|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 18, 2017 23:37:18 GMT
Consciousness is not distinct from the biological processes. The sensation of being aware of love is identical to a chemical reaction in a brain. This is just really poor philosophy of the mind. You are presenting consciousness as some sort of distinct thing living in the brain or in our heads which is crazy. If this isn't Cartesian theater I don't know what us. I never claimed that consciousness is distinct from the biological process. What you haven't stated is where free will comes into it, if all our brain can do is process inputs and turn them into outputs. You claim that conscious awareness of a thing is a different thing to the brain activity which is crazy. Where exactly does consciousness happen then? What is it made of? What is its relationship to brain activity? How does it behave from a physics or chemistry point of view? These are questions that need to be answered before your view even makes sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 23:37:24 GMT
tpfkar The brain needs to process the inputs before it can produce an output. We can't be aware of a decision that hasn't been made yet. And nor can we will a decision before we've marshalled the needed brain activity in order to produce the decision. So the 'will' can never precede the activity that is needed to produce the will. If approached dispassionately, this is undeniable, and therefore it is a testament to the strength of your desire for free will to be true that you are held sway by such powerful cognitive dissonance. Or maybe it is just extreme obtuseness. Output isn't the will, its a manifestation of it. The will is brain activity. Regardless of your comical chants interspaced with desperate saroah-like insults and comical wails. 
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The manifestation of the will and the will itself are both outputs. The inputs are the factors which go into forming the will; a process which must occur before the will is formed. I've asked you many times to provide any evidence to support your position from secular scientific or philosophical sources, and you can't do it. You know if you do look for such evidence, all that's going to come up are sources such as lifesitenews.com and other Christian apologetics sites. Meanwhile, I've produced several secular sources, all saying the same thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 23:39:41 GMT
I never claimed that consciousness is distinct from the biological process. What you haven't stated is where free will comes into it, if all our brain can do is process inputs and turn them into outputs. You claim that cono scion awareness of a thing is a different thing to the brain acrusty which is crazy. Where exactly doesn't consciousness happen then? What is it made of? What is its relationship to brain activity? How does it behave from a physics or chemistry point of view? These are questions that need to be asneered before your view even makes sense. All of the ins and outs aren't known, but it is known that free will would require Cartesian dualism. You've never provided any reasons to justify your belief in free will, you're simply expecting me to be an expert in neuroscience in order to disprove an idea that cannot even be logically coherent. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 18, 2017 23:54:37 GMT
tpfkar The manifestation of the will and the will itself are both outputs. The inputs are the factors which go into forming the will; a process which must occur before the will is formed. I've asked you many times to provide any evidence to support your position from secular scientific or philosophical sources, and you can't do it. You know if you do look for such evidence, all that's going to come up are sources such as lifesitenews.com and other Christian apologetics sites. Meanwhile, I've produced several secular sources, all saying the same thing. Nope, that doesn't make any sense. Inputs come into the brain, and from within the brain itself, and the brain does everything and then based on it's===our decisions it sets things in motion. I don't need evidence for your needful conjectures of things out of the brain being will.  And you're ever the liar. We've gone back and forth many times with swapping sources, and the fact that you pretend there is consensus just gives your desperate holy game away completely. All you have to do is google free will and Libet experiments/criticisms both to find a wide variety of opinion and interpretation.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 4:53:23 GMT
