

Individual human consciousness & motivation is based on billions of neurons & synaptic links, and its "whole" (mind) is sometimes less predictable than weather, more or less.
.

 

[anotherlife]

I must say, on a mathematical basis, that free will can never exist. This is because as soon as you look at something, you put it in a scope, and that is a constraint. Constrained systems always exist in finite states, finite energy levels, finite combinations. In fact, the entire human mind is finite. Free will would require infinite possibilities to follow, not finite ones.

---
How do you define "free will"?
That is important to do before understanding your claim that "the entire human mind is finite".

I agree that the number of neurons the animal mind is based on is finite, but the "mind" generated from those neurons may have properties beyond quantifiable perceptions.
.

If the human mind was infinite, then you would not restrict the idea of infinity to a simple large number problem. Also, if the human mind was infinite, then you could think of all outcomes of any event in the same time, another impossibility for humans. It is easy to test that human mind is finite, because you can always just add one new state to it and make it surprised all the time. Or even simpler, the next new thing defines its next will, so how is it any free of a will? Free will may exist, but that is invisible to humans and humans can't reproduce it.

---
You have yet to define "free will".
You seem to think mathematical "infinity" has something to do with it.
Infinity does not exist in our conscious world, outside of math class.
.

... it is much harder, if possible, to prove that something is free, than that something is not free. ... how can you prove, that the human mind can produce anything, that has not been correlated and predicted before?

---
I could agree on a "macro" level, that human behavior often has correlations that imply cause-effect ... leading to accurate predictions.
However, there are too many independent variables to prevent prediction of extreme, "unexpected" behavior, as seen with some mass murderers from "normal" families.

Individual human consciousness & motivation is based on billions of neurons & synaptic links, and its "whole" (mind) is sometimes less predictable than weather, more or less.
.

This website is not very responsive, so hopefully the reply to a single post, in contrast to multi quote will succeed here. I wAS trying to write, that i agree that it is indeed a good test of free decisions, if we simplify it to be a choice between two poles, A and B. Using this setup, free willed humans would replicate the behavior of the free balanced dice, when thrown multiple times. The problem here is, that humans have a pattern biased mind, so depending on how many times they make the decision between A and B, they will see some pattern instead of a randomness between their decisions. Same problem with watching the dice in a game. In fact, if you get a task to do A and B in a random choice order, you will settle in a preferred order after a number of runs, and you will make a conscientious effort to randomize it, relative to your settling trend, which is already a bias, so freedom is limited agaIn with the finiteness of human mind, manifesting as bias. Humans can't even observe free independent processes in nature either, because nobody has ever measured an exact Gaussian distribution of errors in anything, even with the high number of cell phone transmission logs in the 21st century.

 

[Never3ndr]

These dudes trick people into thinking that they made a choice, and then use the manner in which people rationalize events to *prove* that ALL cases of choice are merely us tricking themselves.

False. You need to actually read the article and, if you have the money, the study before you boldly lie on the internet. They don't "prove" anything, in fact, the direct quote is, "our studies add to a growing body of work SUGGESTING that even our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong."

As somebody who claims to have been in computers (which means you have went to university), you should know a bit about the scientific process. This is literally a study and researchers reporting on their findings and drawing conclusions from those findings. They are far, far, away from actually claiming anything as verifiable fact or "proving" things.

At the very least you could try and not lie so outright.

 

[rdean]

These dudes trick people into thinking that they made a choice, and then use the manner in which people rationalize events to *prove* that ALL cases of choice are merely us tricking themselves.

IF people cant see the deep chasm of flaws int hat logic, well, my condolences.

Scientists might just have proved that free will is an illusion

In one of the studies undertaken by Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, of Princeton University, the test subjects were shown five white circles on a computer monitor. They were told to choose one of the circles before one of them lit up red.

The participants were then asked to describe whether they’d picked the correct circle, another one, or if they hadn’t had time to actually pick one.

Statistically, people should have picked the right circle about one out of every five times. But they reported getting it right much more than 20 per cent of the time, going over 30 per cent if the circle turned red very quickly.

The scientists suggest that the findings show that the test subjects’ minds were swapping around the order of events, so that it appeared that they had chosen the right circle – even if they hadn’t actually had time to do so....

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing.

But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather.

The scientists cautioned that the illusion of choice might only apply to choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. But it might also be “pervasive and ubiquitous — governing all aspects of our behaviour, from our most minute to our most important decisions”.

I think I could use this study to prove that some scientists should hand in their phuds.

Republicans have proven the world is only 6,000 years old.

 

[jillian]

These dudes trick people into thinking that they made a choice, and then use the manner in which people rationalize events to *prove* that ALL cases of choice are merely us tricking themselves.

IF people cant see the deep chasm of flaws int hat logic, well, my condolences.

Scientists might just have proved that free will is an illusion

In one of the studies undertaken by Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, of Princeton University, the test subjects were shown five white circles on a computer monitor. They were told to choose one of the circles before one of them lit up red.

