Free Will

Choobus wrote

You said yourself that your so-called thought experiment proves nothing about this universe. That's one of the few areas where we agree. The fact that your "argument" demonstrates the equivalence of two undefined things is because it is tautological to begin with,and as such entirely trivial.

Well you can turn your nose up at it if you like but based on these unempirical metaphysical grounds, the idea that physical laws force me to do anything and therefore I'm just a causal robot with no choice about anything is rejected.

[Choobus]

Those can't be the right words for the things you mean.

[ubs]

KnowledgeIsPower wrote

Well you can turn your nose up at it if you like but based on these unempirical metaphysical grounds, the idea that physical laws force me to do anything and therefore I'm just a causal robot with no choice about anything is rejected.

Oh no! The final conclusion of your argument is that you cannot know if we are all robots or not.

The conclusion that I have reached and most other scientists have reached as well, is that the physical laws are only a description of nature and as far as I know, a description never forced anyone to do anything.

[Choobus]

Most other scientists? Are you saying that you are a scientist?

[ubs]

KnowledgeIsPower wrote

The conclusion that I have reached and most other scientists have reached as well, is that the physical laws are only a description of nature and as far as I know, a description never forced anyone to do anything.

Demonstrating that we cannot prove determinism is not proving free will. Perhaps this would be a good time to call in your scientist friends.

(I knew you were going to try to pull that shell game as soon as you set up your scenario, and I'm so glad you concluded before I stopped working to play...perhaps I willed it )

[Kate]

ubs wrote

Demonstrating that we cannot prove determinism is not proving free will. Perhaps this would be a good time to call in your scientist friends.

(I knew you were going to try to pull that shell game as soon as you set up your scenario, and I'm so glad you concluded before I stopped working to play...perhaps I willed it )

Check the first post for citations of scientific articles backing up my claims regarding human agency and volition. I've already provided evidence for the obvious claim that humans formulate plans, make decisions, and all the other kinds of behavior associated with agency and volition.

Choobus wrote

Most other scientists? Are you saying that you are a scientist?

It depends on how you define scientist. If you define a scientist as someone with a lot of knowledge regarding science then that's me. If you define a scientist as someone with a college degree in science then that's me again. If you define a scientist as a guy that stands around in a white lab coat pouring liquids into flasks then no, I'm not a scientist.

[Kate]

"science" is pretty vague. Could you please be a bit more specific as to the type of science in which you claim pedigree?

[Choobus]

Would you be so kind as to tell us what degree you have?

I do not define someone with a lot of knowledge of science as a scientist (teachers have a lot of knowledge about science); I would say that a scientist is someone who creates that knowledge. A degree is irrelevant, however, it is very unusual for those without them to make any kind of real contribution to scientific knowledge these days.

Kate wrote

"science" is pretty vague. Could you please be a bit more specific as to the type of science in which you claim pedigree?

pedigree
• noun 1 the record of descent of an animal, showing it to be pure-bred. 2 a person’s lineage or ancestry. 3 the history or provenance of a person or thing.

— ORIGIN from Old French pé de grue ‘crane’s foot’, a mark used to denote succession in pedigrees.

Which of these definitions are you referring to?

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

And thus you can never prove free will. THAT'S exactly what I was trying to say before.

The "argument" should have ended at this point. UBS - right. KnowledgeIsWanting - wrong, and an argumentative dick.

[ubs]

KnowledgeIsPower wrote

Check the first post for citations of scientific articles backing up my claims regarding human agency and volition. I've already provided evidence for the obvious claim that humans formulate plans, make decisions, and all the other kinds of behavior associated with agency and volition.

My understanding is that the general consensus in the cognitive sciences is free will does not exist, but the variables in our world are so extensive that we have the illusion of free-will.

As you have already demonstrated, we can never know either way. If either of our sources had a solid argument, I'm sure one or the other of us would have presented it.

What you demonstrated in your initial post was that the neurons in the brain fire before instructing muscles to take action. You didn't demonstrate how, with equivalent dna and history I would choose a different ice cream in an instant replay.

Choobus wrote

I would say that a scientist is someone who creates that knowledge.

Ahh, so you mean have I published papers? Nope, haven't done that yet, only a B.A. in computer science (specializing in artificial intelligence). I'm still young.