Free will, how does it work again?

[shawn001]

In order to understand the freewill debate in neuroscience, you have to really study and understand the subconscious brain. It makes a lot of decisions for you before your consciously aware of them.


Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible

"Researchers have shown that the human brain -- once thought to be a seriously flawed decision maker -- is actually hard-wired to allow us to make the best decisions possible with the information we are given."

Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible -- ScienceDaily


Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”

Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” | Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

How unconscious processing improves decision-making
"
Summary:
When faced with a difficult decision, it is often suggested to "sleep on it" or take a break from thinking about the decision to gain clarity. But new brain imaging research finds that the brain regions responsible for making decisions continue to be active even when the conscious brain is distracted with a different task. The research shows the brain unconsciously processes decision information in ways that lead to improved decision-making.

How unconscious processing improves decision-making -- ScienceDaily

Free Will Is an Illusion

Free Will Is an Illusion | Victor Stenger

Free will may be an illusion, study says
The idea that we make autonomous choices may be nothing more than "background noise" in our brain, according to researchers at UC Davis.

Free will may be an illusion, study says - CNET


Its of course very complicated and more complex, but they are making progress on understanding how it all works.



Also just an aside to ponder.

"
10 reasons Christian heaven would actually be hell
A close reading of the New Testament reveals Biblical paradise isn't all pearly gates and streets of gold

"5. Free will ceases to exist. Some Christians explain the presence of suffering and evil here on earth as God’s way of creating creatures who would love him freely—by giving them the option to reject him. But that is exactly the opposite condition they predict in Heaven. In Heaven there is no sin, no option to sin, and so, by Christianity’s own definition, no free will. (Some skeptics point out that “love me or I’ll torture you forever” doesn’t exactly create the conditions for genuine love either. Why, they ask, would a god who wants love to be freely given threaten us with hell, even if it existed? But that is a different article.) Philosophers and neuroscientists debate whether free will is real or merely and adaptive illusion. Either way, in the Bible’s version of Heaven, even the illusion vanishes."

10 reasons Christian heaven would actually be hell - Salon.com


.

 

[Skwim]

I really think we should just boycott further discussions of this. Nobody's making any progress anymore. The only progress that's ever been made in these discussions is to realise that we can make no progress.

That's not how RF works.

 

[Kirran]

That's not how RF works.

RF is like a religion - it works the way the people using it work

 

[Shad]

Dualism is not sound thus your argument is not sound. I also find your religious view and your views of evil are contradictory. So your internal views are inconsistent. In Islam God is the source of morality thus good and evil, right and wrong, morals have objective values not subjective values.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And what a ride that will be as psychologists cling to their theories of Mind.

Hey, I’m a scientist by trade, I recognize the dualism of mind/brain. I just “dislike” telling people they are “loosing their minds” (figuratively or literally, IDK,lol). I just hope the scientists can wrap it up better than the “feel good” words they use today; (a quote by Sam Harris I am pulling from edge.org)

“But even if one thinks that the human mind is entirely the product of physics, the reality of consciousness becomes no less wondrous, and the difference between happiness and suffering no less important.”

Research shows that mere intellectual disbelief in free will leads to immediately detectable antisocial behaviour.

But as long as we keep using common discourse, then the effects of this intellectual denial of free will, will be limited, because the logic of free will is engrained in common discourse.

But still, many people will become insane because of evolution theory destroying their capability to be subjective, because of circumstances making them vulnerable to this intellectual onslaught against subjectivity.

A subjective notion like "importance" has no meaning without free will. So the meaning of the word importance will change from an expression of emotion, towards a calculation of what provides the highest chance of survival.

A person deeply not accepting free will is real is quite different from an intellectual just asserting it superficially with clever argumentation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And what a ride that will be as psychologists cling to their theories of Mind.

Hey, I’m a scientist by trade, I recognize the dualism of mind/brain. I just “dislike” telling people they are “loosing their minds” (figuratively or literally, IDK,lol). I just hope the scientists can wrap it up better than the “feel good” words they use today; (a quote by Sam Harris I am pulling from edge.org)

“But even if one thinks that the human mind is entirely the product of physics, the reality of consciousness becomes no less wondrous, and the difference between happiness and suffering no less important.”

What branch of science are you involved in?