The participants were then asked to describe whether they’d picked the correct circle, another one, or if they hadn’t had time to actually pick one.

Statistically, people should have picked the right circle about one out of every five times. But they reported getting it right much more than 20 per cent of the time, going over 30 per cent if the circle turned red very quickly.

The scientists suggest that the findings show that the test subjects’ minds were swapping around the order of events, so that it appeared that they had chosen the right circle – even if they hadn’t actually had time to do so....

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing.

But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather.

The scientists cautioned that the illusion of choice might only apply to choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. But it might also be “pervasive and ubiquitous — governing all aspects of our behaviour, from our most minute to our most important decisions”.

I think I could use this study to prove that some scientists should hand in their phuds.

interestingly you're not qualified to judge scientific conclusions.

Red:
Out of curiosity, do you know JimBowie1958 well enough to arrive legitimately at that conclusion?

yes. or I wouldn't have said it.

we know he isn't a scientist. and what he's posting clearly indicates no respect for or knowledge of science.

perhaps you should have asked him what gives him the chutzpah to scoff when he's clueless about the science involved.

just saying.

 

[JimBowie1958]

yes. or I wouldn't have said it.

we know he isn't a scientist. and what he's posting clearly indicates no respect for or knowledge of science.

perhaps you should have asked him what gives him the chutzpah to scoff when he's clueless about the science involved.

just saying.

I never said I was a professional scientist.

What I said is that I have been trained in the Scientific Method (worked as an assistant in the lab of a university helping with experiments) and that one does not have to have some magic title of 'scientist' to be able to engage in science.

That you do not comprehend the distinction proves you dont understand the topic at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Republicans have proven the world is only 6,000 years old.

Lol, political ideologues always bring in politics to EVERY discussion.

This is not a Republican vrs Democrat issue, dude. There are plenty of Deterministic Materialists in both parties.

 

[JimBowie1958]

False. You need to actually read the article and, if you have the money, the study before you boldly lie on the internet. They don't "prove" anything, in fact, the direct quote is, "our studies add to a growing body of work SUGGESTING that even our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong."

As somebody who claims to have been in computers (which means you have went to university), you should know a bit about the scientific process. This is literally a study and researchers reporting on their findings and drawing conclusions from those findings. They are far, far, away from actually claiming anything as verifiable fact or "proving" things.

At the very least you could try and not lie so outright.

Your accusation of me lying I dont think is allowed here, especially when it is not true. So your response has been reported, but lets see if anything happens from it; I have my doubts.

The article I linked to is specifically titled "Free will could all be an illusion, scientists suggest after study shows choice may just be brain tricking itself" Scientists might just have proved that free will is an illusion

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing.

But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather.

The scientists cautioned that the illusion of choice might only apply to choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. But it might also be “pervasive and ubiquitous — governing all aspects of our behaviour, from our most minute to our most important decisions”.

The scientists are overplaying the significance of what they found to push a Deterministic Materialism agenda and this often happens in research on how the brain functions and how human will applies in the subject.

I am sick of your accusations, distortions and general attitude. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[JimBowie1958]

if we simplify it to be a choice between two poles, A and B. Using this setup, free willed humans would replicate the behavior of the free balanced dice, when thrown multiple times. The problem here is, that humans have a pattern biased mind, so depending on how many times they make the decision between A and B, they will see some pattern instead of a randomness between their decisions. Same problem with watching the dice in a game. In fact, if you get a task to do A and B in a random choice order, you will settle in a preferred order after a number of runs, and you will make a conscientious effort to randomize it, relative to your settling trend, which is already a bias, so freedom is limited agaIn with the finiteness of human mind, manifesting as bias. Humans can't even observe free independent processes in nature either, because nobody has ever measured an exact Gaussian distribution of errors in anything, even with the high number of cell phone transmission logs in the 21st century.

Patterns of behavior neither prove nor disprove free will as their could be underlying motivations that make the choices obvious.

For example, if we have a choice between A and B where A gives you an electrical shock and B gives you a US dollar. Most people Most of the time would pick B, not because they lack free will but because they do not like getting shocked and the USD accumulate eventually to useful amounts.

But the pattern of always choosing B does not have a thing to do with Free Will.

A better test would be to have a conflict between the subjects beliefs that they immutably follow by choice vrs a tempting alternative.

But the simple ability to shift ones focus from one sensation, memory thought process to another free of any constraint undeniably proves the existence of Free Will and these types of 'studies' in the OP prove nothing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Before this thread gets closed. I want everyone to realize how PERSONAL this thread became from Page One.
That's NOT CDZone rules or standards. Don't come into the CDZ if the topic doesn't seriously interest you. Because NOTHING in the CDZone is about YOU or HIM or HER..

This thread is a great example of posts that generally violate the tone of a Clean Debate..