tpfkar The manifestation of the will and the will itself are both outputs. The inputs are the factors which go into forming the will; a process which must occur before the will is formed. I've asked you many times to provide any evidence to support your position from secular scientific or philosophical sources, and you can't do it. You know if you do look for such evidence, all that's going to come up are sources such as lifesitenews.com and other Christian apologetics sites. Meanwhile, I've produced several secular sources, all saying the same thing. Nope, that doesn't make any sense. Inputs come into the brain, and from within the brain itself, and the brain does everything and then based on it's===our decisions it sets things in motion. I don't need evidence for your needful conjectures of things out of the brain being will. And you're ever the liar. We've gone back and forth many times with swapping sources, and the fact that you pretend there is consensus just gives your desperate holy game away completely. All you have to do is google free will and Libet experiments/criticisms both to find a wide variety of opinion and interpretation.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Nah, you provided one source (apart from the link in your signature now, which is irrelevant to free will) , which came over a year into the argument, and which I dealt with summarily. And when I posted videos about free will, you always refused to watch them. Like I've said, if you did not believe in dualism (or weren't terrified of the implications of not having free will), then whatever the shortcomings of the Libet experiment itself, the actual interpretation of the results would be as obvious as the curvature of the Earth (which is also a belief that one would have based on everyday experience). A lot of people cannot be persuaded from deeply held and cherished beliefs because they don't like the implication of those beliefs. And you keep trying to associate this with my views antinatalism, which it has nothing to do with. I just don't like people making audaciously anti-scientific claims whilst posing as an intellectual. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 8:31:50 GMT
tpfkar Nope, that doesn't make any sense. Inputs come into the brain, and from within the brain itself, and the brain does everything and then based on it's===our decisions it sets things in motion. I don't need evidence for your needful conjectures of things out of the brain being will. And you're ever the liar. We've gone back and forth many times with swapping sources, and the fact that you pretend there is consensus just gives your desperate holy game away completely. All you have to do is google free will and Libet experiments/criticisms both to find a wide variety of opinion and interpretation.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Nah, you provided one source (apart from the link in your signature now, which is irrelevant to free will) , which came over a year into the argument, and which I dealt with summarily. And when I posted videos about free will, you always refused to watch them. Like I've said, if you did not believe in dualism (or weren't terrified of the implications of not having free will), then whatever the shortcomings of the Libet experiment itself, the actual interpretation of the results would be as obvious as the curvature of the Earth (which is also a belief that one would have based on everyday experience). A lot of people cannot be persuaded from deeply held and cherished beliefs because they don't like the implication of those beliefs. And you keep trying to associate this with my views antinatalism, which it has nothing to do with. I just don't like people making audaciously anti-scientific claims whilst posing as an intellectual. And why did you repeatedly say philosophers that argue there is free will are scamming people if philosophers don't hold that free will exists? And of course you choke out as irrelevant anything that argues against your unscientific claims as "fact". But please claim again that mainstream secular philosophers and scientists don't support free will so the next post can demonstrate, once again, what a thorough tool you are. And all of your holdings on the matter tie back to antinatalism/suicide promotion and how you've countless times moaned that the religious other than yourself are the are the main blockers of your psychotic nirvana, and how they depend upon free will (which does not advance their cause one whit, although you continuously strengthen your mirror-image bretheren). So anybody who doesn't crassly cherry pick and doesn't try to hand-wave away any primary evidence they don't like as "an illusion" is "religious" in your transparently projecting line of puck. And I don't know what "posing as an intellectual" is supposed to be, I guess something important in your fevered utter bullsh!tting mass-murder lusting mind. And I understand that a lot of batsh!t things are as "obvious" to you as the "curvature of the Earth", not the least of which is choice but no choice. Insane in the rankly dishonest membrane.
