Do you Think we have Free Will

[shunyadragon]

..and I'm not saying that they don't.
It's just that I'm not interested in dredging through myriads of other people's links,
from multiple sources.

I give specific links to specific scientific references for my side of the dialogue,

I'm the same when it comes to Muslims quoting 'youtube', or this site or that about Islam, or any other subject.
.. I'm not interested !

Tes you consistently reject the sciences of evolution as do many if not most Muslims and fundamentalist Christians today based on a religious agenda.

Yeah, yeah, yeah .. we know all that. Disclaimers .. licenses .. cookies .. etc. etc.
Boring .. but necessary for legal reasons.

After all .. ANY encyclopedia cannot guarantee content .. but I find it preferable that it is not PUBLISHED
by a country, religious group, scientific research group etc. .. Wikipedia is a charity.

We are not talking about any encyclopedia, but the reliability of Wikipedia. In fact Encyclopedia's are written and compiled by academic specialists in every field of the articles and guarantee the content. The standards are very high, and edited every year when new information is available, Wikipedia does not conform to this standard. In fact every encyclopedia in the west provides detailed scientific references on evolution. Wikipedia is written by volunteers with limited control over the content.

this is why you should not hang your hate on one word hypothetical in one article to justify your agenda when this word is NOT used in scientific literature, Also Wikipedia over whelmingly supports the sciences of evolution, which you reject.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't mean that they directly lead us astray, but that we can be misled NOT ONLY by religion..
..which is what atheist scientists claim.
i.e. they claim that their science is proved, and beyond doubt

..which is often untrue. It's like adverts on TV, using the "science" word to impress.

Well, I've read a lot from scientists who wrote about their atheism, and I cannot recall a single one that came even close to claiming that their science was beyond doubt. Doubt is the bedrock of the scientific method, because you have to provide repeatable evidence to establish a scientific fact. I honestly don't know what you mean by "atheist scientists", but you seem to be using a very broad brush to paint your stereotype of them.

I don't agree with that entirely.
Theology is not just an expression of "what one must believe", it is a methodical approach,
using all available material.
Naturally, people have their own biases .. but so they do in the physical sciences too .. we are only human.

Theology is grounded in assumptions that one must accept as true without any way to verify their truth or falsehood. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what "faith" is about--accepting claims as true without verifiable evidence. Physical sciences are all about having repeated observations that confirm and verify theories. You can prove that scientific claims are true or false. That's the difference.

Well that's the problem. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is superior to other sources.
It's just that each of us have our own agendas and biases, and through experience, I have
concluded its better to limit references when debating.

OK, but I have concluded that it is better to corroborate claims with more than one source of information. I like Wikipedia as a kind of initial place to go for information, but it is notorious for containing inaccuracies. You can learn a lot by looking at the discussion pages that most people never bother looking at. That's where people critique the content of the main article.

eg. you want to use a specialized philosophy site .. another wants to use a Christian site ..
.. another wants to use an Islamic site .. another wants to use a science site etc. etc.

Academic and scientific sources tend to be grounded in empirical investigation rather than faith-based doctrine. They reveal the means by which their authors arrive at their conclusions. If you want to make claims based purely on religious conjecture, that's fine. I reject such claims in the absence of corroboration from less biased sources.

Wikipedia is not confined to any particular discipline .. neither is it pro-atheist or pro-science
or pro-Muslim and so on..

I would say that it depends on the author of the content.

 

[Copernicus]

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conlusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

Nothing I've seen beyond that 5-year-old forum post even mentions "Limited Free Will". You may believe that all of these other sources you cite somehow support your private understanding of what you mean by that term, but I actually need you to say in your own words what it means. Your own descriptions so far seem to suggest that you are a compatibilist who claims not to be a compatibilist.

Let me try this. You say a lot about the limitations on free will, thinking perhaps that that is sufficient to explain what you mean by "limited free will". Do the inverse. Tell me in what sense it means to say that some part of what we think of as free will is not limited. You believe that we have only limited free will. What aspect of free will is actually free? Where or how can it be construed as free?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are only considering freedom from external constraints *not* internal constraints, which makes your assertion a non sequitur in my view.

Either we are safe to drive, or we are not.
What makes a person 'safe to drive' in your view?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are not talking about any encyclopedia, but the reliability of Wikipedia. In fact Encyclopedia's are written and compiled by academic specialists in every field of the articles and guarantee the content. The standards are very high, and edited every year when new information is available..

Well, I simply don't agree.
Many articles in Encyclopedias show bias .. such as cultural & historical bias.

