BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's try again. What are your criteria for determinism? In other words, how do you know that you are observing determinism?
Are we talking about causal determinism only?
However you wish to define determinism, then go for it.
The basic idea is cause and effect which we seem to observe as all actions being part of an interconnected chain of casuality,without exception. What are your criteria for a non-determinism,how do you know you are observing it?
Sure, things cause other things (much of which we can't measure). How does that sync with "there is no free will"?
For social phenomena, I mostly rely on economic theory, which is a positive science that deals with cause-and-effect relationships. Epistemological problems are dealt with an adherence to praxeology (see: Ludwig von Mises) and from a smattering of arguments by Wittgenstein and the pragmatists.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, things cause other things (much of which we can't measure). How does that sync with "there is no free will"?
For social phenomena, I mostly rely on economic theory, which is a positive science that deals with cause-and-effect relationships. Epistemological problems are dealt with an adherence to praxeology (see: Ludwig von Mises) and from a smattering of arguments by Wittgenstein and the pragmatists.
If things cause other things what precisely are the 'things' that cause our freewill to cause our neurons to fire when we 'consciously' exercise it?And why does the firing of said neurons appear to precede our awareness of freely choosing,as neuroscience has discovered? We know we subconsciously regulate our bodily functions regularly,as in the production of new cells,or insulin,or sweating.Is there any evidence that 'choosing' to drink coffee is any different?How external factors cause subconscious responses is largely a mystery but there seems to at least be more evidence for them occurring than conscious ones.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, things cause other things (much of which we can't measure). How does that sync with "there is no free will"?
For social phenomena, I mostly rely on economic theory, which is a positive science that deals with cause-and-effect relationships. Epistemological problems are dealt with an adherence to praxeology (see: Ludwig von Mises) and from a smattering of arguments by Wittgenstein and the pragmatists.
If things cause other things what precisely are the 'things' that cause our freewill to cause our neurons to fire when we 'consciously' exercise it?And why does the firing of said neurons appear to precede our awareness of freely choosing,as neuroscience has discovered? We know we subconsciously regulate our bodily functions regularly,as in the production of new cells,or insulin,or sweating.Is there any evidence that 'choosing' to drink coffee is any different?How external factors cause subconscious responses is largely a mystery but there seems to at least be more evidence for them occurring than conscious ones.
So, drinking coffee is an automatic response because no choice is made and because neurons?
Does responding in a forum require no choice at all?
Obviously not, but your position works--only in the sense that it's unfalsifiable. It reminds me of the Evil Scientist argument about how we're actually in some grand experiment. These kinds of arguments aren't useful in explaining anything in the actual world.
That citation would be interesting (I doubt that study applies to your requisite range of human actions--i.e. all of them).
It's not unfalsifiable in theory like some other questions such as "What is the meaning of life" or "Does God exist", where we have no way to even begin to scientifically approach it, only unfalsifiable given current tech/knowledge levels. It's plausible that given better live full-brain neuron scanning with a dataset of previous known variables within each area of the brain and what each neuron does in combination with each other neuron, etc etc, we could set up coding that would give real time readouts of the choices happening before they present to the subject's concious brain.
Gonna be decades or centuries before we get to that point though.
It also has the potential to be very applicable to the actual world. Say determinism is proved, that has massive implications for justice systems, methods of criminal rehabilitation, etc (just to name one field). If we can show some sort of non-causal element then that also has implications on science in general because it means that some things CAN be non-causal, and could shift entire natural law paradigms in a completely different direction.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, things cause other things (much of which we can't measure). How does that sync with "there is no free will"?
For social phenomena, I mostly rely on economic theory, which is a positive science that deals with cause-and-effect relationships. Epistemological problems are dealt with an adherence to praxeology (see: Ludwig von Mises) and from a smattering of arguments by Wittgenstein and the pragmatists.
If things cause other things what precisely are the 'things' that cause our freewill to cause our neurons to fire when we 'consciously' exercise it?And why does the firing of said neurons appear to precede our awareness of freely choosing,as neuroscience has discovered? We know we subconsciously regulate our bodily functions regularly,as in the production of new cells,or insulin,or sweating.Is there any evidence that 'choosing' to drink coffee is any different?How external factors cause subconscious responses is largely a mystery but there seems to at least be more evidence for them occurring than conscious ones.
So, drinking coffee is an automatic response because no choice is made and because neurons?
Does responding in a forum require no choice at all?
Obviously not, but your position works--only in the sense that it's unfalsifiable. It reminds me of the Evil Scientist argument about how we're actually in some grand experiment. These kinds of arguments aren't useful in explaining anything in the actual world.
That citation would be interesting (I doubt that study applies to your requisite range of human actions--i.e. all of them).
First no-one has argued there is no choice made,rather that the choices we make could well be subconscious.Second,re a citation, there is the Libet experiment of the 1980's,replicated in 2008 by Matsuhashi and Hallet,and others which a quick search will reveal.And I agree there is no consensus on what the findings reveal,but there is enough to suggest freewill may be an illusion.As with all relatively new science we await more developments.It is absurd however to dismiss the thesis out of hand..
I apologise in advance for doing this, but everytime I see this thread title it makes me think of the song "Just an Illusion" by the 80's band Imagination.
Enjoy listening to it play over and over in your head like I've had to for the past few days!
crispybits wrote:It's not unfalsifiable in theory like some other questions such as "What is the meaning of life" or "Does God exist", where we have no way to even begin to scientifically approach it, only unfalsifiable given current tech/knowledge levels. It's plausible that given better live full-brain neuron scanning with a dataset of previous known variables within each area of the brain and what each neuron does in combination with each other neuron, etc etc, we could set up coding that would give real time readouts of the choices happening before they present to the subject's concious brain.
