Post by cupcakes on Jun 12, 2017 11:43:12 GMT
tpfkar
Karl Aksel said: Free will, in the philosophical sense, is juxtaposed determinism. The classic argument, to which Erjen subscribes, is that "if not for free will, we would be automatons". And indeed, we are like extremely sophisticated automatons, as it is all basically input-output. And now Erjen will object, "no no no, each man is a free agent". But the freedom he believes we have, which conforms to the classic argument of free will, does not and cannot exist. Even if we allow for quantum physics, which suggests that some things may indeed be completely random, it doesn't help the free will argument. Randomness does not make our wills any more free, we are still slaves to the process rather than masters of it.
We don't understand consciousness, what "free will" is founded upon, or even really know what it is, so reasoning (and asserting as so) all of these things because we've observed that physical reactions in the macro always go the same way for as identical states/preconditions as we can manage to set up, is quite the overreach.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?