Wikipedia is better at eliminating these biases, as it is open to challenge by all.

..this is why you should not hang your hate on one word hypothetical in one article to justify your agenda when this word is NOT used in scientific literature..

Is that your excuse?
You can believe what you like .. but don't expect me to believe that you can categorically know what
happened billions of years ago .. or are you a prophet, and G-d told you how He created the universe?

I thought not .. so I remain believing it is hypothetical.

Also Wikipedia over whelmingly supports the sciences of evolution, which you reject.

G-d knows best what I reject.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I simply don't agree.
Many articles in Encyclopedias show bias .. such as cultural & historical bias.

Please document with references as I did for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is better at eliminating these biases, as it is open to challenge by all.

No, because there is no control over who posts. See reference.

Is that your excuse?
You can believe what you like .. but don't expect me to believe that you can categorically know what
happened billions of years ago .. or are you a prophet, and G-d told you how He created the universe?

The objective verifiable evidence has determined the history and evolution of life, the earth and universe. You have offered nothing in response except assertions from the perspective of an ancient tribal bwliwf.

I thought not .. so I remain believing it is hypothetical.

Only from your ancient tribal world view. Please not Wikipedia overwhelmingly supports and documents the sciences of evolution, which you reject. Extreme contradictions here on your bias and selective reference of one word to justify your bias. The following documents Wiki's evolution, other references provide more details.

Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Introduction to evolution​

In biology, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits. Genetic changes include mutations, which are caused by damage or replication errors in organisms' DNA. As the genetic variation of a population drifts randomly over generations, natural selection gradually leads traits to become more or less common based on the relative reproductive success of organisms with those traits.
The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years.[1][2][3] The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.[4][5][6] Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (covered instead by abiogenesis), but it does explain how early lifeforms evolved into the complex ecosystem that we see today.[7] Based on the similarities between all present-day organisms, all life on Earth is assumed to have originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.[8]
All individuals have hereditary material in the form of genes received from their parents, which they pass on to any offspring. Among offspring there are variations of genes due to the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or via reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.[9][10] The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways. If those differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce. This means that more offspring in the next generation will have that helpful difference and individuals will not have equal chances of reproductive success. In this way, traits that result in organisms being better adapted to their living conditions become more common in descendant populations.[9][10] These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population. This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world.
The modern understanding of evolution began with the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics.[11] Fossil discoveries in palaeontology, advances in population genetics and a global network of scientific research have provided further details into the mechanisms of evolution. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation) and have observed the speciation process in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution is the principal scientific theory that biologists use to understand life and is used in many disciplines, including medicine, psychology, conservation biology, anthropology, forensics, agriculture and other social-cultural applications.

G-d knows best what I reject.

Evoking ancient tribal religious beliefs without science,

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing I've seen beyond that 5-year-old forum post even mentions "Limited Free Will". You may believe that all of these other sources you cite somehow support your private understanding of what you mean by that term, but I actually need you to say in your own words what it means. Your own descriptions so far seem to suggest that you are a compatibilist who claims not to be a compatibilist.

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conclusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

I previously gave other references, which you would not acknowledge

Let me try this. You say a lot about the limitations on free will, thinking perhaps that that is sufficient to explain what you mean by "limited free will". Do the inverse. Tell me in what sense it means to say that some part of what we think of as free will is not limited. You believe that we have only limited free will. What aspect of free will is actually free? Where or how can it be construed as free?

This reflects you have not understood the references as cited.

Your intentional ignorance is profound.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Theology is grounded in assumptions that one must accept as true without any way to verify their truth or falsehood. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what "faith" is about--accepting claims as true without verifiable evidence..

Not for me, it isn't !
I approach theology as I approach science. I need a good reason to believe something, and if there is
no evidence to show that a creed is correct, I reject it.
..just like I do in the physical sciences.

I don't accept anything to be correct, without a reason for doing so.

Physical sciences are all about having repeated observations that confirm and verify theories. You can prove that scientific claims are true or false. That's the difference.

Calculations and logic can be applied to a variety of disciplines .. including psychology and religion.

It really is NOT necessary to "physically see" mental illnesses, in order to conduct experiments to
further our understanding of them, for example.

OK, but I have concluded that it is better to corroborate claims with more than one source of information. I like Wikipedia as a kind of initial place to go for information, but it is notorious for containing inaccuracies..

Hmm .. my pet subject is Islam, and while I do perceive some 'inaccuracies', overall, I see that
it describes a well-balanced view.
I feel sure this is true of most fields in wikipedia.
If you spot something you don't agree with, then check out the references.