one! chapter of free willy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 9:17:59 GMT
tpfkar Nah, you provided one source (apart from the link in your signature now, which is irrelevant to free will) , which came over a year into the argument, and which I dealt with summarily. And when I posted videos about free will, you always refused to watch them. Like I've said, if you did not believe in dualism (or weren't terrified of the implications of not having free will), then whatever the shortcomings of the Libet experiment itself, the actual interpretation of the results would be as obvious as the curvature of the Earth (which is also a belief that one would have based on everyday experience). A lot of people cannot be persuaded from deeply held and cherished beliefs because they don't like the implication of those beliefs. And you keep trying to associate this with my views antinatalism, which it has nothing to do with. I just don't like people making audaciously anti-scientific claims whilst posing as an intellectual. And why did you repeatedly say philosophers that argue there is free will are scamming people if philosophers don't hold that free will exists? And of course you choke out as irrelevant anything that argues against your unscientific claims as "fact". But please claim again that mainstream secular philosophers and scientists don't support free will so the next post can demonstrate, once again, what a thorough tool you are. And all of your holdings on the matter tie back to antinatalism/suicide promotion and how you've countless times moaned that the religious other than yourself are the are the main blockers of your psychotic nirvana, and how they depend upon free will (which does not advance their cause one whit, although you continuously strengthen your mirror-image bretheren). So anybody who doesn't crassly cherry pick and doesn't try to hand-wave away any primary evidence they don't like as "an illusion" is "religious" in your transparently projecting line of puck. And I don't know what "posing as an intellectual" is supposed to be, I guess something important in your fevered utter bullsh!tting mass-murder lusting mind. And I understand that a lot of batsh!t things are as "obvious" to you as the "curvature of the Earth", not the least of which is choice but no choice. Insane in the rankly dishonest membrane.
one! chapter of free willyWhich one of those sources supports your claims? I haven't seen any of them which go further than to cast doubt on the interpretation of the Libet experiment, and certainly none which provide neurological evidence of free will in action. Since you've conveniently forgotten the point that I was making in relation to the trickery of certain philosophers propounding something called "free will", I will recapitulate. This relates to philosophers such as Daniel Dennet who propound what is known as 'compatibilist free will'. This means that all decisions are pre-determined, and there's no free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise under the exact set of circumstances that obtain. It's basically a bait and switch, whereby these philosophers try to change the definition of 'free will' without the people who believe in the traditional conception of free will (this being the one that would be required for non-Calvinist Christian theology) realising that the definition of 'free will' has been altered. Nothing that any of these philosophers espouse would cast any doubt on the implication of the Libet experiments that I have proffered, so would not bolster your case. Keira has debated the subject of free will with you as well (she does not believe in free will), but I notice that you never called her out for 'shattered thinking' or being 'rankly dishonest'. And yes, I think that free will is an extremely harmful concept, behind which hide Christian conservatives who use it to justify the deplorable conditions which affect the most vulnerable in society. Anyone who defends free will is complicit in the oppression of and assault on the weak and the vulnerable, including philosophers who propound a brand of 'free will' which has a different meaning from how the term has been traditionally understood. It has nothing at all to do with antinatalism, or at least there's certainly no direct link; it only ties in to my general disdain for religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 19, 2017 9:47:52 GMT
tpfkar Nah, you provided one source (apart from the link in your signature now, which is irrelevant to free will) , which came over a year into the argument, and which I dealt with summarily. And when I posted videos about free will, you always refused to watch them. Like I've said, if you did not believe in dualism (or weren't terrified of the implications of not having free will), then whatever the shortcomings of the Libet experiment itself, the actual interpretation of the results would be as obvious as the curvature of the Earth (which is also a belief that one would have based on everyday experience). A lot of people cannot be persuaded from deeply held and cherished beliefs because they don't like the implication of those beliefs. And you keep trying to associate this with my views antinatalism, which it has nothing to do with. I just don't like people making audaciously anti-scientific claims whilst posing as an intellectual. And why did you repeatedly say philosophers that argue there is free will are scamming people if philosophers don't hold that free will exists? For a good intro read on the compatibilist concept of free will @miccee is referencing, see here. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 9:52:31 GMT
tpfkar Hah, you're a pathetic liar and utterly delusional. And why did you repeatedly say philosophers that argue there is free will are scamming people if philosophers don't hold that free will exists? And of course you choke out as irrelevant anything that argues against your unscientific claims as "fact". But please claim again that mainstream secular philosophers and scientists don't support free will so the next post can demonstrate, once again, what a thorough tool you are. And all of your holdings on the matter tie back to antinatalism/suicide promotion and how you've countless times moaned that the religious other than yourself are the are the main blockers of your psychotic nirvana, and how they depend upon free will (which does not advance their cause one whit, although you continuously strengthen your mirror-image bretheren). So anybody who doesn't crassly cherry pick and doesn't try to hand-wave away any primary evidence they don't like as "an illusion" is "religious" in your transparently projecting line of puck. And I don't know what "posing as an intellectual" is supposed to be, I guess something important in your fevered utter bullsh!tting mass-murder lusting mind. And I understand that a lot of batsh!t things are as "obvious" to you as the "curvature of the Earth", not the least of which is choice but no choice. Insane in the rankly dishonest membrane.
