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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,798
2,220
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.
 
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.
 
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...

Some truths are axiomatic by nature. Free Will is among those Truths.

This is part of the difficulty of a secular society that has rejected its Judeo-Christian roots; confusion with the axiomatic truths that build all the Truths that flow from them.

This nonsense that science can be used to prove or disprove things outside the Realm of Science (not a form of mass/energy, and therefore not material) is part of that confusion.
 
ok bubbalah. you aren't a scientist.

Prove it. I am an engineer. I have been trained in the scientific method. Were we living in the 1800's I would definitely be considered a scientist.

Was Galileo a scientist? I know more scientific fact than he did.

I am not employed as a scientist, so what? Amateur scientists still contribute a huge amount to science and prior to 1900 were the majority of scientists.

a non-scientist is not qualified to judge the results of scientific study.

Sure they can be. And simply being a scientist is not the primary criteria. Why would an astronomer have the qualifications to evaluate a physics study just because he is a scientist, while an amateur physicist not because he is a not a professional scientist?

Besides all that, the beauty of science is the simple fact that ANYONE can evaluate it. It is not Revealed Truth dropped down like Mana From Heaven.

If I do an experiment to evaluate a peer reviewed paper and my facts, method and instrumentation are all sound, I have just as much authority as anyone else. I dont have to have a Phud or a paycheck saying I am a scientist to engage in science.

These materialists who pass themselves off as scientists are doing flawed work because they are abusing science to try and form a conclusion about something that is beyond the scope of science to test and verify, just like Intelligent Design folks abuse science to try and prove Creationism with science, and I do not have to be a scientist to know that.

You dont have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about, with all due respect.

You are treating science like it were a system of faith, and only the scientist in the role of clergy can have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
.
 
Some truths are axiomatic by nature. Free Will is among those Truths.

This nonsense that science can be used to prove or disprove things outside the Realm of Science (not a form of mass/energy, and therefore not material) is part of that confusion.
I think you are confused.
If you imagine "truth" outside our material world that science & pragmatic philosophy examine, then "free will" is your fantasy.
.
 
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.
 
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.
.
 
Socialism haved no free will in old Russia before 1989.
And then Russia gets free will in Federation are theres free society.
At least Putin are free human in Federation in Russian's.
Soviet do no exist mores lucky stars from North America.
 
Putin have Power in Russia and I liked!!!
Small democration in Russia today's.
Federation are theres lucky one.
 
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.
.
Okay, here is a definition. Multiple definitions are possible. A practical definition is this. The number of possible orthogonal motions a system can have, aka the degree of freedom, applied as the degree of freedom of the will. For example, for mechanical linear systems, this is equal 3, the 3 dimensions of space. The human mind can very well have more. But it is much harder, if possible, to prove that something is free, than that something is not free. We can't even measure truly uncorrelated events, have never before. So, how can you prove, that the human mind can produce anything, that has not been correlated and predicted before?
 
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.
If I have even a simple dichotomy to choose from that is not infinite at all, but I still make a choice.

Unless I am misreading your post, you seem to think that we must have endless possibilities or none at all.

I think that there is a Golden Mean here somewhere.
 
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?
 
Okay, here is a definition. Multiple definitions are possible. A practical definition is this. The number of possible orthogonal motions a system can have, aka the degree of freedom, applied as the degree of freedom of the will. For example, for mechanical linear systems, this is equal 3, the 3 dimensions of space. The human mind can very well have more. But it is much harder, if possible, to prove that something is free, than that something is not free. We can't even measure truly uncorrelated events, have never before. So, how can you prove, that the human mind can produce anything, that has not been correlated and predicted before?

Being free of predictability is not a prerequisite for Free Will.

I can freely choose between 'I Love Lucy' reruns and videos of my last vacation, having seen all of them already at one point in my life or another.

The choice I made was a use of Free Will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top