Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Robert.Evans]

Mohammad, you would really benefit from seeking a bit more of factual support and a little less of blind passion in your statements.

says a fellow who thinks everything comes about through luck...haha

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Huh. You should be sure to tell us all what we believe:
Balaguer, M. (2010). Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. MIT Press.
Baumeister, R., Mele, A., & Vohs, K. (Eds.). (2010). Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work?. Oxford University Press.
Hodgson, D. (2012). Rationality + Consciousness= Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, N., Ellis, G. F., & O'Connor, T. (Eds.) (2009). Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will (Understanding Complex Systems). Springer.
Suarez, A., & Adams, P. (Eds.). (2012). Is Science Compatible with Free Will? Exploring Free Will and Consciousness in the Light of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience. Springer.
Tse, P. (2013). The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial causation. MIT Press.

...and so on.

You would have to get into details, as the popular view in science currently is to call the logic of being forced freedom and free will. I already explained that, but apparently you were to obtuse to understand. It was another garbage response.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You seem to have something confused here.
A human being, of normal status, has the ability of free will or whatever you are talking about.
Almost every single human alive, or that has ever been alive, developed the ability to form opinions.

For some odd *** reason, you treat scientists as though they are not human beings.
They aren't freaking flesh robots, and they are not emotionless objective seeking, barely sentient shells with human like functions.

More of those evolutionists supposedly showing I am wong. Another posting to the garbage, next.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You would have to get into details, as the popular view in science

What are you basing your view of what "the popular view in science" is? In this forum, as elsewhere in discussions of science by non-scientists, Libet's experiments are frequently said to have shown free will doesn't exist. Libet's own book details how it can. The details are no more singular or one-sided than are the sciences. The "popular view" you describe is a fiction.

I already explained that, but apparently you were to obtuse to understand.

Perhaps because you assert what we scientists contend without even bothering to present so much as a shred of scientific literature supporting the fact that there is any such "popular view in science" let alone that most scientists think free will impossible.

It was another garbage response.....

Given your garbage assertion, it's hard provide anything else

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You would have to get into details, as the popular view in science currently is to call the logic of being forced freedom and free will. I already explained that, but apparently you were to obtuse to understand. It was another garbage response.....

I looked up the first entry. It says it's a wide open empirical question if free will is real or not.

I have caught you (legiononamoi) several times now writing authoritarian garbage. So when is that going to stop?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I looked up the first entry.

And lied (or misrepresented) what you originally stated:

The scientists don't even accept free will of people is real.

I provided a mere glimpse of the scientists stating in scientific literature that
1) They actually do (contrary to your uninformed and clearly wrong assertion)
or
2) They don't know (which, alas, means you are still just as uninformed and clearly wrong).

However, your manipulative, dishonest quoting to hide your initial and obviously wrong claims reveal that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't provide any scientific sources that back up your claims about what the view in popular science is, still less anything that would substantiate the laughable claim that your assertions about the popular view are anything other than ignorance motivated by biases and robust against obvious demonstrations to the contrary.

It says it's a wide open empirical question if free will is real or not.

Not according to you:

The scientists don't even accept free will of people is real.

Scientists don't accept free will according to you, which means it wouldn't be an open empirical question.

So when is that going to stop?

When you stop contradicting yourself and start presenting the faintest hint that you are familiar with the scientific literature you make sweeping and ridiculously inaccurate claims about.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Scientists don't accept free will according to you, which means it wouldn't be an open empirical question.

Is that all you've got? It's rubbish, next!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is that all you've got? It's rubbish, next!

Brilliant rejoinder, Sherlock.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you basing your view of what "the popular view in science" is? In this forum, as elsewhere in discussions of science by non-scientists, Libet's experiments are frequently said to have shown free will doesn't exist. Libet's own book details how it can. The details are no more singular or one-sided than are the sciences. The "popular view" you describe is a fiction.


Perhaps because you assert what we scientists contend without even bothering to present so much as a shred of scientific literature supporting the fact that there is any such "popular view in science" let alone that most scientists think free will impossible.

Given your garbage assertion, it's hard provide anything else

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Did you plant a hidden camera in my room? How did you get this footage? That was a private moment (one of many identical moments that are equally private)!

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you plant a hidden camera in my room? How did you get this footage? That was a private moment (one of many identical moments that are equally private)!

Yes, I got many fine pix.
I also considered....

Btw....love the stylish ears.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Brilliant rejoinder, Sherlock.

You should read the references you provide, in stead of just positing them as some kind of authority.

The topic here is evolution theory turning colleges into hellholes of depression. Then you say, no, look at this author who says that it is an open question whether or not we have free will, and who tries to take out "metaphysics" from the concept of free will.

That's no validation of subjectivity, no acceptance of free will. It only goes to prove my point that scientists cannot begin to put together a coherent thought about it. In your reference he tries to put a first coherent thought together about how it works. He tries and fails, because he doesn't accept that what the agency of a decision is, is a categorically subjective issue.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wow, um....

The name "Big Bang" for the famous theory was actually just an off handed remark about the universe some time after the Hubble telescope came about.

that made me smile, It was coined by Fred Hoyle, long long before the Hubble telescope

He mocked the priest Lemaitre's Primeval Atom theory as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' for the overt implications of a creation event.

He and most atheists preferred static, eternal, steady state models for the opposite reason.

science v atheism

 

[metis]

He and most atheists preferred static, eternal, steady state models for the opposite reason.

science v atheism

You are actually sort of confusing things here. Most theists and non-theists in the past didn't posit a Big Bang, and it was the latter that felt that there had to be something that preceded what we now see-- "cause-and-effect". Einstein, for just one example, was a theist and a believer in the Steady-State Theory, and the prevailing thought of most theologians and people was that God made Earth and our universe pretty much as is over a six-day time period.

So, what we are now seeing are some on the theistic side who have decided to change their tune and try to squeeze the BB into a theology that simply did not traditionally fit in with the Abrahamic faiths, and then claiming it was there all along. No, it wasn't, regardless as to whether they took a literalistic or an allegorical position.

To put it another way, it's been many of the theists who have moved the goalposts and then falsely claiming it was there all along.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

More on that reference Balaguer, M. (2010). Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. MIT Press.

http://closertotruth.lamp.r2integrated.com/series/what-are-the-things-existence#video-1748

The guy actually argues that creation by God is a scientific question. Apparently all the billions of religious people are wrong to focus on faith. Go to your church or mosque bring your telescope, and other measuring devices, and start measuring God. The evidence will just force you to the conclusion either way that He does, or does not exist, there is no role for subjectivity.

Elsewhere he is called one of the most fierce defenders of free will. That is the most fierce, which is to say the rest is even worse.

 

[dust1n]