Your pet topic .. philosophy .. is notorious for having opposing views, anyway.
Personally, I find specialized philosophy articles to be mainly unsubstantiated waffle.

You can learn a lot by looking at the discussion pages that most people never bother looking at. That's where people critique the content of the main article.

Yes, I agree .. I sometimes browse those pages on 'difficult topics'.

Academic and scientific sources tend to be grounded in empirical investigation rather than faith-based doctrine..

Yes, we know that. Statistics do not lie, as such, but they can be manipulated to look like
something they are not.

It usually boils down to b##### money .. 'the man that pays the piper calls the tune'.

They reveal the means by which their authors arrive at their conclusions. If you want to make claims based purely on religious conjecture, that's fine. I reject such claims in the absence of corroboration from less biased sources.

Religious conjecture?
I'm not sure what you mean by that..

 

[shunyadragon]

Religious conjecture?
I'm not sure what you mean by that..

Belief in the preference of an ancient tribal religion without science and the rejection is science based on objective verifiable evidence.

To add concerning the evidence supporting Limited Free Will was supported by the neurobiological research and evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please document with references as I did for Wikipedia..

No thanks .. I'm not particularly interested in seeking out legal documentation.

No, because there is no control over who posts. See reference.

..and that's GOOD !
You stick with your well-paid experts, if you so desire.
I am naturally suspicious of 'big money'.

Please not Wikipedia overwhelmingly supports and documents the sciences of evolution, which you reject..

No I don't .. I'm just more selective in what I believe is proven fact, and what is hypothetical than you.

Introduction to evolution

In biology, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits. Genetic changes include mutations, which are caused by damage or replication errors in organisms' DNA. As the genetic variation of a population drifts randomly over generations, natural selection gradually leads traits to become more or less common based on the relative reproductive success of organisms with those traits.

There is no need to copy & paste the article .. I have read it before on many an occasion.
Overall, I do not reject it ..

G-d tells us in the Qur'an that He is "the Evolver" .. the Evolver from nought.
It's just that I don't need to know precisely what happened billions of years ago .. but if some people
want to study such a topic, and hypothesise, that's fine by me.

After all, such studies have contributed to modern medicine, and our understanding of DNA.

..but don't let it "go to your head" .. every specialist scientist must be right etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Belief in the preference of an ancient tribal religion ..

You seem to have a phobia .. a dislike of others who are different from you.
Maybe it's your environment .. maybe you are surrounded by people who you believe to be
ignorant.

I must remind you, that 'pride comes before a fall'.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not in the same way .. but the result is the same .. we are misled.


I didn't mean that they directly lead us astray, but that we can be misled NOT ONLY by religion..
..which is what atheist scientists claim.
i.e. they claim that their science is proved, and beyond doubt

..which is often untrue. It's like adverts on TV, using the "science" word to impress.

Still remains that concerning peer reviewed scientific literature you cannot distinguish between atheist scientists and theist scientists, Can you give me one example of one scientific research publication where the scientist claims to be an 'theist scientist.'

I don't agree with that entirely.
Theology is not just an expression of "what one must believe", it is a methodical approach,
using all available material.
Naturally, people have their own biases .. but so they do in the physical sciences too .. we are only human.

The problem is the religious approach to science is NOT nased on any objective verifiable evidence,

Well that's the problem. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is superior to other sources.
It's just that each of us have our own agendas and biases, and through experience, I have
concluded its better to limit references when debating.

eg. you want to use a specialized philosophy site .. another wants to use a Christian site ..
.. another wants to use an Islamic site .. another wants to use a science site etc. etc.

Wikipedia is not confined to any particular discipline .. neither is it pro-atheist or pro-science
or pro-Muslim and so on..

The question is the accuracy of Wikipedia, because it can be written and edited by anyone. The problem is you cite one word in one reference to justify an argument, and fail to recognize Wikipedia supports evolution as cited,

It has references .. it's not just random people, saying random things without reason.
Any major topic will be controlled, and semi-locked from interference.
..so in effect, it IS peer-reviewed .. but not a specialist site.

No, it is not peer reviewed, nor necessarily written by academics, It can be unlocked by applying to be a contributor. No, academic qualifications required,

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't offer any refs. but Wikipedia for that very reason .. you can't claim that my refs. aren't valid
or biased.

Yes I can support your bias of one wird in one reference ignoring the fact as reference that Wikipedia supports evolution as referenced

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to have a phobia .. a dislike of others who are different from you.

No, but you most definitely have a phobia against science, and failure to respond to the key points in my and others posts.