 

[Marisa]

I'm just going to let Harris speak for himself, understanding that the same folks who will exercise the free will not to read his words probably will use the free will to make the same choice about an hour plus long talk Harris gives on the subject. Before anyone starts firing comments back at me, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I've not picked a horse in this race, and have tried very hard to suggest as much by using phrases like "may not exist" in my conversations here. I try really hard to live my siggy. LOL. Also I understand why this might be an uncomfortable reality for some of the religious to accept, if it's true.

 

[chlotilde]

Research shows that mere intellectual disbelief in free will leads to immediately detectable antisocial behaviour.
.

I'm not sure I choose to believe that one, lol...but then again....
...whether free will is an illusion or not is not as important to me as the fact that there is necessity for the "illusion" for our sense of justice. We can't let serial killers run loose on the streets simply because they are some by-product of their brain.

 

[chlotilde]

What branch of science are you involved in?

one of the hard sciences, chemistry. I spent many years as a battery chemist in the aerospace industry...now I am molding new minds in academia.

 

[Thief]

You can 'choose' to walk on the fence....
You can 'choose' to get off the fence and walk with your feet on the ground.

Either way, your choice is evidence of freewill.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

one of the hard sciences, chemistry. I spent many years as a battery chemist in the aerospace industry...now I am molding new minds in academia.

Neat. I am currently getting my master's in economics but I am going back for a physics degree eventually. I don't know if I want to eventually go into a science as a career yet or not. Most of my college friends have done something along those lines and my recent roommates were a couple who both majored in biology and are currently working on their PhD's. One in marine biology and the other in microbiology and a minor in biochemistry with medical applications(which is a fancy way of saying she has training enough to almost be a pharmacist but will make about 1/3rd that of a pharmacist)

 

[chlotilde]

Neat. I am currently getting my master's in economics but I am going back for a physics degree eventually. I don't know if I want to eventually go into a science as a career yet or not. Most of my college friends have done something along those lines and my recent roommates were a couple who both majored in biology and are currently working on their PhD's. One in marine biology and the other in microbiology and a minor in biochemistry with medical applications(which is a fancy way of saying she has training enough to almost be a pharmacist but will make about 1/3rd that of a pharmacist)

econ to physics, now that's a switch. You like numbers? lol My first degree was actually in geology as I had dreams to strike it rich in oil...how I ended up in batteries was quite circuitous
Good luck to you and your friends though, jobs aren't easy to find (at least not right now in chemistry as so much of that has moved overseas...anything healthcare related helps). Unfortunate for scientists, engineering degrees are worth a lot more science ones.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm not sure I choose to believe that one, lol...but then again....
...whether free will is an illusion or not is not as important to me as the fact that there is necessity for the "illusion" for our sense of justice. We can't let serial killers run loose on the streets simply because they are some by-product of their brain.

Research by Baumeister and others.

 

[chlotilde]

Research by Baumeister and others.

hmmm, I'm not trying to argue against you here...I'm just thinking how to say this here. Have you ever heard of this quote and thought about what it means.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"- Albert Einstein

 

[David M]

The atheist does not make an opinion, instead the atheist says that evidence forces to a conclusion if the decision was out of love, or hate, resulting in a fact. The atheist does not choose. And the concept of choosing does not function without the agency of the decision being regarded as a categorically subjective issue. Therefore the atheists will also reject free will is real. Redefines free will to make the word choosing use the same logic as being forced, or call it an illusion, etc.

That difference is the discord between atheists and religionists, the discord between evolutionists and creationists.

Wrong, as you have repeatedly been whenever you bring up this subject.

Firstly I will point out that Religion heavily denies subjectivity, by defining some things as good or evil it makes both good and evil objective facts and it classes things as objectively falling in one of those 2 categories. It is replete with other cases of pure objectivity as is categorises a huge number of things as being facts and not opinion.

In the case of Good and Evil it is definitely religion that rejects subjectivity, it makes good and evil objective declarations of fact. For example it may declare that a certain acts (e.g. Homosexual acts) are a sin (and evil). Atheism tends heavily towards subjectivity, an act must be judged subjectively to determine whether it is good or evil and that determination is open to review and change. After all a common complaint by certain religious sects is that without God there can be no morality and by that they absolutely do mean an objective morality.