Gonna be decades or centuries before we get to that point though.
It also has the potential to be very applicable to the actual world. Say determinism is proved, that has massive implications for justice systems, methods of criminal rehabilitation, etc (just to name one field). If we can show some sort of non-causal element then that also has implications on science in general because it means that some things CAN be non-causal, and could shift entire natural law paradigms in a completely different direction.
"unfalsifiable" does not mean "unfalsifiable with technology that we can currently conceive of"
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Right now, we can pick a group of neurons and watch for when it lights up. It's not fanciful to think that we'll be able to eventually increase the resolution to pick up not a group but a single neuron.
Right now, we can tell which large-ish areas of the brain control which kinds of mental processes. It's not fanciful to believe that as the resolution (above) increases, that we could build a better mental map of what the brain is actually doing down to the neuron level.
Right now, we can scan brains non-invasively in real time. As the last two points get better technology to increase resolution and basic neurological mapping, and as computing power increases, it is not fanciful to believe that in time we can write code that can interpret the neuron firing patterns as fast or faster than we would conciously be aware of doing so ourselves (the difference would always be milliseconds or less because the human brain works very fast, but that would be enough to prove something)
I'm not saying that the above is proof for a deterministic world view, just that in theory the question is not eternally unfalsifiable in the same way that some other things probably are...
crispybits wrote:I'm not saying that the above is proof for a deterministic world view, just that in theory the question is not eternally unfalsifiable in the same way that some other things probably are...
i don't think the god hypothesis is eternally unfalsifiable. that's a short-sighted view that many atheists use to try and deepen the rift between science and religion and to give themselves an excuse to not bother providing evidence for their position (like scientists must do)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, things cause other things (much of which we can't measure). How does that sync with "there is no free will"?
For social phenomena, I mostly rely on economic theory, which is a positive science that deals with cause-and-effect relationships. Epistemological problems are dealt with an adherence to praxeology (see: Ludwig von Mises) and from a smattering of arguments by Wittgenstein and the pragmatists.
If things cause other things what precisely are the 'things' that cause our freewill to cause our neurons to fire when we 'consciously' exercise it?And why does the firing of said neurons appear to precede our awareness of freely choosing,as neuroscience has discovered? We know we subconsciously regulate our bodily functions regularly,as in the production of new cells,or insulin,or sweating.Is there any evidence that 'choosing' to drink coffee is any different?How external factors cause subconscious responses is largely a mystery but there seems to at least be more evidence for them occurring than conscious ones.
So, drinking coffee is an automatic response because no choice is made and because neurons?
Does responding in a forum require no choice at all?
Obviously not, but your position works--only in the sense that it's unfalsifiable. It reminds me of the Evil Scientist argument about how we're actually in some grand experiment. These kinds of arguments aren't useful in explaining anything in the actual world.
That citation would be interesting (I doubt that study applies to your requisite range of human actions--i.e. all of them).
First no-one has argued there is no choice made,rather that the choices we make could well be subconscious.Second,re a citation, there is the Libet experiment of the 1980's,replicated in 2008 by Matsuhashi and Hallet,and others which a quick search will reveal.And I agree there is no consensus on what the findings reveal,but there is enough to suggest freewill may be an illusion.As with all relatively new science we await more developments.It is absurd however to dismiss the thesis out of hand..
What about your first coffee? Maybe that first cup was granted or was so to your will as you had grown up around it and so the decision didn't even register. Now as a coffee drinker how your brain registers a cup of coffee as a common act that the will has already acquiesced to.
If you wanted to find free will you would have to look at a fresh choice. Then you are assessing risks and this is conscious.
Metsfanmax Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
crispybits wrote:I'm not saying that the above is proof for a deterministic world view, just that in theory the question is not eternally unfalsifiable in the same way that some other things probably are...
i don't think the god hypothesis is eternally unfalsifiable. that's a short-sighted view that many atheists use to try and deepen the rift between science and religion and to give themselves an excuse to not bother providing evidence for their position (like scientists must do)
OK, well in the same way I've showed, from existing technological/scientific ability and taking only reasonable baby steps, that real time full brain scanning on an individual neuron level with interpretative coding to show decisions before we are concious of them (or not) is within the realms of possibility, can you do the same for the question "Is there a God?"
That's also not the only question I think is probably unfalsifiable by the way (and the probably is a fairly important semantic point)
crispybits wrote:OK, well in the same way I've showed, from existing technological/scientific ability and taking only reasonable baby steps, that real time full brain scanning on an individual neuron level with interpretative coding to show decisions before we are concious of them (or not) is within the realms of possibility, can you do the same for the question "Is there a God?"
That's also not the only question I think is probably unfalsifiable by the way (and the probably is a fairly important semantic point)
we can demonstrate what happened when the universe was less than a second old. we are finding particles that make up the fabric of the universe. i don't think it's a huge leap from there to find out what initiated our universe in the first place.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
crispybits wrote:OK, well in the same way I've showed, from existing technological/scientific ability and taking only reasonable baby steps, that real time full brain scanning on an individual neuron level with interpretative coding to show decisions before we are concious of them (or not) is within the realms of possibility, can you do the same for the question "Is there a God?"
That's also not the only question I think is probably unfalsifiable by the way (and the probably is a fairly important semantic point)
we can demonstrate what happened when the universe was less than a second old. we are finding particles that make up the fabric of the universe. i don't think it's a huge leap from there to find out what initiated our universe in the first place.
Gonna move this to the evidence for God thread so it doesn't derail this one.