Please note and respond Wikipedia supports evolution without reservation.

 

[shunyadragon]

No thanks .. I'm not particularly interested in seeking out legal documentation.

Legal?!?!!? There is no such thng as legal documentation in this discussion. Simply provide reliable scientific references to suport you assertion like I do,

..and that's GOOD !
You stick with your well-paid experts, if you so desire.
I am naturally suspicious of 'big money'.

Thwre is no big money in the basic sciences related to evolution,

No I don't .. I'm just more selective in what I believe is proven fact, and what is hypothetical than you.

You ignore the fact that Wikipedia references supports evolution.

There is no need to copy & paste the article .. I have read it before on many an occasion.
Overall, I do not reject it ..

Yes you do based on your posts

G-d tells us in the Qur'an that He is "the Evolver" .. the Evolver from nought.

The word evolution of evolver is not in the Quran. You have made in plain you reject LUCA common ancestor, therefore you reject evolution

It's just that I don't need to know precisely what happened billions of years ago .. but if some people
want to study such a topic, and hypothesise, that's fine by me.

The issue is you reject the sciences of evolution.

After all, such studies have contributed to modern medicine, and our understanding of DNA.

..but don't let it "go to your head" .. every specialist scientist must be right etc.

No, every specialist scientist does NOT have to be right, It is the knowledge of science developed over the history of science that is valid and reliable,

 

[muhammad_isa]

You ignore the fact that Wikipedia references supports evolution.

No, I do not.
It is you who prefer to believe that the LUCA is a proven fact, rather than an hypothesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I do not.

Yes you do. Your being dishonest. Your denial of the sciences of evolution is abundantly clear in the history of your posts.

It is you who prefer to believe that the LUCA is a proven fact, rather than an hypothesis.

Again, extreme intentional ignorance of science and the concept of proof. Science does not prove anyihing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Either we are safe to drive, or we are not.
What makes a person 'safe to drive' in your view?

I don't think anyone drives safely, and some are worse than others. This is largely due to the reasons I've already given, that driving is boring and people tend to go on auto pilot and think about other things, or listen to someone in the car, or have the radio on. In extreme cases, you have people texting, talking on the phone, putting on makeup...

 

[danieldemol]

Either we are safe to drive, or we are not.
What makes a person 'safe to drive' in your view?

Their ability to process external inputs in accordance with a brain that desires survival and the appropriate co-ordination to execute its desires in my view

But there are people who had a different brain nature eg people who have suicidally depressed brains who have not driven safely for example.

 

[Copernicus]

Theology is grounded in assumptions that one must accept as true without any way to verify their truth or falsehood. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what "faith" is about--accepting claims as true without verifiable evidence...

Not for me, it isn't !
I approach theology as I approach science. I need a good reason to believe something, and if there is
no evidence to show that a creed is correct, I reject it.
..just like I do in the physical sciences.

I don't accept anything to be correct, without a reason for doing so.

I was careful to qualify "evidence" as verifiable. You did not. I think we differ strongly on what counts as evidence. Evidence is not just a matter of opinion. It has to be amenable to corroboration by others.

Physical sciences are all about having repeated observations that confirm and verify theories. You can prove that scientific claims are true or false. That's the difference.

Calculations and logic can be applied to a variety of disciplines .. including psychology and religion.

It really is NOT necessary to "physically see" mental illnesses, in order to conduct experiments to
further our understanding of them, for example.

Nonsense. We can physically see the behavior of people with mental illnesses and diagnose them on the basis of those physical observations. Nowadays, we can also detect physical brain anomalies associated with the illnesses and treat them with medicines and surgery. You can apply calculations and logic to the analysis of science fiction and fantasy stories. That doesn't make them stories about the real world.

Your pet topic .. philosophy .. is notorious for having opposing views, anyway.
Personally, I find specialized philosophy articles to be mainly unsubstantiated waffle.

Opposing views and unsubstantiated waffle can be found within any discipline. The question is whether that discipline has any substantiated waffle associated with it. And by "substantiated", I mean subject to reasonable corroboration with observable evidence. Otherwise, skepticism is the more reasonable attitude to take.

...

Academic and scientific sources tend to be grounded in empirical investigation rather than faith-based doctrine. They reveal the means by which their authors arrive at their conclusions. If you want to make claims based purely on religious conjecture, that's fine. I reject such claims in the absence of corroboration from less biased sources.

Religious conjecture?
I'm not sure what you mean by that..

Religious claims made on the basis of incomplete or unsubstantiated information--for example, texts about observed miracles that cannot be verified and must be accepted on the basis of faith.