one! chapter of free willy Which one of those sources supports your claims? I haven't seen any of them which go further than to cast doubt on the interpretation of the Libet experiment, and certainly none which provide neurological evidence of free will in action. Since you've conveniently forgotten the point that I was making in relation to the trickery of certain philosophers propounding something called "free will", I will recapitulate. This relates to philosophers such as Daniel Dennet who propound what is known as 'compatibilist free will'. This means that all decisions are pre-determined, and there's no free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise under the exact set of circumstances that obtain. It's basically a bait and switch, whereby these philosophers try to change the definition of 'free will' without the people who believe in the traditional conception of free will (this being the one that would be required for non-Calvinist Christian theology) realising that the definition of 'free will' has been altered. Nothing that any of these philosophers espouse would cast any doubt on the implication of the Libet experiments that I have proffered, so would not bolster your case. Keira has debated the subject of free will with you as well (she does not believe in free will), but I notice that you never called her out for 'shattered thinking' or being 'rankly dishonest'. And yes, I think that free will is an extremely harmful concept, behind which hide Christian conservatives who use it to justify the deplorable conditions which affect the most vulnerable in society. Anyone who defends free will is complicit in the oppression of and assault on the weak and the vulnerable, including philosophers who propound a brand of 'free will' which has a different meaning from how the term has been traditionally understood. It has nothing at all to do with antinatalism, or at least there's certainly no direct link; it only ties in to my general disdain for religion. Sorry, morbid mate, free will is the default, supported by the primary evidence of what we experience every day. If you want to overturn it, you'd better do a lot of upgrading, as the current science comes nowhere close to it. And I understand that you call "trickery", like "religious" anything you disagree with. Free will among normal people has ever meant we make choices based on us. Free will =/= Cartesian dualism nor your circular absurdities regardless of how badly you long for it to, but is in fact the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded, which we all play through every single moment of every single day. And you and ErJen exposing all these evil tricksters doesn't mean they don't exist, prominent in their fields. And the neuroscience back-and-forth was about claims and counterclaims on what can be shown and what consensuses do and don't exist on consciousness and free will, and how your claims in that realm were just as ludicrous and purposeful as many of yours in others. I don't call Kiera out for shattered thinking and dishonesty as she doesn't routinely engage in both as you do. You can believe there is no free will all you want, but - calling people religious, suggesting that both free will and the nature of consciousness isn't hotly contested in the mainstream, calling "trickery" views that impair your religious purity, blithely holding utter self-contradictions, posting Dilbert cartoons and posed naked brownie torture picks as deranged non-sequitur "support", lying outright about what has gone before - not to mention the utter incapacity of not being able to grasp the stark differences between these and your other retrograde behaviors and any of Kiera's behaviors - all continuously demonstrate both the shattered nature of your thinking and the utter contempt you have for integrity. You've stated outright it is the "religious" (i.e. anybody that balks at your crazy for any reason) that hold up your beloved antinatalist apocalypse and death pills at the drugstore counter *-icidal dreams, directly tying into your antinatalist-inspired flighty insanities. What you have disdain for is integrity and basic sense.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 9:57:54 GMT
tpfkar And why did you repeatedly say philosophers that argue there is free will are scamming people if philosophers don't hold that free will exists? For a good intro read on the compatibilist concept of free will @miccee is referencing, see here. I'm aware of the Compatibilist position. He posted earlier that I didn't provide evidence from secular and scientific sources, when both that's not true, and he well knows that there is massive evidence, positions, etc. of both Compatiblist and other free will in the secular scientific or philosophical mainstream.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 19, 2017 10:04:21 GMT