For example Infanticide is deemed as being wrong by modern standards, yet in history there are cultures (ancient Rome was one for a long time) where atheism was not at all a factor but infanticide was deemed acceptable (and in cases of deformity it was pretty much required) . The classification of infanticide as being good or evil is, and was, a subjective opinion.

Secondly humans have always been in the business of making objective classifications of things, a tradition that is as much theistic as atheistic. We define things because it makes it possible to communicate about them while sharing a common understanding of what we are talking about. Atheists did not make Love or Hate a fact, by having a word that defines Love humans (and I am going to lay money on them not generally being atheists) long ago created an objective definition that such a thing exists. But beyond that point there is a lot of opinion about what love is exactly and how, or if, it is expressed and felt.

Lastly. As you have repeatedly been informed, Atheists do not reject free will per se. Hard Determinists reject free will but Hard Determinism is not a tenet of atheism. Atheists can reject Hard Determinism and remain atheists. Determinism, in various forms, was first proposed by theists (such as Omar Khayyam).

About the only thing that Atheists will generally agree on is that there is an objective reality that can be observed (though some will disagree). In an objective reality Evidence is evidence, whether the person wishes to follow the evidence or ignore it is a subjective choice.

As a general point on the subject of recent evidence showing that the sub-conscious prepares for a decision before we are aware of consciously making that decision I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 (in the UK) on the subject and one of the guests made a very strong argument that this evidence does not prove that free-will does not exist for the simple reason that humans are the sum of both their sub-conscious and conscious minds and thus what is being show is that in some decisions there is a component of sub-conscious as well as conscious decision making, which is compatible with the concept of free will.

 

[leibowde84]

I well know how people are enslaved to original sin. How they are under such enormous pressure from authority figures in their lives, or pressure from their own ideals, that they require factual (scientific) certitude that what they do is good.

And having rejected subjectivity, their concept of free will does not function anymore, and then they start to spread their nonsense that free will is not real on internet forums.

Has anyone made the claim that free-will is not real? You've said this many times, but I haven't seen you present any evidence showing a member of this site making this claim. Please provide at least a bit of proof for your outlandish claim.

 

[Skwim]

Research shows that mere intellectual disbelief in free will leads to immediately detectable antisocial behaviour.

Ah yes, the DC comic book research.

​

But as long as we keep using common discourse, then the effects of this intellectual denial of free will, will be limited, because the logic of free will is engrained in common discourse.

You funny guy. ​

But still, many people will become insane because of evolution theory destroying their capability to be subjective, because of circumstances making them vulnerable to this intellectual onslaught against subjectivity.

A subjective notion like "importance" "IMPOTENCE" has no meaning without free will. So the meaning of the word importance will change from an expression of emotion, towards a calculation of what provides the highest chance of survival.

A person deeply not accepting free will is real is quite different from an intellectual just asserting it superficially with clever argumentation.

.................

PERSON DEEPLY NOT ACCEPTING FREEWILL..........INTELLECTUAL ASSERTING SUPERFICIALLY

 

[David M]

Has anyone made the claim that free-will is not real? You've said this many times, but I haven't seen you present any evidence showing a member of this site making this claim. Please provide at least a bit of proof for your outlandish claim.

Apparently all atheists do, we also deny subjectivity.

Just to make my personal views clear I think that there is constrained free will. We cannot obviously choose to defy the laws of physics and sometime we are constrained by the options we see as being available, which is inherently subjective as we may not see all possible options or may reject some options due to our opinions. Some choices we make are highly determined by our environment etc, but not all by any means. It is this nuanced view that I think the OP has trouble with, for him it seems to be an all or nothing choice, either there is complete free will or there is no free will, which means that he is proposing a form of false dichotomy in my view.

 

[Skwim]

You can 'choose' to walk on the fence....
You can 'choose' to get off the fence and walk with your feet on the ground.

Either way, your choice is evidence of freewill.

IF choosing was real, but it isn't. Choosing is a product of the imagination.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

hmmm, I'm not trying to argue against you here...I'm just thinking how to say this here. Have you ever heard of this quote and thought about what it means.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"- Albert Einstein

What has that to do with anything?


baumeister
http://scholar.google.nl/scholar_ur...arr&ei=gS0oVaXZNoPcau7JgZAM&ved=0CBsQgAMoADAA