You claim that cono scion awareness of a thing is a different thing to the brain acrusty which is crazy. Where exactly doesn't consciousness happen then? What is it made of? What is its relationship to brain activity? How does it behave from a physics or chemistry point of view? These are questions that need to be asneered before your view even makes sense. All of the ins and outs aren't known, but it is known that free will would require Cartesian dualism. You've never provided any reasons to justify your belief in free will, you're simply expecting me to be an expert in neuroscience in order to disprove an idea that cannot even be logically coherent. "All the ins and outs aren't known" is nothing but a cop-out. When we make a decision there is literally no other brain activity bar the one needed for general functioning and making the decision itself. If consciousness was a seperate thing all together we would be all be to point to a place in the brain and say "that is consciousness" I never even said I believed in free will. I don't take a position regarding compatibilism vs incompatiblism because it's just a semantics debate disguised as a metaphysical one. If I had to pick a side though I would say no free will doesn't exist. Even if you are right how woukd that disprove free will? You acknowledged that the brain is us so it's not as if it's not us making the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 19, 2017 10:31:30 GMT
tpfkar Which one of those sources supports your claims? I haven't seen any of them which go further than to cast doubt on the interpretation of the Libet experiment, and certainly none which provide neurological evidence of free will in action. Since you've conveniently forgotten the point that I was making in relation to the trickery of certain philosophers propounding something called "free will", I will recapitulate. This relates to philosophers such as Daniel Dennet who propound what is known as 'compatibilist free will'. This means that all decisions are pre-determined, and there's no free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise under the exact set of circumstances that obtain. It's basically a bait and switch, whereby these philosophers try to change the definition of 'free will' without the people who believe in the traditional conception of free will (this being the one that would be required for non-Calvinist Christian theology) realising that the definition of 'free will' has been altered. Nothing that any of these philosophers espouse would cast any doubt on the implication of the Libet experiments that I have proffered, so would not bolster your case. Keira has debated the subject of free will with you as well (she does not believe in free will), but I notice that you never called her out for 'shattered thinking' or being 'rankly dishonest'. And yes, I think that free will is an extremely harmful concept, behind which hide Christian conservatives who use it to justify the deplorable conditions which affect the most vulnerable in society. Anyone who defends free will is complicit in the oppression of and assault on the weak and the vulnerable, including philosophers who propound a brand of 'free will' which has a different meaning from how the term has been traditionally understood. It has nothing at all to do with antinatalism, or at least there's certainly no direct link; it only ties in to my general disdain for religion. Sorry, morbid mate, free will is the default, supported by the primary evidence of what we experience every day. Wow that is incredibly stupid. No philosopher, even libertarian philosphers will make an argument as stupid as that. If "I feel like I have free will so I have it is valid" then why stop there. "I feel like I'm Barney The dinosaur therefore I am". There is no evidence that your persomal feelings has any connection to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 10:34:19 GMT
tpfkar Sorry, morbid mate, free will is the default, supported by the primary evidence of what we experience every day. Wow that is incredibly stupid. No philosopher, even libertarian philosphers will make an argument as stupid as that. If "I feel like I have free will so I have it is valid" the why not stop there. "I feel like I'm Barney The dinosaur therefore I am". There is no evidence that subjective experience has any connection to reality. I agree you wouldn't know your own assh!le if you accidentally propositioned it. 
There is nothing wrong with being a pedo |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 19, 2017 10:35:26 GMT
tpfkar I agree you wouldn't know your own assh!le if you accidentally propositioned it.
There is nothing wrong with being a pedoHow intellectual! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 10:40:18 GMT
tpfkar I agree you wouldn't know your own assh!le if you accidentally propositioned it.
There is nothing wrong with being a pedoHow intellectual! It's funny how certain types go on about that. 
No it's not, if there was no pain, holding your hand above a lit candle wouldn't be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 19, 2017 10:41:51 GMT
tpfkar For a good intro read on the compatibilist concept of free will @miccee is referencing, see here. I'm aware of the Compatibilist position. He posted earlier that I didn't provide evidence from secular and scientific sources, when both that's not true, and he well knows that there is massive evidence, positions, etc. of both Compatiblist and other free will in the secular scientific or philosophical mainstream.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Ah, well, I'm guessing @miccee was referring to evidence for libertarian free will (either that brain states aren't physically determined, or that brain states aren't wholly responsible for our choices) since he doesn't consider other versions valid/worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 19, 2017 10:42:51 GMT
tpfkar It's funny how certain types go on about that.
No it's not, if there was no pain, holding your hand above a lit candle wouldn't be a bad thing.Keep pivoting,..maybe I will forget what I was even talking about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:45:00 GMT
tpfkar For a good intro read on the compatibilist concept of free will @miccee is referencing, see here. I'm aware of the Compatibilist position. He posted earlier that I didn't provide evidence from secular and scientific sources, when both that's not true, and he well knows that there is massive evidence, positions, etc. of both Compatiblist and other free will in the secular scientific or philosophical mainstream.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Compatibilist free will isn't something that's amenable to 'evidence', because it's just reshaping the definition of free will to fit reality. So there can be neither evidence for or against compatibilism, it's merely a question of semantics. You most certainly haven't presented any neuroscientific evidence of free will in action, merely rebuttals of the Libet experiment. If you can find a peer reviewed experiment that presents evidence of free will (the libertarian kind) in action, then I'll eat my shirt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:48:53 GMT
All of the ins and outs aren't known, but it is known that free will would require Cartesian dualism. You've never provided any reasons to justify your belief in free will, you're simply expecting me to be an expert in neuroscience in order to disprove an idea that cannot even be logically coherent. "All the ins and outs aren't known" is nothing but a cop-out. When we make a decision there is literally no other brain activity bar the one needed for general functioning and making the decision itself. If consciousness was a seperate thing all together we would be all be to point to a place in the brain and say "that is consciousness" I never even said I believed in free will. I don't take a position regarding compatibilism vs incompatiblism because it's just a semantics debate disguised as a metaphysical one. If I had to pick a side though I would say no free will doesn't exist. Even if you are right how woukd that disprove free will? You acknowledged that the brain is us so it's not as if it's not us making the decision. I'm not a neuroscientist, and nor do I claim to be. But one would have difficulty in finding a qualified neuroscientist who does believe in libertarian free will. And you're on point when you say that compatibilism vs incompatibilism is a semantics debate. Free will implies that consciousness steers decision making, but in order for that to happen, consciousness must precede the decision. It can't precede the decision, because both the decision and the consciousness which gives us awareness of the decision are created in the brain. So the brain must first make the decision, then create awareness of what has been decided. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 19, 2017 10:49:41 GMT
tpfkar I'm aware of the Compatibilist position. He posted earlier that I didn't provide evidence from secular and scientific sources, when both that's not true, and he well knows that there is massive evidence, positions, etc. of both Compatiblist and other free will in the secular scientific or philosophical mainstream.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Ah, well, I'm guessing @miccee was referring to evidence for libertarian free will (either that brain states aren't physically determined, or that brain states aren't wholly responsible for our choices) since he doesn't consider other versions valid/worthwhile. Fine to guess, but free will =/= libertarian free will. Doesn't really matter what he feels is worthwhile, there's gobs of secular support in the scientific and philosophical mainstream.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce |
|
